Nancy J. Bickford

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Child support, if ordered, is an ongoing parental obligation that usually terminates when the child reaches eighteen years of age, graduates from high school, becomes married or is otherwise emancipated. The amount of child support owed is dependent upon a number of factors such as the income of both parties and the needs of the children. Child support is strictly enforced in a number of ways. Boxing champion Evander Holyfield recently learned that the court’s ability to enforce child support extends to celebrities. Holyfield was held in contempt of court for failing to pay past due child support.

In San Diego County, the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) is one state entity that enforces child support orders. Holyfield was pursued by the Georgia Department of Human Services, which serves a similar function as DCSS. The Georgia Department of Human Services includes the Division of Child Support Services. By the time that the State of Georgia became involved in Holyfield’s case, his daughter, Emani Holyfield was eighteen years old and he owed $372,097.40 of unpaid support. By the time he was held in contempt of court, Holyfield’s debt had reached a staggering $563,000.00. The court ordered Holyfield to make payments in the amount of $2950.00 per month. In order to get a head start, Holyfield immediately made a payment of $17,700.

Discovery is an important tool for any party to use in a Del Mar family law case. Through the process of discovery, parties can obtain the information necessary to reach an agreement or decide which issues are contested. Discovery tools include: interrogatories, demands for production, depositions and subpoenas. Each tool is used to obtain a specific type of information from a particular litigant, witness, or third party. Although family law attorneys usually propound and respond to discovery, the client can have a vital role in lowering costs and ensuring the process goes smoothly.

Once a family law case has been filed or a spouse is anticipating filing for divorce, each party is under a duty to preserve evidence. The court encourages parties to freely exchange information so that the court can have a complete picture of the case. Any destruction or spoliation of evidence is punishable. As a client, as soon as you know that you will be involved in litigation it is crucial to begin organizing all relevant information. Attorneys need a complete view of your finances in order to calculate possible support or to begin analyzing the division of the marital estate. The following is a list of records that will likely be important in your divorce: (1) tax returns for the past three calendar years, (2) Form W-2s for the last three calendar years, (3) a series of your most recent pay stubs, (4) all statements for each credit card and debt card as of the date of separation, (5) K-1 forms if relevant, and (6) accounting data such as QuickBooks if relevant.

The date of separation is often a focal point of the discovery process. The marital economic community ends upon the date of separation. Under the California Family Code, the date of separation occurs upon the conversion of two factors. First, the parties must effect a physical separation and second, at least one party must have the subjective intent not to resume the marital relationship. The parties can only accumulate community property during the marital economic community. Thus, any property acquired or earned after marriage until the date of separation is community property. As a general rule, community property is divided evenly between the parties upon divorce. Many San Diego spouses have a collection of credit and debit cards that both parties use on a regular basis. In a divorce, an attorney will need to know the balance of all of those accounts as of the date of separation. Printing out your most recent statements including those as of and surrounding the date of separation is an easy way to get a head start on the dissolution process. Additionally, if you know a divorce is pending, it is also prudent to gather your recent tax returns and pay stubs to provide to your attorney. The client’s role in discovery is crucial, by preparing and keeping organized records, you can save your attorney time and save in legal fees.

Recently the California Court of Appeal handed down a decision that has settled an ongoing dispute throughout San Diego family courts. Family law attorneys agree that spouses owe each other the highest duties of good faith during marriage and undoubtedly throughout the litigation process. This duty requires parties to keep each other informed of their current financial state by exchanging Declarations of Disclosure.

In the beginning of a dissolution case, both parties complete their Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure, which consists of an Income and Expense Declaration and a Schedule of Assets and Debts. By completing these two forms and their requisite attachments the parties provide their current assets, debts, income and expenses. These figures can help the parties settle disputes regarding property division, child support or spousal support. If the court will hear a motion regarding support, the parties must also file these disclosures with the court. The judge will use the information provided to set support amounts. Because of the immense reliance on disclosure of finances, the court takes the fiduciary duties of spouses seriously.

In the recent California case, In re Marriage of Sorge, the court was faced with a slightly different scenario. The parties sought a modification of support at the trial court level; however, they were already divorced and had reached a final resolution of their case. Wife argued that Husband breached his fiduciary duties because he failed to disclose a material change in his finances. Husband argued that he was under no obligation to disclose any changes because the fiduciary duties between spouses end upon a final resolution of the case. The trial court agreed with Wife and Husband appealed the decision.

The world watched as reality television star Kim Kardashian married NBA player Kris Humphries in August of 2011. However, the marriage lasted only seventy-two days and in October of 2011 Kardashian filed for divorce. Surprisingly, the bitter divorce battle has by far outlasted the short length of the marriage. Next month, will mark the one year mark since divorce proceedings began and the case is not likely to settle before then. Kris Humphries announced that he does not intend to settle with Kardashian and the case will likely proceed to trial. Considering the massive amount of witnesses Humphries intends to call (thirty three) and their fame and notoriety, it is no surprise that the trial has been delayed until 2013. The parties have found it difficult to coordinate the schedules of all people involved.

Considering the “iron clad” premarital agreement, the biggest question surrounding this drawn-out divorce is why the couple cannot settle. Kardashian wants her marriage to be over as soon as possible and it is clear that she has moved on with her life. Her and her attorney have no doubt sent over countless settlement proposals, all of which have been rejected. Humphries argues that Kardashian has been hiding information regarding her financial records ever since the beginning of their marriage and he intends to use the law to discover her “secrets.” Humphries also alleges that the entire marriage was a fraud and that Kardashian only entered into it for publicity. Ironically, it was Humphries who skyrocketed from a no-name basketball player to signing a $24 million extension with the Nets.

Contact Information