Since Lamar Odom has found himself in the hospital following a drug and alcohol related incident on October 13, news of him and the related Kardashian clan has been spattered everywhere (yes, we didn’t think it was possible, but we are hearing even more about them than we do under usual circumstances). We are happy to hear that Lamar is on the road to a full recovery and sympathize with him and his loved ones as they go through this difficult time. This incident has brought other aspects of his life back into the spotlight, and the relationship between him and Khloe Kardashian had been the focus of much media attention as she has been spending a lot of time with Lamar in the hospital since the entire ordeal began.
Janus Friis, the co-founder of Skype, gave his Danish pop star girlfriend Aura Dione (real name Maria Louise Joenson) a $471,942 engagement ring when he popped the question in July of 2013. Among the platinum ring’s many diamonds are a 1.76 carat center diamond, two pear-shaped blue diamonds weighing in at .91 carats, and 1.75 more carats of blue and pink diamonds. Once they were engaged, he also gave her an apartment in Copenhagen and cash gifts. Unfortunately, Friis later found out that his pop star love had been sleeping around with other men and called off the engagement.
Megan Fox may pay “manimony”…shows us alimony isn’t just for the ladies anymore!
After a 5 year marriage, Megan Fox filed for divorce from Brian Austin Green in August. While there has been much speculation since then as to whether Fox would be on the hook for spousal support, it seems that Green has just confirmed the possibility by his response filed September 29, 2015, on which he reportedly checked that magic little box requesting spousal support be paid to him by Fox.
The divorce battle between celebrity Chef Bobby Flay and his Wife of a little over 10 years, Stephanie March, have been anything but civil. At the heart of the divorce is a premarital agreement executed by the parties before they said their nuptials. The agreement clearly lays out what Stephanie is entitled to receive with regard to property and support. The jury is still out on whether the premarital agreement will hold up, but that is a blog for another day.
The most recent fight (of which there have been many) revolves around a racehorse named “Dad’s Crazy” which Bobby allegedly purchased for Stephanie back in 2009. Stephanie alleges the horse was purchase as a 4th anniversary gift. Apparently the horse was quite successful, raising in excess of $130,000 in winnings, which according to Stephanie, Bobby kept to himself. The horse has subsequently sold for $60,000 and, again according to Stephanie, Bobby kept the sale’s proceeds as well.
If you have followed our blog for any amount of time, you will know that any property acquired during marriage that was acquired by way of “gift” is the separate property of the recipient of the gift (Family Code §770). Seems pretty simple, right? Bobby (allegedly) gave the horse to Stephanie as a gift and therefore it is her separate property. It would then follow that the winnings and the sale’s proceeds would also be her separate property.
You know if it were that simple I would not be writing this blog. You see gifts between spouses do not work the same as gifts to a spouse from a third party. Gifts from third parties are almost always the separate property of the recipient. I say “almost always” because this is family law after all, and nothing is ever perfectly certain.
When you have a gift between spouses you need to have writing transferring the property from either the separate property or community property of the giver of the gift to the separate property of the recipient for there to be a valid transmutation; which is just a fancy word for changing the character of the property. The simple reason (and yes, I am simplifying this a great deal – I could spend several blogs discussing transmutations) is that you need to be able to prove intent. Generally this comes in the form of a writing of some kind.
The exception to the requirement for a valid transmutation is found in Family Code §852(c) which says:
“This section does not apply to a gift between the spouses of clothing, wearing apparel, jewelry, or other tangible articles of a personal nature that is used solely or principally by the spouse to whom the gift is made and that is not substantial in value taking into account the circumstances of the marriage.”
This short code section is the reason why parties, almost without exception, keep their engagement and wedding rings, jewelry, personal property and clothing acquired during marriage. These items are easy to distinguish, because they are specifically mentioned in the statute. The analysis becomes more difficult when you get to the line “or other tangible articles of a personal nature.”
This is one of those sentences that absolutely defies a precise definition, but as Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Potter Stewart, said when he was asked to describe the threshold test for obscenity, “I’ll know it when I see it.” That’s just it, it will always be a case by case basis.
As an example, in the case Marriage of Buie and Neighbors, Husband argued that Wife’s gift of a Porsche given to him for his birthday was his separate property under the exception in Section 852(c). The court disagreed holding that an automobile is not an article of a personal nature within the meaning of the section. Though it probably would not have changed the court’s holding, it is worth noting that Husband purchased the car with Wife’s separate property as a birthday gift, without first asking Wife if that was okay.
So, how will “Dad’s Crazy” be worked out? If I was a betting man (and I am…I was raised in Las Vegas after all), I would bet on the horse being deemed community property, and Bobby will be entitled to recoup any money he put into the horse’s purchase. As for the money that was earned by “Dad’s Crazy,” that will also be community property subject to reimbursement by Bobby. This all assumes there is no provision in the premarital agreement about purchases made during marriage and how they are treated upon dissolution.
Divorce can be a stressful time and while The Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford, APC endeavors to ensure our cases are resolved amicably, sometimes emotions can run wild and your ex-spouse can lash out at you. For Example Mariah Carey’s new single “Infinity” appears to bad mouth her ex Nick Cannon. While most of us do not have the national exposure of Mariah Carey, we all have broad networks of friends and colleges that we often share with a spouse. So what can you do when your ex-spouse starts badmouthing you to others, especially to your children?
Your ex-spouse disparaging you to others is a tricky situation that can affect your family law case, but it all depends on who is within earshot. You or your ex-spouse venting privately to friends and colleagues can be a normal aspect of any divorce case; we are all only human after all and it is usually benign. Even if these statements get back to you, there is little that can be done unless you feel threatened or unduly harassed and require a domestic violence restraining order. The disparaging language can become much more serious when your ex-spouse continually disparages you to your child directly or by using a third party and it can become a very serious issue in child custody disputes. Another phrase for this is type of behavior is parental alienation; when one parent tries through various means to hinder the relationship between a parent and child.
So how do you know if your ex spouse’s behavior rises to the level requiring you to take action? As a parent you’ll notice if your child’s behavior has changed towards you, beyond the normal stresses of his or her parent’s splitting up. You may notice your child acting out toward you and/or blaming you for the divorce or custody proceeding. They may be withdrawing and not wanting to spend time with you.
While your ex-spouse may be acting purposefully, they also may be having trouble dealing with their own emotions regarding the divorce. There are several common ways one parent can disparage the other. First, the parent can speak badly about the other parent directly to their child. This can include saying that the other parent is the cause of the divorce, that the other parent does not love the child, that the other parent chose a new romantic partner over the child, or other inappropriate comments. Second, one parent can utilize third parties, such as siblings or grandparents, to speak ill of the other parent. Third, involving the child in a family law proceeding, this can include either allowing the child access to court paperwork, or distorting the family law proceedings to make the other parent look like the bad actor.
You may wonder why the court frowns on this behavior? There are multiple reasons but the main one is that it can affect the child’s relationship with their parents. During any custody dispute, the court is always going to try to make decisions based upon what the judge determines is your child’s best interest. One fact they will consider is the ability for your child to have meaningful and continual contact with both parents and whether both parents have the ability to co-parent with one another. In the case of Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon, the entire world is privy to her thoughts on Nick, but the most important people in the eyes of the court would likely be their children, Monroe and Moroccan Scott Cannon. The court does not approve of one parent making negative comments to the children about the other parent. If your ex-spouse’s behavior is hurting your relationship with your child the court has multiple ways it can intervene to try and help from ordering reunification therapy, to ordering the appointment of minor’s counsel.
If you feel that your relationship with your child is being damaged by your ex-spouse, the Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford is experienced in dealing with complex, emotionally charged child custody cases and has the tools you need to ensure you are able to maintain a good relationship with your children.
Anyone with access to cable television or the internet probably knows more about the Kardashian family than they know about their own family. The Kardashian clan has broadcast their ups, their downs, weddings, births, break ups and in Khloe Kardashian’s case, her divorce from former NBA star, Lamar Odom. More than 16 months ago, Khloe Kardashian filed for divorce from Lamar Odom amidst allegations of infidelity and drug abuse by the former Los Angeles Laker. And while Khloe appears to have moved on, given her highly publicized romance with French Montana, her divorce case is still pending in Los Angeles Superior Court; at least for now that is.
According to reports, if Khloe does not take further action to pursue her case, the Court will consider dismissing the case all together. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.410, “The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.”
Failure to prosecute in the family law arena would consist of one of three time frames. They are:
1. Failure to serve the summons and complaint within 2 years after the action is commenced against the Respondent [Code of Civil Procedure § 583.420(a)(1)];
2. Failure to bring the case to trial within 3 years after the action is commenced against the Respondent [Code of Civil Procedure § 583.420(a)(2)]; and 3. Failure to bring to retrial within 2 years after a mistrial, order granting retrial or reversal on appeal [Code of Civil Procedure § 583.420(a)(3)].
The exception to this rule is when there is a valid support order or custody orders pending. In that case, the court cannot dismiss a divorce case for failure to prosecute. One way to avoid having your case dismissed under Section 583.410 is to bifurcate the issue of marital status and ask the court to terminate your marriage. This means that you are divorced from the other party, but the court must still resolve the financial issues in your case. In this case, the court will not dismiss your case under Section 583.410
If your case is dismissed under Section 583.410, it will be as if you never filed for divorce in the first place. The six-month waiting period will start over again; you will have to file a new Petition for Dissolution, including paying the filing fee; and will have to perform all of the mandatory disclosure required by statute.
The Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano saga just won’t go away. In a Statement of Tentative Decision released by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Furin, he ordered Stiviano to return the community property “gifts” she received from Donald Sterling.
According to the decision, which Stiviano is expected to appeal, she must return approximately $2.6 million dollars in cash, cars, and real estate she received from Mr. Sterling. Back before Stiviano leaked the secret recording of Donald Sterling making racist remarks, which ultimately resulted in him being forced to sell the Clippers, Shelley Sterling filed suit against Stiviano for return of these “gifts.” Her reason…simple; the gifts Donald made to Stiviano were not his to make. They belonged to the Sterling community, and he had no right to make the gifts.
Shelly Sterling focused her action against Stiviano using Family Law statutes of joint management and control as well as the prohibition against giving gifts to third parties without the written consent of the other spouse. [Family Code Section 1100]. This is a common argument made by one spouse against the other during a divorce action; however I have never seen it made against the third party seeking return of the gift. In the typical case, the spouse who made the unauthorized gift is charged with the value of the gift in the division of the community estate. In this case, Shelly Sterling filed a separate civil complaint against Stiviano seeking return of the gifts on equitable grounds. In either case, the party seeking return of the gifts from a third party or to charge the other spouse with the gift, must prove the amount of the gift, when it was given, and that the other side did not authorize the gift to me made.
The Court found that Shelly Sterling met her burden and ordered Stiviano to return the gifts. [It’s important to note, many of the gifts were for cash or cars which Stiviano has either spent or sold, so she will have to come up with the cash to satisfy the Judgment.] As for the house…well that has been transferred to the Sterling Family Trust who is now the legal owner.
This was a unique approach taken by the court; that is ordering the gifts, or their cash equivalent, to be returned by the mistress and not charged to the cheating spouse. The reason is simple; the Sterlings are not divorcing each other and were married during the time period the gifts were made. One important factor, which I will not discuss in this blog, is the Court made a finding that Donald and Shelly were not separated at the time these gifts were made. That was a big part of the Court’s ruling. I will be very interested in the opinion of the Court of Appeals on the very novel ruling by Judge Furin.
What does that mean to you as a family law litigant…it means you have another party to seek relief from if you learn your spouse has been lavishing gifts on a third party during a period you were married. This is, at least for now. We will have to see what the Appellate Court has to say if/when Stiviano appeals the Judge’s ruling.
In today’s fast-paced, “money-hungry” world, finding a balance between work and family life seems to be a constant struggle for many people. Many people blame their job or their spouse’s job as the root of the cause of their divorce. There have been studies done that indicate that a person’s particular occupation can be a predictor of whether a marriage is more likely to succeed or fail.
Perhaps it’s that people with certain personalities are drawn to certain jobs. Or maybe it’s that the job itself leads to a higher chance of divorce because of the number of hours spent away from your spouse, the increased chance of infidelity, or the extent of the toll your job takes on you mentally, emotionally, or physically. Either way, people in certain jobs appear to have a higher risk for divorce over people in other professions.
A 2009 study entitled, “A Comparison of Law Enforcement Divorce Rates with Those of Other Occupations” was published in the “Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology” and is based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census.
Highest divorce rates by profession include:
• Dancers and Choreographers – 43.05%
• Bartenders – 38.43%
• Massage Therapists – 38.22%,
• Entertainers, Performers and Professional Athletes – 28.49%.
Considering the fact that bartenders are constantly interacting with people of the opposite sex, there is easy access to alcohol and late night work schedules, it makes sense that they are among the group of professions with a high divorce rate. Similarly, massage therapists spend a significant amount of time in private settings with their client, which has a higher chance of leading to infidelity and a subsequent divorce. The lifestyle of an entertainer, performer or athlete is not necessarily conducive to married life due to the fact that they are on the road often and away from their spouse. The large amount of fans make the possibility of adultery more likely, which again, is a big cause of divorce.
Lowest divorce rates by profession include:
• Engineers, legislators, dentists and farmers – less than 10%
These jobs tend to yield a steady/higher income, which may help married couples avoid financial arguments. These careers also typically require a high level of communication, which is likely to also play a role in keeping the marriage together.
Gwyneth Paltrow’s split from Coldplay’s lead vocalist, Chris Martin, has been anything but ugly. Most celebrity divorces are buzzed about because of the crazy scandals that supposedly caused the divorce and the long-drawn out fights over money and custody that typically ensue. However, Paltrow and Martin have proven to have a refreshing approach to their divorce thus far…an approach I hope to see more of my clients taking in the future, mostly for the sake of their children.
The 42 year-old actress and Oscar winner is featured on the cover of the February 2015 issues of Marie Claire. In the magazine’s article she reveals that there was nothing dramatic that caused her divorce from Martin. Rather, Paltrow explains that her 11 year relationship with Martin simply “hit a wall.” In California, this type of situation would likely constitute “irreconcilable differences” as grounds for filing for divorce.
A lot of people get divorced because they are ready to focus on themselves, rather than continuing to try and make a failed relationship work. The best way to start this newfound journey of self-discovery and happiness is to not allow your divorce to get emotionally out of hand. This may be easier said than done but Paltrow seems to be evidence that it can be done. Paltrow and Martin have two children together, Apple, 10, and Moses, 8, and are allegedly treating each other with respect and even being supportive of their dating decisions, for the sake of their own sanity and the well-being of their children.
While appearing on The Howard Stern Show Paltrow explained that she’s okay with Martin dating other women because she knows that he loves the kids and that “he wouldn’t be with someone that wasn’t great.” So many times, people going through a divorce spend so much time focusing their attention on jealousy, anger and resentment towards their ex-spouse. But what they should be focusing on is the kids instead, with the understanding that their ex-spouse is likely going to continue to be in their life for quite some time as a co-parent. Paltrow seems to understand that importance of thinking about what her kids needs are, rather than her own, and working towards making the kids’ lives better despite the divorce. Letting go of the fact that your ex-spouse is dating a new person, so long as he/she is good to your kids, is one way to not let the divorce take a turn for the worse.
It comes as no big surprise that Katharine McPhee, American Idol finalist and actress in Smash and Scorpion, is divorcing her husband, Nick Cokas after six years of marriage. The couple became estranged about a year ago when McPhee was photographed kissing Smash director, Michael Morris, after the two of them had lunch together in Los Angeles. At the time, Morris was married, and actually still is married, to actress Mary McCormack.
TMZ reports that in McPhee’s divorce documents she claims that she was separated from Cokas at the time of the kissing incident with Morris. Cokas, on the other hand, is claiming in his responsive divorce documents that the separation was actually in May 2014, seven months after the kissing incident between McPhee and Morris. The couple’s date of separation is a significant point of contention because it will determine what portion of the money that Katharine has recently made will be considered her sole and separate property, rather than community property. McPhee has approximately $700,000 owed to her from Columbia/Epic records, so this isn’t exactly a small chunk of change that we’re talking about.
Although the public might assume that kissing someone other than your spouse means that the married couple is separated, this isn’t necessarily true. From a legal perspective, a couple’s date of separation is the first date when either party subjectively decided the marriage was over, and not salvageable, and their overt actions demonstrate that subjective frame of mind. Physical separation is not sufficient to show that you are separated because some people live separate but do not intend to end their marriage. The Court will look at your conduct toward each other to determine when the marriage “ended” for purposes of choosing the date of separation.
An instance of infidelity is also not sufficient to determinatively set the parties date of separation. Since the kissing incident, it was reported that McPhee and Cokas were working on their marriage and that Morris and McCormack had also reconciled. McPhee and Cokas were even see walking their dogs together and smiling. Cokas also claims that he has plenty of evidence to show that they didn’t separate until May 2014. He claims that he has emails and texts evidencing their relationship. Other sources also claim that the couple was in marriage counseling after the kissing incident in an effort to save their marriage. So just because McPhee was caught kissing another man, doesn’t mean that was their date of separation.