San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

November 8, 2012

Rental Income is Income Available for Support

Often in San Diego divorces, both spouses are unable to maintain the same lifestyle they enjoyed while living together. The lifestyle of the parties during marriage is called the marital standard of living. The financial reality of divorce is that it is more expensive to sustain two separate households than it is to sustain one. Thus, divorce can lead to an adjustment in spending, entertainment and square footage.

Spousal support is a tool used by Family Courts to attempt to equalize the living situation of both spouses. This is especially true if one spouse forgoes the opportunity to work for many years in order to take care of his or her children. If one spouse is the breadwinner and the other maintains the home and the children, upon divorce, the breadwinner will be able to support the same lifestyle but this would leave the non-working spouse with no ability to support him or herself and the children. Thus, the court will order the breadwinner to pay support to the non-working spouse in order for both to maintain similar standards of living post-separation.

Spousal support is calculated, on a temporary basis, using a guideline formula. The formula requires lawyers and judges to input both spouses “income” that is available for support. For a W-2 employee, this calculation is basic. The only factor to consider when determining income available for support is the gross wages from the spouse’s tax return or year-end form W-2. Some spouses however, have attempted to artificially deflate this income available for support by taking a reduction in salary and instead receiving housing or car allowance perks from their employer. If the court recognizes an attempt to artificially deflate income, it may impute the value of perks received by the spouse as additional income available for support.

November 6, 2012

Oprah Winfrey, her Father’s Divorce, and Evictions

By Bickford Blado & Botros

Oprah Winfrey has become entangled in her father Vernon Winfrey’s divorce. Vernon married his current wife, Barbara Winfrey, in 2000. Vernon’s divorce papers contain allegations that Barbara engaged in “inappropriate marital conduct,” which refers to an extramarital affair. In her response, Barbara accuses Vernon of violent outbursts including an incident where he chased her with a gun and threatened to pull the trigger.

During their marriage, the couple has enjoyed living in a $1.4 million dollar home in Nashville. The home is owned by a trust, which was created and funded by Oprah. Vernon filed for divorce in Franklin, Tennessee in June of 2012. As a result of the divorce process, the Davidson County Sheriff’s deputies had an order to evict Ashley Williams, Oprah’s stepsister, from the Winfrey marital residence. However, the attorney for the trust had the order rescinded. The relationship between Oprah and Barbara seems beyond repair; however, that tension does not seem to extend to Oprah’s relationship with her stepsister.

November 1, 2012

My Spouse the Spy?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

As we have previously blogged, technology is playing an important role in San Diego divorces. Often, spouses use social media sites such as Facebook to gather information about their spouse to be used in the dissolution process. However, some spouses are taking the use of technology to a whole new level. Danny Lee Hormann did not simply peruse his wife’s Facebook when he suspected her of cheating. Instead he installed a gamut of spy equipment in the family home, on the family computer, on his wife’s cell phone, and in his wife’s car.

Michele Mathias, Hormann’s wife, became so worried that her husband was spying on her that she and their children searched the family home for recording devices and held whispered conversations on the lawn. Mathis argued that it was not only her family’s privacy that was invaded, but the privacy of every person who sent her a text message or used her computer was compromised as well. The police pursued criminal charges against Hormann for stalking and he was sentenced to thirty days in jail. According to Hormann, when others hear his story they reply that they would have done the same thing.

This type of spying and information gathering results in the collection of more private information in a short period of time than the discovery process may ever be able to gather. However, many lawyers are questioning the legality of this behavior and what information, if any, can actually be used as evidence in a dissolution case. Under the U.S. Constitution, we all have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This expectation of privacy is reduced in certain instances such as when a person is in public. Spying spouses have begun to argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a marriage.

October 30, 2012

Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher’s Divorce Battle

By Bickford Blado & Botros

Demi Moore, 49, and Ashton Kutcher, 34, garnered an enormous amount of media attention when they married in September of 2005. The spotlight continued to follow the couple when rumors of Kutcher’s infidelity began to spread. Allegedly, Kutcher cheated on his wife with two party girls Brittney Jones and Sarah Leal. Regarding her husband’s infidelity, Moore released the following statement “as a woman, and a mother and a wife, there are certain values and vows that I hold sacred, and it is in this spirit that I have chosen to move forward with my life.”

Moore and Kutcher are taking an interesting approach to the divorce process. Although the couple split in 2011, neither party has filed a divorce petition. Rumors have now spread that Moore and Kutcher were never legally married. However, the more likely explanation is that the couple is attempting to reach a settlement before a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed. It seems the former couple cannot agree on how to split up the enormous $290 million fortune they amassed. Unlike in the Brand-Perry divorce, Kutcher and Moore have earned a relatively similar amount. According to reports, Moore is worth $150 million while Kutcher is worth $140 million.

October 25, 2012

Domestic Violence and Spousal Support in San Diego

By Bickford Blado & Botros

In San Diego, domestic violence can have a tremendous impact in divorce proceedings, especially in cases involving spousal support. As we have previously blogged, spousal support can be classified as “temporary” or “permanent.” Two different standards are used to determine support based on its duration. Temporary support is usually determined using the guideline spousal support formula and permanent support takes into consideration the Family Code section 4320 factors. The role domestic violence plays in an award of spousal support is dependent on the type of support.

Temporary Spousal Support: In an award of temporary spousal support, the Family Code section 4320 factors are normally not controlling. However, there is one statutory exception to this rule. The trial court must consider 4320(i) in setting temporary spousal support. Section 4320(i) states that the court must consider, “documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties, including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party.” Despite this clear exception, the code is ambiguous as to the terms “domestic violence” and “documented evidence.” Due to public policy concerns against requiring a victim of violence to provide financial support to his or her abuser, the court will consider violence amongst the parties even when making a temporary order.

Permanent Spousal Support: Like in a temporary spousal support situation, the Court must consider the 4320 factors in deciding the issue of permanent spousal support. Also like in a temporary spousal support situation, the court must consider any documented evidence of a history of domestic violence.

October 23, 2012

Temporary v. Permanent Spousal Support

By Bickford Blado & Botros

Throughout Del Mar and San Diego County, many divorcing parties are unclear about the concept of “alimony.” In California, the Family Codes and courts use the term “spousal support” instead of “alimony” to reference payments made from one spouse/former spouse to another for his or her financial support. Most parties are aware of the fact that once the divorce is over the court can order one party to pay the other spousal support. However, considering that the divorce process can take years for some litigants, many parties are unsure of what they should do in the mean time.

Temporary Spousal Support: Under the California Family Code, San Diego courts have the authority to make temporary spousal support awards. These awards are called “temporary” because they last only until the divorce is finalized. The purpose of a temporary spousal support award is to maintain the status quo until the time of trial and is intended to be a short-term solution. Based on the limited funds of the parties, it may be impossible for both to maintain the status quo of the marriage. Thus, in this situation, the judge will make an award as close to the status quo as possible. The quick and expedient method of calculating temporary spousal support is called the “guideline” formula. In order to determine guideline support, the judge will input various factors such as the incomes of the parties, tax filing status of the parties and any tax deductions and the formula will produce a guideline amount of support. However, the actual support awarded is within the family court judge’s broad discretion.

Permanent Spousal Support: “Permanent” spousal support is a misnomer. Often, even in long-term marriages, spousal support is not automatically “permanent.” Permanent spousal support simply refers to the spousal support award made at the conclusion of the divorce proceedings (as opposed to temporary support). In order to set permanent spousal support, the court is not permitted to simply use the guideline formula to come up with an amount. Instead, the family court judge will consider all of the factors listed under California Family Code section 4320. These factors include but are not limited to: the paying spouse’s ability to pay, needs of the parties based on the marital standard of living, health of the parties, the obligations and assets of both parties, the tax consequences of support, and any documented evidence of domestic violence. Additionally, the court may consider “any other factors” which would produce a “just and reasonable” result.

October 18, 2012

When Will our Assets be Valued?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

In San Diego, the divorce process can range between six months and several years. This significant time span can have a serious impact on value of assets. Considering the volatility of the stock market and real estate prices, the date of valuation can become a contested issue. Consider the following example: During marriage Husband created and operated a business. After separation, Husband continued to expend efforts and the value of the business grew substantially. By the time of trial the value of the business is triple than at the time of separation.All property acquired and all income earned during marriage is community property. Upon divorce, both parties have a one-half interest in the community’s portion of an asset. Because the business was created during marriage and Husband expended efforts in the business during marriage, a portion of that business is community property. Therefore, Wife will argue that for the purposes of division, the business should be valued at the time of trial. Husband, on the other hand, will argue that the business should be valued as of the date of separation.

Under California Family Code section 2552, “for the purpose of division of the community estate upon dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties…the court shall value the assets and liabilities as near as practicable to the time of trial.” Thus, as a general principle of law, assets are valued at the time of trial. However, the court may, for good cause, value all or any portion of the assets and liabilities at a date after separation and before trial to accomplish an equal division of the community estate in an equitable manner.California courts have determined that good cause exists to value an asset at the date of separation rather than the date of trial if the increase in the fair market value was due to the owner’s personal services, not capital assets. This means that if the value increased due to market fluctuations or other outside factors, the asset will be valued at or as near as possible to trial. However, if goodwill, accounts receivable, or other efforts by the owner lead to an increase in value, the asset will be valued at the date of separation.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer in San Diego County representing clients in divorces, who is a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) and who is actively licensed as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Don’t settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

October 16, 2012

The Division of Gifts in a Del Mar Divorce

By Bickford Blado & Botros

Following their divorce, actress Katie Holmes reportedly kept millions of dollars worth of gifts given to her by her husband, Tom Cruise. These gifts include valuable jewelry, handbags, and other luxury items. Although many speculated that she did not receive a relatively substantial portion of Cruise’s estate in the property settlement, she may have been satisfied with keeping the gifts. Throughout the divorce proceedings, one of Holmes’ most pressing concerns was the financial wellbeing of her daughter, Suri. Luckily for Suri, she will be able to inherit millions in gifts given by her father to her mother as long as Holmes does not decide to sell them first.

Often in Del Mar and throughout San Diego County parties are unclear about the role gifts play in divorce. There are two main contested issues regarding gifts in divorce proceedings. First, gifts between spouses and second, gifts of community property from one spouse to a third party.

Gifts between spouses: Under California Family Code section 852, a “transmutation” of personal property is not valid unless made in writing. A transmutation is the conversion of one asset from community property to separate property or from separate property to community property. Under the Code, this can only be done by written agreement. However, one exception to this rule concerns gifts between spouses. A gift of clothing, wearing apparel, jewelry, or other tangible articles of a personal nature from one spouse to the other can be transmuted absent written agreement as long as it is not substantial in nature taking into account the circumstances of the marriage. This means that the court will consider the standard of living of the parties in order to determine whether the gift was “substantial.” Considering the multimillion dollar net worth of Tom Cruise, a $100,000 gift to his wife is not substantial.

October 4, 2012

Child Protective Services Visits Honey Boo Boo

By Bickford Blado & Botros

October 2, 2012

Can Parents Waive Their Parental Rights?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

In California, the Family Court System is designed to encourage parties to settle disputes and reach agreements regarding contested issues. Specifically in Del Mar and throughout San Diego County parties are required to attend a Mandatory Settlement Conference before their case can proceed to trial. However, despite this strong public policy towards settlement, the California Court of Appeal has clearly drawn a line between what parties can and cannot agree to.

In this Court of Appeal case, Mother (Kristine) first filed a petition at the trial court level to establish a parental relationship between her son, Seth, and his biological father. Since the parties were not married at the time of conception or birth, there was no presumption that Father (David) was in fact Seth’s father. Once the court determined, through the use of a paternity test, that David was Seth’s biological father, the parties entered into a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement that can be filed with the court and creates enforceable orders. Kristine and David stipulated that David consented to terminate all of his parental rights and Kristine agreed to waive any claim for future child support. In short, the parties agreed to terminate David’s parental rights and responsibilities.

Over the objection of Minor’s counsel, the trial court was persuaded by the parties’ argument that they had the right and ability to contract regarding their respective parental rights. David argued that proceedings to terminate parental rights are not necessarily linked to a pending or contemplated adoption therefore he should not be prohibited from terminating his on the basis that Seth would only be left with one parent. The trial court was also persuaded in part by case law in which the court upheld agreements made by parents prior to conception of a child such as in artificial insemination and surrogacy cases.