San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

Back in September 2012, Jason Aldean was caught kissing previous American Idol contestant, turned NBA-cheerleader, Brittany Kerr. However, this kiss turned into quite the smooching scandal considering Aldean has been married for over 11 years to teenage-sweetheart, Jessica Ussery. Not surprisingly, Aldean recently filed for divorce in Tennessee. TMZ reports that the couple cited "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for the split.

As San Diego attorneys know, one of the only two grounds for divorce here in California is "irreconcilable differences (see website page entitled "Grounds for Divorce or Legal Separation" for more details on both "irreconcilable differences" and "incurable insanity"). It is quite common for divorcing couples to cite "irreconcilable differences" as their reason for their divorce, but what really constitutes an "irreconcilable difference"? Is it more than just one spouse cheating on the other?

Read more about divorce and irreconcilable differences

Although infidelity alone may seem like a pretty good reason for divorce, such infidelity must lead to "irreconcilable differences" between the couple since California is a no-fault state. (See website page entitled "Grounds for Divorce or Legal Separation" for more details on "no-fault"). In general, "irreconcilable differences means that the spouses can no longer agree on basic, fundamental issues involving the marriage and that they will never agree, such that there is no chance of reconciliation. Thus, when a divorce is based on "irreconcilable differences," any past cheating scandal by one spouse doesn't matter, what matters is that one or both spouses agree that the marriage won't work any longer and that it's clear to a judge that there is no chance that the marriage can be saved.

Learn the answers to frequently asked questions about divorce in San Diego

There is no black-letter list of what constitutes "irreconcilable differences." Rather, it is a quite vague standard and San Diego Family Courts often broadly interpret "irreconcilable differences". Some of factors that San Diego courts may look at to determine if there has been a marriage breakdown may include: 1) difference of interests; 2) long physical separation; 3) antagonistic feelings that are irreversible; 4) resentment; 5) distrust; 6) financial difficulties affecting the marriage; 7) conflict of personality; and 8) lack of mutual concern for emotional needs of each other.

Although Aldean has urged everyone not to cast judgment on his recent filing for divorce, one can only assume that Aldean's smooching scandal with Kerr likely led to distrust, resentment and irreversible antagonistic feelings between Aldean and Ussery, thus leading to what a court will likely interpret to constitute "irreconcilable differences".

Continue reading "Celebrity Divorce - Jason Aldean Divorcing Wife Based on Irreconcilable Differences" »

On April 12, 2013, Kim Kardashian arrived at the family courthouse in Los Angeles to attend her Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC"). As San Diego divorce attorneys are aware, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement and must proceed to trial for court intervention on any issues, they are required to attend a MSC before the trial. An MSC is a settlement conference run by a local experienced family law attorney who attempts to help the parties reach an agreement outside of court. Unfortunately Kardashian and her attorney were the only ones to attend this conference. As it is impossible for two people to reach an agreement when one of them is not present, the MSC did not go forward.

Learn more about the San Diego divorce process

As attendance at a Mandatory Settlement Conference is not optional, MSC's tend to foster settlement in cases in which the parties could not previously reach an agreement. By the time an MSC is set by the Court, discovery is coming to a close and both parties should have enough information to reach an agreement. MSC's give the parties and divorce attorneys a chance to sit down in person and attempt to hash out the disputed issues. This may be the first time in the entire case that the parties and attorneys communicated together in person. With the time and expense of trial fast approaching, parties can be highly motivated to settle the case at an MSC. It is evident that Humphries was not motivated to settle his divorce case. In fact, as we have previously blogged, he had dragged out the process for over a year.

After clearing out the courtroom for the celebrity divorce hearing, the Court was not pleased when Humphries "no-showed". As a result, the Court, on its own motion, set a hearing for sanctions to be imposed against Humphries. On April 19, 2013, the Court convened to give Humphries a chance to explain his disrespectful behavior towards the Court and the divorce process. Sanctions could have been awarded by California family courts, however in an unexpected turn of events, Judge Goldberg has granted Kim Kardashian a divorce from Kris Humphries. The judgment has yet to be fully entered, and is expected to be finalized by the court by June 16th.

Read more articles from the Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford about celebrity divorce

In San Diego, family law attorneys often request the court order sanctions against the opposing party. Under Family Code §271, the Court may award monetary sanctions if it determines that one party is frustrating the public policy to promote settlement. It is clear by Humphries failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference that he was intentionally frustrating the settlement of his divorce case. Thus, at the April 19th hearing, if Ms. Kardashian had not asked the court to drop the sanctions matter (as reported by Today), the Los Angeles court could have imposed a sanction against Humphries. Had this happened, it would have likely been pursuant to Family Code §271. The amount of sanctions is usually set at an amount sufficient to deter repetition of the party's bad behavior.

Continue reading "Celebrity Divorce - Kris Humphries Skips Mandatory Settlement Conference" »

Funk music innovator, George Clinton, and his wife of 23 years, Stephanie Clinton, are now amidst a battle over spousal support. TMZ reports that Stephanie is now seeking Clinton pay up and is requesting the court to order both temporary and permanent spousal support. Clinton is reportedly not too pleased about this request because he had previously claimed that the couple had been separated for many years and they didn't have any shared bank accounts or real estate. However, Stephanie is requesting that the court make Clinton disclose all of his finances, including taxes, bank accounts, etc. Stephanie wants to know exactly how much spousal support she is entitled to after their 23 years of marriage. The question remains, to what extent does Clinton really have to disclose?

As divorce attorneys know, declarations of disclosure are essentially the backbone of a divorce case. In California, Preliminary declarations of disclosure are mandatory. Final Declarations of disclosure, on the other hand, may be waived by both parties. With regards to disclosure, California Family Code Section 2100(c) requires complete disclosure of all assets and all debts that the parties may have any interest in. The disclosure must occur early in the divorce or legal separation process, and must occur together with a disclosure of all income and expenses.

Read more about fiduciary duty and divorce in California

Types of Disclosure:

Such disclosure requires preparation of the following documents by divorce attorneys:

1. Schedule of Assets and Debts;


2. Income and Expense Declaration;


3. Statement of material facts regarding valuation of all community property assets;


4. Statement of material facts regarding obligations that the community is liable for; and


5. Disclosure of any investment opportunity, business opportunity or other income-producing opportunity.

While these forms may seem fairly simple and straightforward, it is very important that divorce attorneys advise their clients to be extremely open and comply with the full disclosure requirement. This means that that ALL liabilities and ALL assets must be accurately disclosed. This often requires the client to spend a lot of time thumbing through old files of financial statements to find the most recent balances and accurate information. It is also vital that divorce attorneys remind their clients that the disclosure requirement applies to assets and liabilities that the client may have in the future, such as potential business opportunities that the client is aware of. Even though the client may think that an asset or debt is a separate property item, it must still be disclosed in accordance with California Family Code Section 2100.

Learn more about property and divorce

Failure to Disclose = Sanctions?!

Failure to comply with disclosure requirements can result in significant sanctions, so clients should think twice about leaving out an asset or two. For instance, in In re Marriage of Feldman (2007), 153 Cal. App.4th 1470, the Husband failed to disclose numerous transactions and the formation of new companies, which were all quite significant. Wife found out about these assets by other means and filed for sanctions pursuant to California Family Code Sections 1101(g), 2107(c) and 271(a). The court held that husband could be sanctioned, and as a result Wife was granted $250,000 in sanctions! The court reasoned that Husband had an obligation to fully disclose all material facts and information regarding all assets in which the community has or may have had an interest.

So, despite his reluctance, it looks like Clinton is going to have to fork over some financial paperwork so that a fair determination can be made regarding how much spousal support Stephanie is entitled to. If he fails to do so, looks like some pretty hefty sanctions may be in his future.

Continue reading "George Clinton's Wife Demands Full Disclosure in Battle Over Spousal Support" »

Former MLB and NFL legend, Deion Sanders, is use to battling to the top. But this time, his three children were on the line. As we have previously blogged, Sanders filed for divorce in 2011. Luckily for Sanders, he came out on top again when a Texas judge recently awarded him full custody of his 9 year old daughter. Sanders had also previously been awarded full custody of his two sons, 11 and 13, but had only been given joint custody of his daughter with estranged wife, Pilar. This leaves us to wonder, what exactly does Sanders' "full custody" award entail? As divorce attorneys know, in California, two types of custody exist: "legal" and "physical". Each type of child custody may be awarded solely to one parent or shared jointly between divorcing parents.

Legal Custody:

Legal custody refers to a parent's right to make decisions about the child's health, welfare and education. If a parent is awarded "sole legal custody" by the court, then he/she is the only one who has the right to make such decisions and may do so without consulting with the other parent. However, when divorcing parents are awarded "joint legal custody," they both have the right to make decisions about the child's health, welfare, and education.

Since Sanders has been awarded sole legal custody of all three children, he now has full range to make decisions about where the kids will go to school, whether they should receive medical care and whether they will engage in religious activities, without consulting with Pilar.

Read more about the divorce process in San Diego

Physical Custody:

Physical custody, on the other hand, refers to where the child lives after divorce. The parent who has physical custody is the one who has the right to have the child physically with them and in their home. Physical custody, like legal custody, can be awarded solely to one parent or shared jointly. When a divorce lawyer makes an argument for "Sole physical custody," this means that the child will reside with only one parent. That parent is typically referred to by attorneys and the court as the "custodial" or "residential" parent. Divorce lawyers and judges refer to the other parent as the "non-custodial" or "non-residential" parent. It is important to note that the court can still order visitation time for the non-custodial parent.

Learn more about the family law attorneys at the firm

"Joint physical custody" means that a child's time is divided equally, or close to equally, between both parents. Family lawyers in San Diego will draft such custody orders so that each parent has separate but significant periods of physical custody. Typically, parents share joint legal custody of their children. Divorce attorneys will argue for sole legal custody if one parent is deemed unfit, the parents are completely unable to make decisions together, or it would be in the child's best interest to have sole legal custody with one parent. For Sanders, winning the child custody battle with Pilar now means that all three kids will be living with dad!

Continue reading "Celebrity Divorce - Deion Sanders Awarded Full Custody of Children" »

A premarital agreement, more commonly known as a "prenup," is a contract entered into by soon-to-be spouses prior to marriage. Celebrities commonly enter premarital agreements in order to protect any wealth they may acquire during marriage. Where one spouse has the potential to make millions of dollars per year, as is often the case in Del Mar, he or she is incentivized to enter into a contract with his or her spouse clarifying that any money earned during marriage will remain his or her separate property upon divorce. In contrast, under California's default community property laws, each spouse is entitled to one-half of all earnings by his or her spouse during marriage. One of the most highly debated issues in celebrity premarital agreement negotiations and litigation is an infidelity clause.

Learn more about quasi-community property

As divorce attorneys know, all premarital agreements are different, and thus all infidelity clauses are different. However, an infidelity clause generally imposes a financial penalty on one or both spouses if he or she commits emotional or sexual infidelity. Financial penalties may include mandatory cash payouts, increased spousal support, or an unequal division of the marital estate. In order to protect themselves in case of divorce, celebrities couples such as Charlie Sheen & Denise Richards, Sandra Bullock & Jesse James, and Catherine-Zeta Jones & Michael Douglas are rumored to have had infidelity clauses in their premarital agreements. Recently, Elin Nordegren was rumored to have demanded a substantial infidelity clause in a premarital agreement as a condition of reconciling with Tiger Woods.

Ironically, despite the buzz about celebrity infidelity clauses in premarital agreements, infidelity clauses are void in Del Mar and across California. In Diosdado v. Diosdado, the California divorce court found in 2002 that a penalty for infidelity is in direct violation of public policy underlying "no-fault" divorce and thus is unenforceable. Thus far, Diosdado has been continually upheld by all published cases to follow it. The policy behind California's "no-fault" divorce is that a party should not be punished financially for any misconduct during marriage. In contrast, certain circumstances allow some states' divorce courts to look at fault in dissolving marriage, determining support, and dividing property. It would seem to follow that these states would uphold an infidelity clause in a premarital agreement, should divorce become an issue.

Read more about jurisdiction and divorce in California

Considering that thousands of celebrities call cities in California home, it is interesting that so many celebrities are discussing unenforceable infidelity clauses. One explanation may be that only celebrities residing and divorcing outside of California are negotiating infidelity clauses. Gossip magazines also debate whether or not an expensive price tag actually deters celebrities from straying outside of their marriages.

Continue reading ""Infidelity Clauses" and Celebrity Prenuptial Agreements" »

Brendan Fraser and Afton Smith married in 1998 and divorced nine years later in 2007. At the time of their divorce, Fraser was ordered to pay Smith approximately $900,000 per year for spousal support and child support for their three children. Now, Fraser claims that he can no longer make the required payments, which, if made on a monthly basis, total $75,000 per month. Fraser has filed a motion in family court seeking a post-judgment modification of child and spousal support.

In San Diego, after a divorce is finalized, family courts generally have the ability to change support orders if facts and circumstances have materially changed since the first orders were made. If the moving party can prove to the court a "material change of circumstances" he or she may be granted a post-judgment modification of support. One of the most common changes of circumstance relied upon by courts is a change in income for one or both parties. If the spouse ordered to pay support has experienced a significant decrease in earnings, the court may lower his or her support obligation.

However, it is important to note that San Diego family courts only have the ability to modify the support order back to the date a motion was filed. If one spouse gets fired and does not file a motion to modify support for a few months, he or she may owe a significant amount of back child and/or spousal support. Regardless of a spouse's current income, his or her obligation to pay support will not change until a motion is filed with the court. Even in cases where a judge determines that a material change of circumstances exists and that support should be modified going forward, he or she is not required by law to make the order retroactive to the date the motion was filed.

Learn commonly used divorce law terms

Fraser alleges that he has had an increasingly difficult time finding acting jobs since the third film in the "Mummy" franchise wrapped in 2008. However, according to IMDB, Fraser has worked on 17 projects since then. Smith claims that Fraser is lying to the court about his true income and hiding his assets. Smith has good reason to be suspicious of his earnings claims. At the time of their divorce, Fraser claimed that he would make $0 from future acting work. In fact he went on to star in movies grossing up to $2 billion worldwide. When confronted with this information, Fraser claimed deals like this were not "set in stone" at the time of his divorce. It is crucial for a spouse to present an accurate depiction of his or her income to the court in a family law case. If Fraser is in fact misleading the court and his ex-wife, he may face harsh penalties and sanctions.

Please contact us if you are contemplating legal separation, thinking of learning about divorce, or have questions regarding division of assets in divorce. Nancy J. Bickford is the only attorney in San Diego County representing clients in divorce, who is a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) and who is actively licensed as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Don't settle for less when determining your rights.

In July 2012, Us Weekly released photos of Twilight star, Kristen Stewart, and Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders', cheating scandal. Stewart and Sanders were photographed kissing in a parked car on the side of a secluded road. At the time, Stewart was involved in a serious relationship with teen heartthrob Robert Pattinson, and Sanders was married to British model Liberty Ross. Although Stewart and Pattinson reconciled in September, Ross has recently filed for divorce from her husband of nine years.

Ross and Sanders reportedly gave their marriage another shot after news of the cheating scandal broke and even attended marriage counseling. However, Ross was unable to move past her husband's public infidelity. The former couple has two children, Skyla, age 7, and Tennyson, age 5. In her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, Ross requested joint custody of the children in addition to spousal support and attorney fees. Sanders filed a Response to the Petition also requesting joint custody but not spousal support. Sanders wants each party to bear the cost of his or her own attorney fees.

Learn more about the divorce process in Del Mar

Ross retained celebrity divorce attorney, Laura Wasser, to represent her in her divorce. Wasser is most famous for her representation of celebrities such as Heidi Klum, Ryan Reynolds, Kim Kardashian, and Britney Spears. According to Los Angeles Times, Wasser's services will cost Ross $750 per hour. With rates that high, it's no surprise that she is asking the court to order Sanders to cover Wasser's fees. As Del Mar divorce attorneys are well aware, California courts have the authority to order one spouse to contribute toward the attorney fees and costs incurred by the other spouse. However, since California is a "no-fault" state, Sanders' infidelity will be irrelevant to all of the court's rulings.

Family Code §3557 was enacted to ensure that both spouses have access to legal representation to preserve their rights. This code section applies to limited circumstances including actions in which a supported spouse requests enforcement of an existing order for spousal support. In determining whether an award of attorney fees and costs is appropriate under Family Code §3557, the court must consider the following two factors:

(1) whether there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, and;

(2) whether one party is able to pay for legal representation for both parties.

Thus, if one party has significantly more resources than the other and is able to pay for both parties' legal representation, a court may order him or her to do so in limited cases. Because Ross is not seeking enforcement of an existing support order, she will likely not be award attorney fees under Family Code §3557.

Read on about Del Mar divorce procedure here.

A request for attorney fees may be made during the pendency of a divorce pursuant to Family Code §2030. Family Code §2030 has similar requirements as §3557; however, allows for a request to be made for purposes other than to enforce existing orders. Thus, Ross is likely requesting an award for attorney fees pursuant to this code section.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only attorney in San Diego County representing clients in divorces, who is a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) and who is actively licensed as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

Superstar basketball player Kobe Bryant is splitting with his wife Vanessa. On December 1, 2011, Vanessa filed a divorce petition in the Superior Court of California in the County of Orange. Like many other rich and famous celebrities, Kobe and Vanessa Bryant did NOT sign a premarital agreement. The Bryants have released a statement revealing that the couple has settled all relevant issues privately including: custody, visitation, property, and support. A judgment will be entered in 2012.

The couple has two young children Natalia, 8, and Giana, 5. Both Kobe and Vanessa are asking for joint custody of their daughters. According to the filing, the couple will share both legal and physical custody. It seems like Kobe and Vanessa will not litigate any issues in their divorce.

Ironically, the couple celebrated their 10-year wedding anniversary on April 18, 2011. In 2004, Kobe was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in Colorado. Throughout the entire investigation and trial, Vanessa stood by his side and supported the position that the alleged sexual assault was consensual. Vanessa admitted that Kobe made a mistake by committing adultery but refused to acknowledge any more of the woman's claims. Rumors have surfaced that Vanessa saw divorce lawyers and almost served Kobe with divorce papers in 2004. A source close to the couple commented: "Vanessa almost threw in the towel four years ago. Kobe always had a slew of girlfriends, and the cheating was almost blatant."

Despite Kobe's public (alleged) infidelity that continued into the years following 2004, Vanessa stayed in her marriage before suddenly filing for divorce in 2011. Vanessa was likely counseled in 2004 regarding the likely outcomes of a potential divorce case and her options. Under California law, a marriage of 10 years or more is a presumptively a long-term marriage. Having a long-term marriage entitled Vanessa to many advantages in a divorce proceeding. California Family Code section 4320 lists the factors a court may consider in awarding spousal support. Under section 4320(l) the goal of the court shall be that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time EXCEPT in the case of a long-term marriage. If the marriage is not long-term, a "reasonable period of time" is generally one-half the length of the marriage. Therefore, if Vanessa had filed for divorce in 2004 she would likely be awarded spousal support for around 3 years. Now that the 10-year mark has passed, Vanessa may be entitled to permanent spousal support.

Continue reading "Vanessa Bryant's Strategic Divorce Move" »

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 "Schwarzenegger Case Illustrates Issues of Marital Property, Child Custody, Alimony in San Diego Divorces" »

As reported by NBC SanDiego.com, professional skate boarder Tony Hawk recently filed for divorce in North San Diego County. Hawk filed for divorce from third wife Lhotse Merriam. Hawk and Merriam were married in 2006; they have one child.

Raised in San Diego, Hawk is well known for a videogame series based on his skateboarding. Tony Hawk: Ride, a game which involves riding on a skateboard shaped controller, was launched in 2009. Because the game was launched during Hawk's marriage to Merriam, one question that may arise during the divorce process is whether any intellectual property rights Hawk may have in the game are community property to be divided in the divorce.

Absent a prenuptial agreement to the contrary, intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets) are property to be classified and, if appropriate, divided in a divorce. In a divorce, property is generally classified as either separate property or community property. Property that is classified as community property is then divided between the spouses.

For intellectually property rights to be classified as community property to be divided in a divorce, they must be acquired from work that was done during the marriage.

But what if the rights were acquired from work only partially done during the marriage? For example, a spouse begins to write a book during marriage, but doesn't finish the book until after the divorce? In this case, the community would have a proportional interest in the property.

What if additional time and effort is then needed to market the book? Such post-marital efforts generally decrease the community's interest in the property.