We have written several blogs about the date of separation and its importance to a dissolution action. In some cases, the date of separation can be the most critical issue in a case. The reason is the date of separation can be a significant factor in determining how long spousal support will last , or whether a particular piece of property is separate or community. If you Google “date of separation,” your web browser will retrieve dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on this topic.
If you haven’t heard the news by now, I can only assume that you have been living under a rock or buried in a media-less hole for some time now. And yes, by “the news”, I mean the news of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s impending divorce.
When Angelina filed her petition for divorce on September 19 the split quickly became the only thing that anyone has talked about since, or so it seems. Although the couple has been together for 12 years, and have 6 kids together, they were only married for a short two years, and the divorce came as a complete shock to the public, and apparently also came as a complete shock to Brad himself. Continue reading
Last year, we wrote a blog post on the blockbuster case of Marriage of Davis issued by the California Supreme Court. In that case, the Court resolved a split among the lower courts and held that it was impossible for spouses to be separated unless they were physically living separate and apart. The date of separation can be the most important issue in a given case. The date of separation determines the duration of spousal support and it determines the end of the community and the end of the creation of new community property.
You probably didn’t need to come to this web site to know that California has laws compelling parents to financially support their children. The reasons for this are obvious. When parents make the decision to procreate, they are financially responsible for that decision. I think we can all agree that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to support a child when one or both of that child’s parents can do so themselves. It should be no surprise then, that Family Code section 4053 holds that “a parent’s first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children acceding to the parent’s circumstances and station in life” and that the “financial needs of the children should be met through private financial resources as much as possible.”
Did you know, however, that there is such thing as “parent support” in California too?
There are so many reasons a client wants to remain in the family home after the divorce proceedings have been filed. Often it is a custodial parent who wants to provide normalcy for their children. Other times it is for financial or emotional reasons, or a combination of the three. Whatever the reason, unless one party agrees to move out of the residence, a court order will be required to exclude a party from living in the family residence.
Deciding who will remain in the residence at the beginning of a case is a problem nearly every family law litigant will face; requiring the assistance of the court in reaching that decision is far less common. In most cases, one or both parties will decide to leave the family residence. In these situations it is important to have a written agreement about who is leaving, who is staying, and how the expenses related to the residence are going to be paid. These agreements are where most of the controversy lies, especially with regard to the payment of the expenses. That is an issue that should be addressed in a separate blog.
On June 13 Lisa Marie Presley filed for divorce from her fourth husband, Michael Lockwood. While Lisa Marie isn’t the only star we’ve written about to go through multiple divorces, her specific case highlights a common and sometimes very complicated issue in divorce which occurs when one spouse has taken control of the finances and the other has little to no involvement in financial matters (the so-called “out spouse” is the one who stayed out of financial matters during the marriage). Continue reading
As divorce attorneys, it is often useful to recall the reasons that people get married in the first place. We may try not to be cynical of the union of marriage, but it is easier said than done when every day is spent helping people navigate through their divorces. And, especially in light of the monumental victories that have recently come for same sex couples and the right to marry, it may be a better time than ever to take a step back and examine some of the reasons why people may decide to get married, or why people ever fought for the right to marry.
According to a recent study highlighted by the Wall Street Journal, two economists at Emory University identified a correlation between expensive weddings and high divorce rates. In addition, the researchers also noted a connection between the price of the engagement ring and the rate of divorce. The more expensive the ring, the more often the marriage ends in divorce. Despite the statistical link between an expensive wedding or engagement ring and a subsequent divorce; the researchers were not able to conclude that the price of the wedding or the engagement ring was the cause of the divorce.
The Knot, a popular website used by brides to plan their dream weddings, reports that the average U.S. wedding costs approximately $30,000. The wedding industry today is brings in roughly $52 billion dollars in revenue each year. As a result, the industry pushes the idea that expensive weddings result in long-lasting happy marriages. In addition, the more the couple spends on their special day, the more they must love each other and want to share their joy with friends and family. Although the economists discovered that high attendance at less expensive weddings is actually correlated to a long-term marriage, the price for wedding guests to attend the wedding (often priced per person) is typically the most expensive part of a wedding.
The study conducted by the economists tends to disprove the message perpetrated by the wedding industry based on the following findings:
Cost of the Engagement Ring: Couples who spent between $2,000 and $4,000 on an engagement ring are 1.3 times more likely to get divorced than couples who spent between $500 and $2,000 on an engagement in. It looks like less is more when it comes to the ring after all.
Cost of the Wedding: Couples who spent $20,000 or more on the wedding were 1.6 times more likely to get divorced.
Common Factors in Long-Term Marriages: High wedding attendance, taking a honeymoon, relatively high household income, regular attendance of religious services, and having at least one child together.
These initial findings are interesting, but the economists are not finished with their work on this subject. They are discussing additional research which dives deeper into specific populations and following couples through multiple stages of their relationship.
24 year old rapper, Iggy Azalea, and her former boyfriend, Maurice Williams (akak Hefe Wine) are apparently heading to family law court over an alleged marriage that Azalea apparently knew nothing about. Williams filed for divorce claiming that the couple was common-law married in the state of Texas. Williams claims that they held themselves out as man and wife and lived together beginning in September 2008, when Azalea was only 18 years old. Azalea, on the other hand, claims that they were merely dating for about six months and that Williams’ is pulling this “divorce” stunt in a desperate attempt to get money from her now that she has become famous.
Common law marriage is a legally recognized marriage between a couple that does not have a marriage license nor had a marriage ceremony to solemnize their union. On her twitter account Azalea even states that “Unfortunately to file common law ‘divorce’ all you need is three of your friends to sign a statement swearing the persons story is true.” If the Texas family Court judge recognizes the common law marriage between the couple, then all of Azalea’s assets (i.e. music worth millions of dollars) acquired during the marriage could potentially be split 50/50 since Texas is a community property state.
Only a handful of states even recognize common law marriage. These states include Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Utah and Texas. In Texas, a common law marriage is only recognized when either a formal declaration of the marriage has been signed and filed with the County Clerk or the couple agreed to be married and then lived together in Texas as husband and wife and represented to others that they were married. If either party is under the age of 18 then a common law marriage will not be recognized. Azalea’s rep claims that she never agreed to be married to Williams and she most certainly never held herself out as a married couple.
Before Williams and Azalea can even get a “divorce” Williams will need to prove to the court that they actually had a common law marriage. He will need to prove to the Court that he and Azalea agreed to be married, lived together as husband and wife and held themselves out to others as a married couple. One way to prove this is to have a recorded declaration of marriage, which is a form that is filed with the Couty Clerk’s Offices and says that you are married. Since Azalea apparently had no clue about their alleged common law marriage, it is doubtful that they have a declaration of marriage. Other ways of proving their common law marriage is with an insurance policy, lease or other agreements signed as a “married couple. You could also bring people to court who will confirm that you held yourself out to be married.
If Williams and Azalea’s situation had occurred in California, then Williams would not be able to file for “divorce” because California does not recognize common law marriage. In certain situations, partners in California who are not married might be able to bring what’s known as a “Marvin Claim”, but that is not the same as a common law marriage.
A recent ballot initiative in Colorado might just make saying “I do” a little bit more complex by requiring couples engaged to be married to attend a designated number of hours of state-mandated pre-marital education classes before tying the knot. The ballot initiative was proposed by a California organization known as Kids Against Divorce. The organization intends to introduce similar measure across the country in the future. Perhaps California will be next.
According to the Denver Post, the proposed initiative, known as the Colorado Marriage Education Act, would require first time couples to attend 10 hours of marriage education. For those planning to walk down the aisle for the second time, 20 hours of marriage education would be required. And for those walking down the aisle for a third time, 30 hours of marriage education would be mandated before being allowed to get their marriage license. There would of course be an exception for widows, who would be held to the same requirement as those getting married for the first time. After completing the required amount of education, couples would be issued a “Marriage Course Completion Certificate” by the Colorado State Board of Marriage and Family Therapist Examiners.
As with any proposed ballot initiative, requiring couples to attend pre-marital education classes has its pros and cons. Proponents of the ballot initiative argue that it aims to convey the message that a marriage license should be treated like a driver’s license, license to practice law, cosmetology license, or any other license. If these other licenses require a minimum amount of education to prepare a person to drive or practice in their career, why shouldn’t a marriage license require the same to prepare individuals to fulfill their future role as a spouse and potentially as a parent? Proponents further argue that the requirement wouldn’t be overly burdensome and it’s worth it to potentially help couples go into their marriage as a stronger couple unit with more knowledge and better prepared for the commitment they will be making. Furthermore, there is the high potential for a reduction in divorces and in turn a reduction in the significant amount of taxpayer dollars spent each year on courts that handle divorces. On another note, proponents argue that many people would benefit from the tax credit that the ballot initiative offers to married couples who voluntarily choose to complete continuing marital education.
However, as would be expected, there are some Colorado residents who vehemently oppose the proposed measure. These individuals are arguing that it is an overstepping of the government to decide what education people should or should not receive before getting hitched. Others seem to feel that they are ready to get married without the need for education classes or that education classes that they are already taking through their church should be sufficient. Or maybe it’s the cost associated with the education classes (and paid for by the couples) that is the source of outrage for opponents.