Nancy J. Bickford

FOX News and other media outlets continue to report that the divorce of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver could be among the most expensive celebrity splits on record.

Some estimates say Shriver could get more than the $100 million Tiger Wood’s ex-wife Elin Nordegren received.Division of marital property in a San Diego divorce, or a divorce elsewhere in California, is supposed to be equal under the state’s no-fault divorce law. In practice, one party to a divorce can end up with significantly more than half the assets for a number of reasons.

What constitutes community property is one potential area of contention. Property owned before marriage and inheritance to one spouse are both examples of separate property. Valuating community property is another area where a San Diego divorce lawyer will focus attention. For instance, is the marital home valued at current market value? After the economic downturn, a couple’s primary residence is often a liability — with more owed on an upside down mortgage than the property could bring at sale.

With Schwarzenegger and Shriver, there are more complications — and more assets — than in many marriages — even celebrity marriages. And, with allegations about Arnold’s infidelity continuing to surface, he may find an unsympathetic judge on the bench. And, with four children and the majority of the earning power, several media outlets have reported child support and alimony could easily top $100,000 a month.

Typical couples should understand the tax implications of alimony and child support as there may be opportunities to move money in one direction or the other. Alimony is treated as taxable income for the receiver and as a tax deduction for the payer. Child support is tax free for the recipient but not deductible for the payer. One caveat to keep in mind: Courts are much better about helping you collect back child support than they are about assisting with the collections of back spousal support.

In the case of Schwarzenegger and Shriver, their marriage will be seen as long-term under California law, which means she may collect alimony for an indefinite period of time. A short-term marriage is defined as one lasting under 10 years, which is in part why it’s not uncommon to see celebrity couples split near the 10-year mark.

Other factors worth considering in this split is Arnold’s future income from motion pictures — particularly sequels to movies made during the marriage. The New York Post reported last year that Diandra Douglas — the ex-wife of Michael Douglas — moved to collect on his payday for the making of “Wall Street 2,” claiming her divorce agreement entitled her to a portion of the proceeds.

For most couples, similar concerns often involve retirement accounts or the earning power of an advanced degree — such as a medical degree or law degree — earned during the marriage.
Continue reading

A San Diego client recently asked me if the court could seize control of the parties community property business, which was started during marriage and is managed by his spouse.

His question was prompted by what recently happened to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The owners of the Dodgers, Frank and Jamie McCourt, are involved in a very public divorce. Ms. McCourt claimed the Dodges are a community property business. Mr. McCourt clamed they are his separate property. In December, the court threw out a post-marital agreement making the Dodgers his separate property. Although Mr. McCourt is appealing that decision and the parties are trying to negotiate a settlement, chaos now reigns in Dodger-Ville. Mr. McCourt borrowed $30 million to meet the Dodgers payroll obligations. Shortly thereafter, Major League Baseball seized control of the team and installed a trustee to oversee business operations. The team may not meet its May payroll obligations and Mr. McCourt may file for bankruptcy to keep control of the team.

Back to my clients question. While the divorce is pending, the managing spouse of a community property business usually has primary management and control of the business subject to fiduciary duties to the non-managing spouse. However, the court does have the power appoint a receiver to protect the non-operating spouse’s interest in the business. Where the parties jointly manage the business, they can keep jointly managing the business, or if unable to do so, either party may request the court order one party manage the business. Whomever the court orders to manage the business would have fiduciary duties to the other party.

If the parties cannot agree how to divide the business, the court may award the business on any conditions it deems proper to make a substantially equal division of the community estate. The court usually does one of the following:

(1) Awards the business to the managing spouse. This may even be done over the objection of the party the business is awarded to.

(2) Awards the business to the non-managing spouse. In one case, a Burger King franchise was awarded to the non-managing spouse over the objection of the managing spouse.

(3) Divides the business in-kind. In one case, shares of stock of a business were divided in-kind. However, the court will not make an in-kind division if it would impair the business.

(4) Orders the business sold.
Continue reading

As a San Diego attorney, clients with premarital agreements often ask whether the spousal support waiver provision in their premarital agreement is enforceable. Whether my client wants to enforce the agreement or have it not enforced, the answer is – it depends.

The Premarital Agreement Act applies to premarital agreements executed after January 1, 1986. For a spousal support waiver to be valid, it must pass the “representation by counsel” and “not unconscionable” requirements.

If the party against whom enforcement of the spousal support waiver provision was not represented by independent counsel at the time the premarital agreement was signed, then the spousal support waiver is not valid. This means: (1) if the parties prepared the agreement themselves without legal counsel, the waiver is not valid; or (2) if Party A wants to enforce the waiver against party B, and Party A was represented by independent legal counsel but Party B was not, the waiver is not valid.

Sometimes, during or after a divorce, my client may decide to move away from San Diego. The most frequent reasons I hear are that my client can no longer afford to live in San Diego, have family/friends elsewhere, or received a great job offer out of San Diego.

When there are no children involved, a party is free to move. However, things become complicated there are minor children involved and the moving party wants to move with the children.

Whether you are the one requesting to move, or opposing a request to move, it is important to consult or retain an experienced San Diego divorce attorney. Once divorce proceeding have begun, both parties are automatically restrained from removing the minor children from the State (and usually the County once temporary custody orders are entered) without written consent of the other party or court order.

If you are heading to the court house to file a Petition for dissolution of marriage (or a Response), don’t forget to bring your check book. Here in San Diego County, the current filing fee for a “first paper” (which includes a Petition or a Response) is $395. And while that may seem quite expensive, it could be a lot worse.

The Associated Press recently reported on a new law in Romania which allows each of the country’s municipalities to set their own fee for a divorce. The towns’ fees range across the board, with the most expensive being Sangeorgiu de Mures. Couples divorcing in Sangeorgiu de Mures must pay 10,000 lei, which is approximately $3,370. To put this in perspective, The Associated Press reports that this amount is nearly 60 percent of the average annual salary. Interestingly, the fee to divorce in Sangeorgiu de Mures is 2,000 times what it costs in the capital city of Bucharest.

So why the high fee in Sangeorgiu de Mures? The Associated Press reports that the goal is to discourage divorce, as many of the town’s 8000 residents are catholic. And in fact, it appears to be working. According to The Associated Press, a number of couples have actually decided to remain married after learning of the high fee.

Did you happen to catch CNBC’s documentary Divorce Wars when it premiered last weekend? Promoted as “CNBC goes inside the confidential world of multi-million dollar divorce revealing the secrets of winning and losing on a battle field of emotional pain and financial gain”, the show highlighted, among other stories, the creation of Balance Point Funding, a company that provides money from private investors to fund divorce litigation in exchange for a percentage of the divorce settlement. According to its founder, Stacy Napp, the idea for the company was born from the challenges she faced in funding her own divorce litigation.

While creative, this is not the only option for a divorcing spouse in California. Rather, as a San Diego Divorce attorney, I regularly file motions for a contribution from the other spouse to my client’s attorney fees under Family Code Section 2030. This type of a motion is appropriate where there is a disparity between the parties in access to funds to retain counsel (in other words, “need”), and where one party is able to pay for legal representation of both parties (in other words, “ability”). The statute is designed to ensure that each party has access to legal representation, including access early in the proceedings, to preserve their respective rights.

While Family Code section 2030 addresses the allocation of attorney fees and cost, what about costs other than attorney fees and costs, such as court costs, expert fees and consultant fees? Family Code section 2032 provides a procedure by which either party may file a motion requesting that the court designate their case as complex or involving substantial issues of fact or law related to property rights, visitation, custody, or support. If the case is then designated as complex, the court has the discretion to allocate between the parties attorney fees and also court costs, expert fees, and consultant fees.

This month’s edition of Rolling Stone magazine features a cover story on R&B singer Rihanna, in which she opens up about why she agreed to a modification of her restraining order against ex-boyfriend and fellow R&B singer, Chris Brown. The restraining order stems from an assault that occurred on the then couple’s way to the 2009 Grammy Awards.

Discussing her decision, Rihanna explained:

“It doesn’t mean we’re gonna make up, or even talk again. It just means I didn’t want to object to the judge.”

California is considered a no-fault divorce state, meaning the reason a couple is divorcing is completely irrelevant to the court in whether the court will grant a divorce. Neither party has to prove the other was at fault for the break down of the marriage. There is even a statute that makes evidence of specific acts of misconduct is improper and inadmissible. It does not matter to the court whether you are requesting a divorce from your spouse because he/she is abusive toward you, uses drugs, is an alcoholic, cheats and/or has inappropriate Facebook relationships, works too much or that you have grown tired of your spouse. As long as one party alleges “irreconcilable differences”, meaning marital problems that cannot be resolved, the court will grant a request for divorce.

The other ground for divorce in California is “incurable insanity.” As a San Diego divorce attorney, although some of my clients think their spouse is “insane”, I never had a case where the “insanity” reached a level of “incurable insanity.”

So while fault has no impact on whether or not a court will grant a divorce, three areas of “fault” – domestic violence, drug use and alcoholism – can have a major impact on how the court decides the issues of custody, visitation and spousal support.

Jason London, star of the 1993 coming of age comedy Dazed and Confused, (not to be confused with his twin brother, Jeremy, the Party of Five and Seventh Heaven actor who was in the news last year for allegedly being kidnapping while changing a flat tire and forced to smoke crack at gunpoint,) finalized his divorce from wife, Charlie Spradling, last Thursday, according to E! Online.

E! Online reports that London and Spradling, after being separated for a number of years, filed for divorce in February 2010. In November 2010, before his divorce was finalized, London proposed to his girlfriend, Canadian born actress Sofia Karsten. Karsten said yes, and the couple plans to wed in July.

If London was planning on popping the question last November, why did he wait until now to finalize his divorce? Although I can only speculate, the logical answer is that there were issues raised in the divorce that simply weren’t resolved until now. But what if London had wanted to get married, and not just engaged, before all of the issues in his divorce were resolved? Could he have done so?

By now, most job seekers know that potential employers may take a look at Facebook, or other social networking sites, when evaluating a potential new hire. Job candidates are wise to this practice, and many take care to edit their social networking posts accordingly. But many divorcing spouses are not so smart, and sometimes with dire consequences.

USA Today reported on a survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers about the use of social networking sites as sources of evidence in divorce cases. The survey revealed that over the last 5 years, 81% of AAML members have used, or been faced with, evidence from Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, among others. According to the survey, Facebook has been by far the most popular source with 66%, followed by MySpace with 15%, and Twitter with 5%.

To illustrate how social networking sites can be used as sources of evidence in family law cases, consider the following hypothetical cases. A parent is seeking an order for sole physical custody, claiming they are at home with the children every night, yet their Facebook page has photos of them out most nights “partying”. Or, a parent is alleging that the other parent has a drug problem and, sure enough, the offending parent has posted multiple photos of themselves on Facebook smoking marijuana. As a San Diego family law attorney, I have experience with similar cases.

Contact Information