San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

The most recent controversy in Hollywood is the split between multi platinum recording artist, Katy Perry, and movie actor, Russell Brand, who announced the end of their marriage on December 30, 2011 after only 14 months. Rumor has it that the couple did NOT have a prenuptial agreement. Katy Perry made a record breaking $45 Million during the marriage. Russell Brand only made about $7 Million. In California, which is a community property state, assets are split evenly among the couple if there is no pre-nup, meaning Perry stands to lose over $20 million not including the two homes the ex-couple purchased together during the marriage.

A prenuptial agreement is a contract between two people about to get married that spells out how assets will be distributed in the event of divorce or death. Premarital agreements or "pre-nups" establish the property and financial rights of each spouse.

At one time, a premarital agreement that was not made in contemplation that the parties would remain married until death was considered to be against public policy in California and other jurisdictions, but the CA Supreme Court concluded in 1976 that the validity of a premarital agreement "does not turn on whether the parties contemplated a lifelong marriage" and in 1985, the California Legislature adopted most of the provisions of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Pursuant to Family Code section 1615, a premarital agreement will be enforced unless the party resisting enforcement of the agreement can demonstrate either (1) that he or she did not enter into the contract voluntarily, or (2) that the contract was unconscionable when entered into and that he or she did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the assets and obligations of the other party and did not voluntarily waive knowledge of such assets and obligations.

The most important factor of a solid premarital agreement is honesty. Both parties must fully and completely disclose of their assets. If it turns out either person was hiding something, a judge can throw out the entire contract. The document should be signed as early before the nuptials as possible to avoid the appearance of coercion, another key reason why some agreements are rendered null and void by the court. A valid pre-nup should also be "fair" and will not leave one of the parties destitute.

You should consider getting a pre-nup if you fall into any of the following categories:

• You have assets such as a home, timeshare, stock or retirement funds
• Own all or part of a private or family business
• You may be receiving an inheritance
• You have children and/or grandchildren from a previous marriage
• You or your spouse is much wealthier than the other
• One of you will be supporting the other through college
• You have loved ones who need to be taken care of, such as elderly parents
• You have or are pursuing a degree or license in a potentially lucrative profession

Continue reading "Should I get a prenuptial agreement before I get married in San Diego, California?" »

According to FOX news, former NFL superstar Deion Sanders has filed for divorce. His wife, Pilar Sanders, filed a response this week in which she alleges Deion was unfaithful. "She accuses him unkind, uncaring, insensitive, cruel and unusual treatment, as well as physical, mental and emotional abuse of her and their three children." The response urges the court to punish Deion for "immoral, corrupt, lewd, perverted, unnatural, sinful conduct." Ironically, the response is similar to that filed by Deion's first wife Carolyn. Carolyn also accused Deion of adultery and "cruel treatment."

Pilar is requesting that the judge throw out the couple's prenuptial agreement and instead grant her most of the marital estate. As grounds for this request, Pilar alleges she was under duress when she signed the agreement. Prenuptial agreements, otherwise known as premarital agreements, must be carefully drafted in order to be enforceable in a California family courts.

California Family Code section 1615(a) states that a premarital agreement is unenforceable if not entered into voluntarily. A premarital agreement is presumed involuntary if the party had less than seven calendar days between the day the party was presented with the contract and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the party signed the contract. However, it is important to note that this rule does not apply to a party represented by legal counsel throughout the premarital agreement process. Therefore, if a judge concludes that Pilar was in fact under duress when she signed the premarital agreement, the judge is likely to find the agreement unenforceable.

A fundamental element of any contract formation is freely given consent of the parties. This consent is defeated if one of the parties enters into the contract under duress. Duress often appears in California law as a defense to any type of contract actions. It is crucial when drafting and executing premarital agreements to ensure no party signs the contract under duress.

Continue reading "Football Legend Deion Sanders Files for Divorce " »

In San Diego County an estimated one out of four children is exposed to domestic violence either as a victim or a witness. According to the San Diego Domestic Violence Council over 500 women and children need to stay in a shelter each day. In a relationship that involves a history of domestic violence, if a partner decides to leave, he or she will have many questions about how that history can impact a child custody case.

Understanding what constitutes domestic violence can be complex. Under California Family Code section 6211, domestic violence is defined as abuse perpetrated against specific categories of family members. Mental health professionals agree that domestic violence is a pattern of behavior characterized by an abusers attempt to control his or her victim through the use of a variety of techniques.

In a case that does not involve domestic violence, the court decides the outcome of a custody case based on the best interest of the child. The court considers a variety of factors such as:

1. The health safety, and welfare of the child
2. Any history of abuse by one parent
3. The nature and amount of contact with both parents
4. Habitual or continual illegal drug or alcohol abuse by either parent

There is a prevalent belief in society that when a couple separates, it is in the best interest of the child to have the most extensive relationship possible with both parents. This assumption is true in a typical separation. However, a separation involving domestic violence is not a typical separation. Family Court judges have many options to consider when deciding which parent, or combination of parents, will make decisions on behalf of a child and take care of that child. If a parent has sole legal custody, he or she has the exclusive right and responsibility to make decisions for the child regarding his or her health, education and welfare. If a parent has sole physical custody, the child will live with that parent subject to the visitation rights of the other. Any joint custody arrangement involves the sharing of these rights and responsibilities.

Continue reading "How Does Domestic Violence Impact Custody Cases in San Diego?" »

More than 5,000 phone calls of domestic violence are reported to the domestic violence hotline in San Diego County per year. It is a serious problem that has life threatening consequences. It is estimated that there are thousands of domestic violence incidents that go unreported in San Diego alone. There are many different forms of domestic violence that go unreported because victims don't realize they qualify for a domestic violence restraining order.

A restraining order is an order made by the Family Court to protect victims, children and families from abuse (physical, emotional, verbal, sexual), threats of abuse, stalking and harassment. The abuse can be spoken, written or physical. In order to qualify for a domestic violence restraining order you must have a "relationship" with the abuser. You qualify if you are married, divorced, separated, registered domestic partners, have children together, are dating or used to date, living together or used to live together with the abuser.

You may qualify if you have experienced any of the following types of abuse:

* Emotional - verbal abuse, isolation from friends and family, humiliation
* Psychological - threats, stalking, intimidation by fear or force, harassment
* Economic - not allowing you to have transportation, work, credit or insurance
* Legal threats - false accusations, deportation, reporting crime or calling police
* Physical - scratching, hitting, kicking, pushing, choking, spiting, use of weapons
* Sexual - coerced sex, physical force, threats, making you watch pornography

The first step is filing for a temporary restraining order which usually takes less than 24 hours to get from the Judge. If a temporary restraining order is granted, you and your family will be protected until the hearing for a permanent restraining order which is usually set for three weeks from when the temporary order was issued. Things you may ask for in the temporary restraining order include: child custody, child support, spousal support, for the abuser to move out of your home and turn over all guns/weapons to the authorities, to have no contact with you or your children, rights to property, right to record future communications, and for the abuser to complete a Batter's Intervention Program.

Once you attend the hearing for a permanent restraining order, the Judge can issue an order that lasts anywhere from 6 months to 5 years. This is the opportunity for you to get out of the situation and start over. ANY contact with you during the time you have a restraining order is a violation of court order and is taken very seriously. If the abuser tries to contact you, you call the police and tell them you have a restraining order and they will take care of it. Phone calls, texts, e-mails, drive-bys, showing up anywhere you are or contacting your family are all violations of the restraining order. Sending you flowers at work or mailing you an apology letter are also violations of the restraining order. An abuser may be arrested for multiple violations.

It is important to get help right away and to record all communications or physical evidence of abuse. One thing to consider is developing a personal safety plan. This way you can be prepared for a dangerous situation if it arises in the future. There are several things you can do to ensure your safety. For example, identify a friend or family member that you can call or stay with should the abuser violate the restraining order. Inform employers, co-workers, neighbors and your children's teachers that you have a restraining order in case the abuser shows up where you are. Also, consider putting together a bag of things you would need in case of an emergency such as money, extra clothes, address book, passport and a copy of the restraining order. Keep it in a safe place where you can easily access it quickly. If possible, consider moving from your residence or changing your locks and phone number to make it harder for the abuser to locate you. Also, make multiple copies of the restraining order, so you have a copy in your car, at your work, and other places you might be.

Please don't hesitate; this could save your life. Contact the Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford to help you get a fresh start today. Call (858) 793-8884 to make an appointment with a Certified Family Law Specialist.

As a San Diego divorce attorney, while recently reviewing a Marital Settlement Agreement with a client, the client asked what happens if one of us later realizes that we did not list an asset and it is missing from the Marital Settlement Agreement? A Marital Settlement Agreement is a document that is usually attached to a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage setting forth the final agreement of the parties which, among other things, identifies and divides each marital asset, including bank accounts, investment account and retirement accounts.

Fortunately the California Family Code addresses this issue. The court has continuing jurisdiction to award community assets and debts to the parties that have not been previously adjudicated by a judgment in the proceeding.

For example, suppose Husband and Wife opened a 1-year term Certificate of Deposit ("CD") when they married 25 years ago and each year the CD automatically rolled over into a new 1-year term CD. Over the years, the parties moved several times, did not update their address with the bank and the statements eventually stopped arriving. Both parties forgot about the CD. When the parties divorced, neither listed the CD on the Schedule of Assets and Debts and it was not identified or divided by the Marital Settlement Agreement. Five years later, Wife comes across a box of old bank records, including an old CD statement.

Suppose the parties are on good terms. Wife may call ex-Husband, tell him that she found the old bank records regarding the forgotten CD, propose they cash it out and equally split the proceeds. If Husband agrees, then the parties can simply file a Supplemental Judgment identifying and dividing the CD.

Suppose the parties are on bad terms and do not communicate. Wife may file a motion requesting the court adjudicate the asset or liability omitted or not adjudicated by the Judgment. In these cases, the court is required to equally divide the omitted or unadjudicated community estate asset or liability, unless the court finds upon good cause shown that the interests of justice require an unequal division of the asset or liability.

Thus, in the situation above where the parties legitimately forgot about the CD, the court would equally divide the CD one-half to each party. However, there are situations where the court may order an unequal division of an omitted or unadjudicated asset or liability.

One situation where the court may order an unequal division is if one party hides an asset from the other. For example, in the situation above, suppose Husband remembered the CD, decided not to list the CD in his Schedule of Assets and Debt or in the Marital Settlement Agreement to see if Wife would remember the CD. A few years after Judgment is entered, Husband has used a quarter of the monies from the CD, Wife finds the old box of bank documents, remembers the CD and files a motion for the court to adjudicate the CD. In that case, the court has discretion to award the remaining monies Wife. The court may also order Husband to pay Wife the amount of money he used from the CD. Husband may have also breached his fiduciary duties to Wife. If the court finds fraud on Husband's part, it may award Wife 100% of the omitted or unadjudicated asset in question. The lesson to be learned is that full disclosure of all marital assets and debts is absolutely essential.

Another example where the court might not divide an omitted asset equally is when one spouse delays making a claim to divide an omitted asset, during which time the omitted asset greatly appreciates in value, perhaps due to the post separation efforts of the other. This may occur with a small home business that neither party bother listing on the Schedules of Assets and Debts or in the Marital Settlement Agreement, and that small home business is later developed into a giant successful internet business. For example, Husband may have a bee hive and harvests the honey which he sells at the swap meet on weekends under the name "Hubby's Honey."

After the parties divorce, Husband expands the business, develops a website and 5 years later, "Hubby's Honey" becomes the largest online honey seller in the country. In that situation, it was Husband's post-separation efforts that caused "Hubby's Honey" to increase in value, and the court will likely award the majority if not all of "Hubby's Honey" to Husband.

Another interesting wrinkle to "omitted assets" is a case called In re Marriage of Melton in which the court held that when a judgment divides only a portion of an asset, the undivided portion can be treated as an omitted asset. In Melton, only a portion of Husband's pension was explicitly divided by the stipulated judgment. The bulk of it was left undivided. The Court of Appeal found no reason why the omitted portion of Husband's pension should not be treated the same way as an omitted asset, and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine how to divide the omitted portion.

Photo by Peter Shanks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/botheredbybees/245215850/

Continue reading "OOPS! WHAT HAPPENS IF OUR MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OMITS AN ASSET?" »

Many couples that were married in San Diego have since moved out of state. In fact, it is not uncommon for a couple to get married in California even if they are not currently residents. California, especially San Diego, offers many beautiful destination-wedding venues. However, if a spouse wants to obtain a divorce in California, there are two residency requirements that must be met. Under California Family Code section 2320, a judgment for dissolution (divorce) will not be entered unless one of the parties has been a California resident for at least six months and a resident of the county he or she filed in for at least three months. It is important to consider that unless the issue of residency is contested within thirty days, any defect in the residency requirements is waived.

There are no residency requirements for a couple to obtain a legal separation. This law creates a small tactical opportunity for a spouse that wishes to obtain a divorce in California. If the spouse intends to satisfy the minimum six-months/three-months residency requirements, he or she can file for legal separation and later amend the petition to request a divorce. This allows the spouse to start the divorce process without delay. There is a six-month waiting period for a judgment terminating marital status. When the legal separation petition is filed, this clock will start ticking. The spouse can obtain a divorce in the same amount of time as if he or she was a California resident at the beginning of the proceedings.

The residency requirements are also inapplicable to registered domestic partnerships. This is one area of the law where the rules governing marriages differ from the domestic partnership laws. Domestic partners who register their partnership with the Secretary of State consent to California jurisdiction therefore there are no minimum residence requirements. However, to dissolve a domestic partnership established out of state, one of the partners must satisfy the residency requirements.

Prior to January 1, 2012, same-sex couples encountered a serious problem. During a few short months in 2008, California granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. From June 17, 2008 until September 17, an estimated 11,000 same-sex couples got married. Under The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states. A dilemma arose for a same-sex couple married in California and living in other states that refused to recognize their marriage. This couple could not obtain a divorce in California because they did not satisfy the residency requirements and could not obtain a divorce in their current state because it did not recognize their marriage.

Continue reading "Where a San Diego Resident Can Get Divorced " »

There are many great companies in San Diego. A lot of these companies offer fantastic employment benefits, such as generous amounts of vacation time. Some companies even have policies allowing their employees to accrue vacation time, as opposed to a "use it or lose it" policy. As a San Diego divorce attorney, it is important to understand this employment benefit, which is often overlooked when bigger benefits are also at stake, such as stock options, 401(k)'s and pensions.

"Image courtesy of animalclipart.net".

Vested vacation time is an asset which, if earned during marriage, is considered a community property asset. However, vested vacation time is, in and of itself, not divisible in kind. If there are 30 days of vested vacation time, the judge cannot award 15 days of vested vacation time to each party because the vacation time that is vested can only be used or taken by the employee spouse. To make the issue of vested vacation time even more complicated, there is conflicting case law on how the courts handle the division of vested vacation time.

A close reading of the various cases, in my opinion, favors that if the vested vacation time is convertible (or can be converted) into cash, then it can be considered by the court as a divisible community property asset. Thus, the employee spouse who can elect to take his or her accumulated vacation time as cash may be charged with the after-tax amount he or she could realize. The court can also order a party to cash in the vested vacation time and pay one-half (or other amount) to the non-employee spouse.

On the other hand, if the employee spouse must take the time off or lose it, and there is no cashing out of the vacation time, then the court could find that the employee spouse is not receiving an economic benefit which can be fairly valued and charged to that party. In other words, if accrued or vested vacation time can be cashed in, it should be considered an asset subject to division. If it, or a portion of it, cannot be cashed in, meaning that it must be taken or lost, then the court may determine that it has no economic benefit to the employee spouse and the court will not consider it as an asset subject to division.

In one "vacation benefit" case, Husband had accumulated 120 hours of vacation time through his employment, for which he would not receive cash if he did not use. The Trial Court found that the vested vacation time was an asset not subject to division. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the mere fact that a benefit exists for an employee, doesn't mean that a value can be placed on it in a dissolution proceeding. These include: use of employer provided health club, purchasing meals in company cafeteria, or ability to buy at discount prices through employer subsidized retail establishment. Although these benefits may affect need or ability re support, they are not convertible to cash and therefore not divisible on dissolution.

However, another case held just the opposite. When that Court of Appeal considered that Supreme Court's meaning of the phrase "vested vacation time" it believed that it was important to keep in mind the nature of vacation pay. The court went on to explain that vacation pay is not a gratuity or a gift, but is, in effect, additional wages for services performed and that the right to a paid vacation, when offered in an employer's policy or contract of employment, constitutes deferred wages for services rendered. That Court of Appeal held that there was no reason deferred wages cannot be commuted to present value and divided.

Even if the vacation time cannot be valued and divided, the vacation time may still be taken into consideration by the court when determining spousal support. The fact is that the paid vacation time (and other similar employment benefits) reduces the employee's reasonable living expenses and thus can be considered by the court in exercising its discretion as to the amount of spousal support to order.

Continue reading "Is Accrued Vacation Time a Community Property Asset Subject to Division?" »

As a San Diego Divorce Attorney, when a client remarries, he or she often wonders if their new spouse's income will impact child support and spousal support. Recently, a client in the midst of a divorce in which status was previously granted (meaning the parties were no longer married) but the issues of spousal support and attorney fees were not yet resolved, who was about to remarry, asked about the impact of new spouse income on the issue of spousal and child support.

Previously, I blogged about the impact of new mate income on child support and spousal support orders. To summarize:

1) For child support, except in "extraordinary cases," new spouse or non-marital partner income is generally not considered when calculating guideline child support, although the court may inquire into a new spouse's income for the purpose of seeing how it would impact the remarried party's tax filing status and tax bracket when calculating guideline child support.

2) With regard to spousal support:
(a) For the spouse receiving spousal support, spousal support usually terminates when he or she remarries, and there is a presumption of a decreased need for spousal support of he or she is cohabitating with a member of the opposite sex.
(b) For the spouse paying spousal support, the new spouse/partner income is not considered when determining or modifying spousal support.

After explaining this to the client, I was asked if the new spouse income would have any impact on the prior spouse's request for attorney fees. The client wondered if the court would consider the new spouse's income when considering the prior spouse's request for attorney fees. My initial thought was there should not be any consideration of new spouse income, however after conducting some research, I found a 2009 case, Alan S. v. Superior Court , which held while new mate or partner income is generally irrelevant in child support matters, it is not statutorily irrelevant in pendente lite fee orders.

However, after a closer analysis of the underlying facts in that case, we believe the holding is limited to a narrow circumstances, as it was more of a case regarding how the court, in low and middle income cases, can achieve the legislative goal of assuring that each party has access to legal representation to preserve each party's right.

In Alan S., after a string of custody hearings and orders, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $9,000 to Wife for her attorney fees at rate of $300 per month. Representing himself, Husband appealed the decision challenging the attorney fee order. Husband claimed the order impacted his own ability to retain counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the challenged orders appear to assure that, while Wife is well represented by obviously able and diligent counsel, Husband will be left to "haplessly flail away" and reversed the attorney fee order, with directions to the trial court to hold another hearing to consider all relevant matters affecting Wife'sfee request, including factors such as Husband's $800/mo deficit financed by credit cards; the assets of parties, including equity in residences; Husband's inability to afford to visit the children; Husband's $25,000 credit card debt for previous attorney and $1,800 per month child support obligation; and the new mate or "significant other" income of each party (Husband was cohabitating and Wife had remarried).

The Appeal Court's decision relied on Family Code §2032, which requires court to consider parties' needs considering the factors listed in Family Code §4320. Reading statutes together, the Appeal Court believed the statutes make it clear that the pendente lite fee award should be the product of a nuanced process in which the trial court tries to get the 'big picture' of the case, i.e., 'the relative circumstances of the respective parties'. In the Alan S. case, the trial court took a truncated approach, and the record did not show that the trial court considered a number of the relevant factors bearing on the case, including the new mate or "significant other" income of each party.

The Court of Appeal also relied on a case called In re Marriage of Geraci , in finding that the new mate or significant other income was relevant for attorney fee awards because of "possible economies of scale," coupled with the "expansive language of Family Code §2032--the relevant circumstances of the respective parties."

The case was remanded to the trial court. The trial court, on remand, would have to consider new mate and significant other income (among other factors) when reconsidering the attorney fee award, however, the final orders that were made by the trial court are unknown.

It seems that new spouse or significant other income only came into play in the Alan S. case because the attorney fee award prevented Husband from being able to afford to retain counsel for an upcoming custody hearing, while Wife was able to afford to retain counsel. More significant than new spouse or significant other income are the issues of need and ability to pay under Family Code Section §2030, as well as many of the other Family Code §4320 factors, such as the income, assets and liabilities of the parties.

Many of our San Diego Family Law client's use Facebook and other social network or dating webpages. This is not surprising considering that Facebook alone has more than 800 million active users. More than 50% of those active users log on to Facebook everyday and on average more than 250 million photos are uploaded per day. Almost every social network and dating website can be accessed by a cell phone or tablet.

We have previously blogged about the use of information from social network and dating websites in divorce cases. We have also previously cautioned readers of our blog (as well as our clients) regarding what not to post on Facebook and other social network and dating sites while going though a divorce. This includes NOT posting wild pictures of yourself, NOT tweeting about job woes or problems with the kids and NOT posting about drug and alcohol use. It is also important to adjust your privacy settings. In other words, do not post anything to a social network or dating website that you would want your former spouse, children or the family law judge in your case to see or read.

Recently, there have been some interesting and seemingly conflicting orders regarding requests for Facebook or other social network or dating website information.

In one case reported by the ABA Journal, a judge in a Connecticut divorce case ordered the parties' attorneys to exchange their clients' Facebook and dating websites passwords. Although the order stated that the parties themselves would not be given the passwords of the other, the order also stated for neither party to visit the other party's social network website and post messages purporting to be the other. You can imagine what one party must have posted on the other party's social network for that order to be made.

However, in another recent personal injury case involving an accident from 1993 in which the insurance companies denial of benefits did not question Plaintiff's limitations or need for care, the insurance company still sought, through discovery, the Plaintiff's Facebook password, a list of his Facebook friends, along with other Facebook activity and information including, all photographs, messages, status posts, wall posts, comments, groups, and group memberships. When the Plaintiff refused to provide the information, the insurance company filed a Motion to Compel to force the Plaintiff to provide the information. Fortunately for the Plaintiff, the court denied the Motion to Compel on the grounds that the Facebook information was not relevant or likely to make any disputed fact more or less likely, despite the insurance company's argument that Plaintiff's Facebook posts would likely contain information about the Plaintiff's daily activities and thoughts. The court found that any possible relevant information which could be gleaned through the Plaintiff's Facebook information would also be available to the insurance company through less intrusive, less annoying and less speculative means. The court characterized the insurance company's request for Facebook information as a fishing expedition at best and harassment at worst.

However, unlike in most civil cases, the information contained on a social networks and dating websites is often very relevant in family law cases, particularly to the issues of custody and visitation. It may also be relevant to the issues of property division and fiduciary duties.

In the Connecticut divorce case discussed above, one party was requesting full custody of the children and argued that the Facebook and dating website information was relevant to the other party's ability to take care of their children. Apparently, the Court was persuaded by the argument and ordered the exchange of passwords.

Another interesting argument, that has not yet been determined by the courts, is whether the type of order issued in the Connecticut divorce case is valid or enforceable in light of Facebook's Terms of Use Provisions. Following the Connecticut order would arguably violate the these two Terms of Use Provisions:

1) You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else. and;

2) You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

As long as social networks and dating websites continue to be popular, we anticipate that requests for information and pictures from them will become more and more frequent in divorce cases.

Continue reading "Judge Orders Exchange of Facebook and Dating Website Passwords in Custody Fight" »

As a San Diego Family Law Attorney, I often receive calls from former clients asking if they can find out their former spouses current income without incurring a lot of attorney fees or filing an expensive, time-consuming motion. Here are two examples of those calls:

• One former client suspected her Ex-Husband was earning significantly more than he was a year ago when their divorce was finalized because he recently bought a new car and moved into a bigger house. He refused to tell her his current income. If true, the amount of child support she receives could increase.

• Another former client knew that his Ex-Wife received a promotion, but did not know if a raise came with the promotion. She refused to tell him if she received a raise. If she received a raise along with her promotion, then his child support obligation would decrease, or depending on how much of a raise she received, he might be eligible to receive child support from her.

Fortunately for both clients, the Family Code provides for a way to obtain a current Income and Expense Declaration by permitting a party to engage in inexpensive post-Judgment discovery prior to filing a Motion for Modification of Child, Family or Spousal Support. More specifically, at any time after the entry of a Judgment of Dissolution or Legal Separation that provides for the payment of child or family support, either party, no more than once per year, may request the other party to produce a completed current Income and Expense Declaration with copies of that party's pay stubs and prior year state and federal income tax returns attached.

A request for a current Income and Expense Declaration with a copy of the prior year tax return and pay stubs is the only limited discovery allowed if a Motion for Modification or Termination of the Support Order is not pending. That means if a party wants to engage in other methods of discovery, such as Interrogatories (which are questions asked of the other party) or a Request for Documents, then he or she would first need to file a Motion for Modification or Termination of the Support Order.

By allowing a party to obtain an Income and Expense Declaration from their former spouse, the requesting party can determine whether filing a Motion for Modification is appropriate. If it turns out that there is no change of income, then the filing of a Motion for Modification could be expensive, especially if there is no (or minimal) change to the amount of support paid or received.

Sometimes, a former spouse will ignore the request for a current Income and Expense Declaration. If this occurs, the Family Code provides that if there is no response within 35 days, or if the Income and Expense Declaration is incomplete as to any wage information, or if pay stubs and income tax returns are not attached, then the requesting party may serve a Request for Income and Benefit Information directly on the employer of the other party. The non-responding party may also be sanctioned by the court for his or her failure to comply with the initial request.

Please contact us if you wish to obtain a current Income and Expense Declaration from your former spouse, or if you have received a Request for Production of An Income and Expense Declaration After Judgment from your former spouse.

Continue reading "CAN I FIND OUT HOW MUCH MY EX SPOUSE CURRENTLY EARNS?" »

As San Diego divorce attorneys, we know that a relationship is not over until it is over. A recent article in USA Today titled, Some Couples Pull Back From the Edge of Divorce, focused on couples who called off their divorce proceedings to get back together. One couple, just weeks away form their divorce being finalized, attended a last ditch marriage weekend seminar which they say saved their marriage. Another couple, after already spending $20,000 in attorney fees, took classes to bolster communication and conflict resolution which lead to them calling off their divorce. A third couple that worked at the same place were forced to share rides to work for a week when one of their cars broke down. They ended up having so much fun together that they called off their divorce even though both had started new relationships.

While these reconciliation stories are unusual, some couples in the middle of a divorce do want to make one final attempt to save the marriage. When this occurs, the parties usually want time away from the court proceedings to attempt their reconciliation. In San Diego County, there are two main options which allow time to attempt reconciliation.

The first and usually the best option is to file a Stipulation of Attempted Reconciliation. The San Diego County Rules of Court allow parties to file a stipulation indicating that they are attempting reconciliation. This will effectively put a hold on their case for approximately 12 months. If either a Dismissal of the Petition for Dissolution or a Judgment is not filed within 12 months of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution, then the court will set a Status Conference to find out what is going on. At that point he court can dismiss the case, continue to keep the case on hold, or encourage the parties to move the case forward. Filing a Stipulation of Attempted Reconciliation is a good option when both parties want to attempt reconciliation, but do not want to have to re-file paperwork if the reconciliation fails. If the reconciliation does not work, then the case will pick up right where it left off. Be sure to consult with your attorney regarding the benefits and risks of exercising this option.

The second is to end the divorce proceedings. This can be done by filing a Request for Dismissal, which will dismiss the case in its entirety and if anything is on calendar, it will be taken off the court's calendar. It is often not a good idea to file a Request for Dismissal unless the parties have spent some time working on reconciliation and both parties are confident that the reconciliation will last. Otherwise, the case will need to be started all over again. One time a client called after an unexpected "romantic" weekend with the ex and asked to dismiss the case because they reconciled over the weekend. After advising the client to wait a few weeks to see if the reconciliation will work out, it took the parties about two weeks to realize that they were not going to be able to sucessfully reconcile. By not filing a Request for Dismissal right away, the client's custody and support motion remained on calendar and proceeded a few weeks later.

Unfortunately, what often happens is that the client disappears, meaning he or she stops communicating with their attorney and/or the court, thinking if they ignore the pending divorce, nothing will happen in it. That is not thecase. Disappearing does not stop or halt the divorce proceedings. Clients who choose to disappear may lose legal rights (especially regarding time sensative discovery deadlines) or suffer other adverse consequences should the reconciliation fail.

If you are in the middle of a divorce and wish to make a final attempt at reconciliation, you need to discuss it with your San Diego Divorce Attorney, who can advise you on the best way to protect your legal interests, whether the reconciliation succeeds or not.

Continue reading "Let's Stay Together" »

Massachusetts has passed a landmark law regarding alimony payments, The Wall Street Journal reports. The new law aims to end lifetime payments, particularly in retirement or once a former spouse finds a new partner.

Divorcing couples should know and understand the distinct differences between child support and alimony or spousal support in San Diego. Spousal support is generally 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.

Child support may be more collectible than spousal support -- i.e. the court system may be more likely to enforce the court's orders. And, of course, as we reported this summer on our San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog, cohabitation or remarriage generally does not impact child support payments in San Diego or elsewhere in California. That is not necessarily true of alimony or spousal support.

Spousal support can be awarded on a temporary or permanent basis. Temporary spousal support usually covers the period of time between separation and when a divorce ends. Permanent alimony is typically awarded based on the length of the marriage. A short-term marriage in California, one lasting less than 10 years, may result in an alimony award lasting up to half the length of the marriage. In long-term marriages, judges are given great discretion and payments may be awarded indefinitely.

Together with the initial property awarded to each spouse, the trifecta will go a long way toward determining your future quality of life.

As the Wall Street Journal reported, the recession has brought the contentious issue of long-term alimony to a boiling point. Statistics show unemployment has hit males the hardest. And, as the Baby Boomer generation hits the gates to retirement, many former husbands are looking to reduce or eliminate payments. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled lifetime alimony was inappropriate if a woman was in good health, had a stable job and had received considerable assets during a division of property. And Florida recently set a higher bar for permanent spousal support awards.

The new law in Massachusetts takes effect next March. Those paying lifetime alimony can apply for modifications beginning in 2013. For women counting on these payments in retirement, a reversal could be financially devastating. The New York Times reports the Massachusetts law calls for alimony for up to half the length of a marriage lasting less than five years. For long-term marriages -- those lasting 15 to 20 years -- payments could last for up to 80 percent of the length of the marriage.

Your attorney needs to work toward a divorce agreement that adequately provides in all three areas: property division, spousal support and child support. The pros and cons of each award must be weighed with the client's financial future in mind.

Continue reading "Alimony, Child Support, Property Division, a Financial Trifecta in San Diego Divorces" »

Shh. Big Brother is Watching!

Do you use Facebook, Twitter or other social media? If so, and you have filed for divorce in San Diego, you need to be aware that your posts, tweets and pictures may end up being entered as evidence in a court of law.

San Diego divorce lawyers are seeing many more cases involving social media. In just a few short years, this technology has become so pervasive that a California divorce lawyer would be remiss for not seeing what public information is available about a client's former spouse online. Whether as a source of information or evidence in a pending family law action, or the actual impetus for the divorce itself, social media has arrived on the scene in a big way. Consider the following:

• In March, the U.K's Guardian reported that social networking sites are becoming a primary source of evidence in divorce proceedings. The article even blames Facebook for connecting old flames and causing marital problems.

• A survey last year by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that 4 of 5 lawyers had seen an increase in divorce cases involving social media evidence.

• This month's Men's Health features an article detailing Twitter relationships a divorcing party participates in with multiple partners.

Although the Wall Street Journal reports the notion that 1 in 5 divorces are caused by Facebook is a fallacy, there is no doubt social media is a contributing cause in a substantial number of divorces. More and more attorneys are asking to see a spouse's Facebook page as a matter of course.

There have been sociological studies into the issue of why people behave the way they do on social networking sites. These studies reveal that people treat such social technology the way they would a close friend -- and that they confide information in a very public way -- information that is often best left unsaid, particularly if you are in the middle of a contentious divorce or child custody proceeding. For example:

• Posting wild and crazy pictures of you while on vacation is not a good idea. You should simply refrain from posting such pictures.

• Tweeting about job woes or problems with the kids is a bad idea. It is best to keep this information confidential.

• Posting about your alcohol or drug use (especially pictures) is a very, very bad idea. Do not do this under any circumstances.

A good rule of thumb is to not post anything to a social media site that you would want a judge to see. Otherwise, you may end up in the very uncomfortable position of explaining your posts, tweets or pictures to a judge in a court of law.

One more thing to consider is reviewing your friends as well as your privacy settings on Facebook and any other social media sites that you use. Your friends may still be talking to your ex, or to your ex's friends, allowing your ex, and his or her attorney, full access to all of the information you share on your social media sites. An increasing body of evidence continues to suggest this is advice best followed even if you are not in the midst of a divorce.

Your attorney will warn you about social media sites. Whether you heed the warning is up to you. There are few things can torpedo your case like your own words or pictures posted on a social media site for all to see.

Continue reading "Social Networking and Divorce in San Diego " »

The Associate Press is reporting that Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt will keep paying $225,000 in temporary spousal support to his ex-wife, Jamie McCourt, over the next couple of months, but that money once used toward the mortgages of six luxurious homes will come from a $1.1 million escrow account funded by the sale of one of their other homes that was located near the Playboy Mansion.

When child and spousal support are at issue in a San Diego divorce, the issues can be resolved two way; either by agreement of the parties, or the court will make an order after having a hearing on the issue.

When parties reach a support agreement outside of a court hearing, either on their own or through their attorneys, the agreement is called a "Stipulation." To become effective, the terms of the Stipulation must be written down and filed with the court.

When an agreement regarding child support is reached, the written Stipulation that is filed with the court is required by the San Diego County Superior Court Rules to contain the following child support acknowledgments:

1. Each party is fully informed of their rights concerning child support;
2. The order is being agreed to without coercion or duress;
3. The agreement is in the best interests of the child involved;
4. The needs of the child will be adequately met by the stipulated amount of support; and
5. The right to support has not been assigned to the county pursuant to section 11477 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and no public assistance application is pending.

Further, in San Diego County, all written stipulations for the payment of child support must also include the following mandatory language:

"The parties declare all of the following:
1. They are fully informed of their rights concerning child support;
2. The order is being agreed to without coercion or duress;
3. The agreement is in the best interests of the children involved;
4. The needs of the children will be adequately met by the stipulated amount; and
5. The right to support has not been assigned to any county pursuant to section 11477 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and/or Family Code section 17404, and no public assistance application is pending."

In addition to the mandatory acknowledgements and language, the following forms are required to be included with all child support orders (which include Stipulations):

1. A Child Support Case Registry Form must be properly filled out and included with all child support orders issued or modified pursuant to Family Code section 4014; and
2. A Notice of Rights and Responsibilities must be attached to all orders and judgments which include provisions for child support pursuant to Family Code sections 4062 and 4063.

The experienced San Diego Family Law Attorneys at the Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford are very familiar with all of the requirements of the California Family Code and the San Diego Country Superior Court Rules that must be followed whenever an agreement is reached to make sure the terms of the agreement are enforceable.

In cases in which a stipulation cannot be reached, we will vigorously argue your case at a hearing or trial.

If you are considering a divorce, the most important first step is to consult with an experienced San Diego Family Law Attorney. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County, La Jolla or San Diego to schedule an appointment with Nancy J. Bickford.

In a previous San Diego Divorce Attorney blog post, I discussed the factors the court looks at when a party is requesting to move with the children.

In two recent San Diego divorce cases, the court of appeal determined that the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standard when denying move away requests.

In both Mark T. v. Jamie Z. and F.T. v. L.J., the trial court was reversed for failing to assume that the move by the parent requesting the move will take place, and then under those circumstances, make a decision about with whom and under what circumstances the child should live. Instead, in both cases, the court denied the move-away and made its orders on the assumption that if the move was denied, the custodial parent would not move.

In Mark T. v. Jamie Z., Mother who had primary physical custody of Child, requested to move to Minnesota with the Child because she was unemployed and could not find work in San Diego, despite receiving child support and emergency state aid she was borrowing money from relatives to make ends meet, and she had family in Minnesota with whom she could live and provide child care assistance, the cost of living was lower and she planned to return to school part-time and had an internship in Minnesota. Although the FCS mediator recommended that Mother be allowed to move, the child psychologist believed the move should not be permitted because it was in the Child's best interest not to remove him from a loving and capable Father. The psychologist's recommendation assumed Mother would remain the primary care-taker with Father's time increasing from 30% to 50% when the Child turned 5 years old. The court denied the move-away and adopted the psychologist's recommendations, assuming that if the move-away was denied, that Mother would remain in San Diego with the child. The court of appeal reversed holding that the court misapplied the legal standard and avoided the ultimate question - what custody arrangement would be in the Child's best interests, assuming Mother moved. The court also did not base its decision on all of the move-away factors and the one's that were used, such as finding the move "suspect", were without a basis for the findings.

In F.T. v. L.J., Father, who had primary custody of Child, requested to move Washington state with the Child because he was marrying a Washington state resident. Father originally obtained primary custody after Mother abused the Child, and Mother was convicted for battery against the Child. Mother had supervised visitation, which was later modified to unsupervised visitation. Both FCS and the psychologist recommended against the move. FCS proposed alternative child sharing schedules depending on whether Father remained in San Diego or moved. The court denied the move-away, finding that the move was not in the Child's best interest and made an order assuming that Father would remain in San Diego. The Court of Appeal reversed holding that the court misapplied the legal standard, did not treat the Father's plan to move as serious, erroneously required Father to show the move was necessary, only considered impact on Child's relationship with Mother instead of all the move-away factors and failed to apply Family Code Section 3044's rebuttable presumption that Mother should not be awarded custody because of her criminal conviction for battery of the Child.

The court must apply all of the move-away factors, including:
• Reason for the move;
• Whether the move is to frustrate the other parent's contact;
• The child's interest in stability and continuity;
• Distance of the move;
• Age of the children;
• Child's relationship with both parents;
• Current child sharing.
• Child's Existing contact with both parents;
• The relationship between the parents;
• The wishes of the children if mature enough;
• Child's community ties;
• Child's health and educational needs;
• Child's circle of friends; and
• Child's sports/academic activities.
and make orders based on the assumption that the party requesting the move will move regardless of the court's decision. The court can also make conditional orders, stating what the parenting plan will be effective upon the party actually making the move.

Continue reading "Revisiting Move-Aways" »