Nancy J. Bickford

The average divorce in San Diego involves more than just dividing up the family house and vehicles. Today, most Americans are connected to some mobile device from the moment they wake up each morning. Courts, according to California community property law, have traditionally divided tangible family assets between the spouses. However, parties are now wondering who will be awarded cell phones, iPads, iTunes accounts and access to iCloud. During marriage, many spouses store family data on one iCloud account. This account could potentially be a virtual asset the parties wish to divide.

As we have previously blogged, social media is becoming an important tool in divorce proceedings. Websites such as Facebook are used to provide courts with evidence of a spouse’s wrongdoing or misconduct. However technology is invading San Diego family courts in a new way. Spouses now have digital community property assets to be divided upon divorce. As a general rule, each community property asset is divided equally upon divorce. An asset is a community asset if it was acquired during the marriage and before the date of separation. All other property acquired before marriage and after the date of separation is separate property.

Virtual property presents a new challenge to the community property system. How can a shared iTunes account be divided in half? Will the court allow each party to present a case as to which songs they would like to receive as part of the judgment? How can a court divide digital storage space, books, movies, or games? Many spouses also have amassed a large collection of characters, virtual clothing, weapons, and currency in online communities and games. These virtual acquisitions become community property when they are purchased with actual community funds.

Although the infamous Michael Jackson died nearly three years ago on June 25, 2009, the custody battle for his children has raged on. Jackson left three minor children, Prince, 15; Paris, 14; and Prince Michael II, 10. Katherine Jackson was appointed guardian of the children after Jackson’s death in 2009. However, the judge suspended her guardianship after she was recently reported missing. According to Jermaine Jackson, Katherine was not in any danger but rather was resting in Arizona. Two family members have been fiercely battling for custody of the children, Jackson’s mother, Katherine, and the son of his brother, Tito. Apparently the two have reached an agreement to share guardianship. At the age of 82, Katherine will be relieved of daily responsibilities such as management of household personnel and the security team.

According to her attorney, Perry Sanders, “Mrs. Jackson is extremely pleased with the prospect of enjoying the pleasure of raising Michael’s children without the day-to-day tedium of items such as managing the large staff that goes with such a high profile family and focus her attention on being a grandmother and raising Michael’s children.” As her co-guardian, Tito has enjoyed a close relationship with the children for the majority of their lives and has been solely responsible for their care in Katherine’s absence. Margaret Lodise, the court-appointed guardian ad litem for the children, has confirmed that the custody agreement is agreeable to all the Jackson children.

Many Del Mar spouses have litigated or settled civil disputes. How these civil judgments can impact community and separate property is important throughout the dissolution process. Upon divorce, each community property asset is divided equally between both spouses. Community property is generally all property acquired during the marriage. All property acquired before marriage and after the date of separation is separate property. Additionally, all property acquired by gift, devise, or bequest is separate property. This system leaves many couples wondering whether community property or separate property is liable for the tort judgment.

Surprisingly, all of the community property is subject to the civil liability of either spouse. As a general rule, a spouse’s separate property and all of the community property is liable for a debt incurred before or during marriage. As a debt owed by one spouse, the same rules apply to debts owed to plaintiffs in civil cases. The innocent spouse’s separate property is not liable for any debts that he or she did not incur. However, whether the plaintiff can collect from the separate or the community property first depends on how the liability was incurred. The following example will best illustrate this principle: Husband was driving to pick up Daughter from daycare when Pedestrian stepped of the curb. Husband struck Pedestrian and Pedestrian incurred $100,000 in medical bills which Husband was ordered to pay. In this scenario, Husband has incurred liability for a tort judgment. Wife may be curious about whether Pedestrian can collect the $100,000 from community assets such as the family home.

For the Benefit of the Community: If the court determines that Husband incurred this liability while performing an act “for the benefit of the community,” then Pedestrian can collect his judgment from the family home first and then, if any debt is left unsatisfied, from Husband’s separate property. Pedestrian will argue in the above scenario that because Husband was picking up Daughter from daycare when the accident occurred, he was performing an act for the benefit of the community.

ABC’s Modern Family depicts a different type of family in an attempt to emulate a more accurate picture of the average American household. Modernly, many families are not simply made up of a heterosexual couple raising a few children in a suburban neighborhood. Modern Family illustrates the struggle same-sex couples have adopting children, the difficulties of living in a blended family, and coping with divorce. Because of the new changes emerging in American households, parenting of children has become more complicated. Children do not necessarily only have two parental figures in their lives anymore. California family legislators have begun to recognize the changes occurring and have proposed a new law that could expand the view of traditional families.

Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco has proposed new legislation that has the potential to give San Diego residents more parenting options. Under current laws, a child may only have two legal parents. The proposal will create the possibility for a child to have a parent-child relationship with more than two parents. Although the number of permitted parents may change, the same standard of awarding custody and visitation would apply. The court will award custody and visitation of the child amongst all the parents in accordance with the best interest of the child.

The proposal’s controversial nature has garnered significant criticism from conservative groups founded on the belief that two parents, one mother and one father, should raise a child. Opponents of the proposal argue that it is merely a means to further the same-sex marriage movement. This argument is fiercely contested by the bill’s proponents who claim it has nothing to do with “culture wars” and is solely based on the best interest of the children involved in custody disputes. Additionally, opponents claim that the bill would lead to more instability for children as a result of increased conflict.

Real Housewife of Orange County Vicki Gunvalson is joining her Beverly Hills counterpart Camille Grammar as a recent blonde divorcé. Vicki filed for divorce from her husband Donn in October 2010 after 17 years of marriage. Although the couple continued to live together throughout the divorce process they are adamant that reconciliation is not in the works. In fact, Vicki has been dating a new man, Brooks Ayers.

The Gunvalson’s agreed to proceed with their divorce using mediation. Currently, the two are still working out all the details of their divorce settlement but have reached an agreement regarding one very large asset. The family home, shown often on The Real Housewives of Orange County, will be awarded solely to Vicki. Vicki and Donn attempted to sell the 5,400 square foot mansion for $2.695 million last year. Although this asset is just one consideration in a portfolio likely filled with numerous assets and debts, it is a victory for Vicki.

Many Del Mar divorcés have unanswered questions following the termination of divorce proceedings. The court may make many orders regarding child support, spousal support and property division. While the duration and purpose of child support is clear, many ex-spouses are left wondering how long spousal support should continue. The primary purpose behind an award of spousal support is to ensure that the supported spouse has adequate income for his or her basic needs and provide a lifestyle as consistent as possible to the one enjoyed during marriage. Spousal support is determined upon consideration of a number of factors, primarily the need of the supported spouse and the other’s ability to pay.

There are two types of spousal support awarded by the court, temporary support and permanent support; however, the terminology is misleading. Temporary support is awarded during the interim period between when the divorce is filed and final. Permanent support is ordered at the conclusion of the case and in fact is not intended to be permanent. If a marriage lasts fewer than ten years, usually spousal support is ordered for half of the length of the marriage. If the duration of the marriage was ten years or longer, there is no general rule of thumb for the termination of spousal support.

The paying spouse however does not have an absolute duty to provide indefinite support. The Gavron warning is a fair warning given to a spouse who has been awarded spousal support that he or she is expected to become self-supporting within a reasonable time. The “reasonable time” element is highly subjective and within the great discretion of the court. Generally, the intent behind the warning is to encourage the spouse to become financially independent by seeking employment or another source of income. The Gavron warning was codified in California Family Code section 4330(b), “when making an order for spousal support, the court may advise the recipient of support that he or she should make reasonable efforts to assist in providing for his or her support needs…unless the court decides this warning is inadvisable.”

After five years of marriage Katie Holmes filed for divorce from husband Tom Cruise on June 28, 2012. However, the most surprising part of this celebrity divorce is the quick resolution. Just eleven days after filing the initial paperwork, Katie’s attorney announced that the couple reached a final settlement of the case. TomKat have been hesitant to comment on the split, but have released a statement regarding their six-year-old daughter, Suri. The vague statement expressed a desire to accomplish what is in Suri’s best interest, keep private family matters out of the press, and explained the mutual respect Katie and Tom have for each other’s respective beliefs. This reference to religious beliefs might be an indication that Tom’s emersion in the religion of Scientology may have contributed to the split.

There is much speculation surrounding the quick and secretive manner in which the divorce was filed. The debate centers on whether Katie was trying to escape Scientologists or the media frenzy that surrounds public figures. The fact that the couple reached such a quick settlement tends to establish that Katie was not working on ending the marriage alone. Other experts speculate that a prenuptial agreement may have hurried the process along. Katie’s quick moves took careful planning over many months. Rumors indicate that she obtained a disposable phone and many laptops in order to keep discussions with her attorney private.

Often in San Diego, one or both spouses are awarded stock options from their employer. A stock option gives the employee a right to purchase stock in the company at a later time and for a specified price. All property acquired by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be community property. If a stock option is awarded and vests during the marriage, it is community property and each spouse is entitled to a one-half distribution of the asset. What if a stock option is awarded during marriage but vest after the date of separation? The community still has an interest in the stock option to the extent it was acquired during the marriage as earnings of the spouse. In determining the community portion of the stock option, the court will examine the primary intent of the employer in awarding the stock options.If the court determines that the stock option was awarded primarily to reward the spouse for past services, the court will use the Marriage of Hug formula to calculate the community’s interest. In this case, the stock options are a form of deferred compensation and thus the community property earnings of the spouse and subject to division upon divorce. The court will multiply the value of the stock by a fraction. The fraction represents the total number of years the spouse worked until exercise of the stock option and the total number of those years in which he or she was married. Thus, the community’s interest will be proportional to the number of years the parties were married between the beginning of employment and the exercise of the option. Each spouse will be awarded a one-half interest of the community portion, and the employee-spouse will also be awarded the separate property portion.
Continue reading

According to the data released for law school graduates in 2011, San Diego law students graduate with one of the highest debts in the country. California Western School of Law and Thomas Jefferson School of Law take spots two and three respectively on the list of the average indebtedness incurred. 89% of California Western and 94% of Thomas Jefferson graduates incurred debt during law school. The average debt incurred for a California Western education is $153,145 compared to $153,006 for a Thomas Jefferson education. With such high debts to consider, married students should know how this debt would be allocated upon divorce.

As a general rule, a debtor spouse’s separate property and all of the community property are liable for debt incurred before or during marriage. However, the non-debtor spouse’s is not liable for this debt. The California Family Code contains several special rules specifically regarding education and training. As an exception to the general division of debt, any student loan debt outstanding at divorce is assigned solely to the educated spouse. If a spouse is married when he or she receives his or education, community funds may have been used to pay for the education.

Education and training acquired during marriage is not treated as community property. Therefore the non-educated spouse can claim no interest in the education of the other. Instead, upon divorce, the community may be entitled to an equitable right to reimbursement with interest when: (1) community funds are used either to pay for the education or training or to repay a loan related thereto and (2) education or training substantially increased the earning capacity of the spouse. Therefore, in the case of law school debts, if the non-student’s earnings during the marriage contribute to the student’s education, the community may be entitled to repayment for this amount.The educated spouse may advance some defenses to reimbursement. If both spouses received a community-funded education then the community would likely not be entitled to reimbursement. Reimbursement may be reduced or modified if the community has already substantially benefitted from the education or training. There is a rebuttable presumption that the community has already benefitted if more than ten years have elapsed between the contributions and the initiation of divorce. This presumption enables the court to allocate an equitable division of property upon divorce. It assumes that the educated spouse has already returned the educations expenses to the community in the form of increased earnings.

Contact Information