San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

Many San Diego couples are deciding to skip the marriage ceremony before they move in together. Unlike married couples, these cohabitating couples are not well protected if a split occurs. More and more unmarried couples are considering entering into prenuptial or cohabitation agreements in order to control the outcome of a breakup.

A cohabitation agreement is a legally binding contract that is drawn up by an attorney. The parties to these contracts are seeking similar rights as those afforded to married couples. These couples find it much easier to agree on important issues before the relationship is over and the parties have potentially bitter feelings toward each other. Couples address many issues in cohabitations agreements such as: property division, support, and custody of any pets. One major motivation to enter into a cohabitation agreement is the acquisition of property. An unmarried couple interested in purchasing real property together or that agrees to have one spouse move into the house of the other will face many difficult decisions. A cohabitation agreement can define the rights and responsibilities of both parties

In San Diego, family courts will not honor agreements between parties prospectively limiting future rights to child support, child custody and visitation. The health, safety and welfare of children are matters of public policy in California therefore the State refuses to limit a child's access to financial support or a relationship with a parent.

Currently most states, including California, do not recognize common law marriages. Throughout the states that do recognize or have recognized common law marriage the requirements of a common law marriage differ. Generally a common law marriage exists if:

(1) both parties hold themselves out to be husband and wife;
(2) both parties consent to the marriage;
(3) the parties are cohabitating;
(4) the parties have a reputation throughout the community of being married.

Because common law spouses are given rights where common law marriages are recognized, unmarried cohabitants may be under the misconception that they are also entitled to "marital rights" in the State of California. Even if a couple satisfies all four of the usual elements to establish a common law marriage in California, they will not be entitled to any additional rights.

One area where courts have begun to recognize some rights and protections between unmarried cohabitants is in the area of support. This trend, which began in the 1970's with the Marvin v. Marvin case, is commonly known as "palimony." Under this area of family law, a judge may order one former cohabitant to provide financial support to the other if certain elements are satisfied. Unlike support ordered to a former spouse, "palimony" seems to have a strong basis in contract law. If one party promises to support the other that promise may be enforced as a binding contract. A cohabitation agreement is not so different than a "palimony contract" because both result in the enforcement of an agreement reached by two parties before the end of the relationship.

Please contact us if you have questions regarding 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.

We often blog about the importance of social networking sites as tools in family law cases. Facebook is an invaluable resource for spouses, parents, and family law attorneys to use in order to dig up information on the opposing party in a particular case. Recently, Facebook has surfaced on the family law radar in a new and unexpected way. One of Facebook's well-known features is its ability to suggest family members, acquaintances, or friends that the user may want to "add as a friend" on his or her Facebook page. This friend suggestion tool alerted Alan Leighton O'Neill's wife that her husband was married to another woman. O'Neill's first wife clicked on the Facebook page of his second wife and saw her husband in a wedding photo with another woman. As a result of the friend suggestion tool, felony bigamy charges have been filed against O'Neill.

In San Diego, any married person who marries any other person is guilty of bigamy. Alan Leighton Fulk married his first wife on April 16, 2001. In December of 2011, he petitioned the court to change his name to Alan Leighton O'Neill. This tactic was used in order to accomplish his second marriage only five days later.

Although any married person who marries any other person is guilty of bigamy, various defenses are available to the bigamist. A good-faith belief that the bigamist obtained a divorce or dissolution of the first marriage is a possible defense to bigamy charges. Whether or not the bigamist escapes felony prosecution, bigamy has many family law-related implications.

Under California family law, a subsequent marriage during the life of a former spouse, with a person other than the former spouse, is void unless: (1) the former marriage was dissolved or annulled before the subsequent marriage date or (2) the former spouse is (a) absent and not known to be living to the bigamist for five consecutive years immediately preceding the subsequent marriage or (b) is generally believed to be dead by the bigamist at the time of the subsequent marriage.

There are many legal implications of a void or voidable marriage. A void marriage is invalid at its inception. There is no legal recognition of a void marriage's existence. In addition to bigamy, a marriage may be declared void because one of the parties is a minor, fraud, force, physical incapacity, mental illness or incest. These marriages can be attacked at any time by anyone who has an interest in the marriage. Further, a void marriage cannot be ratified even after the condition voiding it has dissipated. For the purposes of divorce, the parties involved in a void marriage are unable to claim any of the marital rights such as an interest in community property or spousal support available to a party of a valid marriage.

Void marriages are distinguishable from voidable marriages. A voidable marriage is valid for all civil purposes between the parties; it only becomes invalid if it is declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is neither valid nor void and can only be attacked by the parties to the marriage. Unlike void marriages, a voidable marriage may be ratified or validated by the conduct of one or both parties after the condition creating its voidability has dissipated. Interestingly, a voidable marriage may not be attacked after death. Therefore once one of the parties dies, the other stands to inherit from him or her as a standard spouse.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding custody. San Diego Family Law Attorney Nancy J. Bickford is the only board-certified divorce lawyer representing clients in San Diego who also holds an MBA and a CPA. Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

Although most people can gamble on a recreational basis, millions suffer negative consequences in their lives from problem gambling. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling about two to three percent of adults experience gambling-related problems each year. These problem gamblers have an uncontrollable urge to gamble and cannot stop gambling despite the negative consequences that result from their gambling. These negative consequences are frequently financial problems that impact the gamblers personal life, family relations, educational endeavors and/or employment.

Image by Jeff Kubina

Sometimes the gambling and problems stemming from the gambling becomes so bad that the non-gambling spouse files for divorce. When this occurs, the non-gambling spouse usually reports that the gambling spouse gambled away a significant amount of community property assets and that there are outstanding gambling debts. However, the non-gambling spouse may not be liable for the outstanding gambling debts.

Generally, all assets and debts incurred during marriage are considered community property. Family Code §2625 makes an exception to the general rule stating that, "All separate debts, including those debts incurred by a spouse during marriage and before the date of separation that were not incurred for the benefit of the community, shall be confirmed without offset to the spouse who incurred the debt."

This Family Code section provides the court with the ability to assign gambling debts to the gambling spouse. This is one of the few insteances where a court has the discretion to make an equitable division based on fault rather than an equal division of debt.

In the case In re Marriage of Cairo, Wife was able to prove that debt incurred during marriage on credit cards in Husband's name was for Husband's gambling. The Trial Court characterized the credit cards in Wife's name as a community property obligation and the credit cards in Husband's as his separate property obligation. The Court of Appeal affirmed relying on the predecessor to Family Code §2625, which also stated that debts not incurred for the benefit of the community can be assigned without offset to the spouse who incurred the debt.

On the other hand, if the gambling spouse wins big when gambling with community property assets, then those gambling proceeds could be considered community property assets and equally divided between the parties.

In the case In re Marriage of Shelton, after separation Husband gambled $10,000 of community property monies at a casino in Nevada, won $22,000 and bought Ferrari for $32,000. Husband claimed that $22,000 of the value of the car was his separate property. The Trial Court disagreed and characterized as the car as community property. The Court of Appeal affirmed holding that the character of the gambling proceeds follow the character of their source. In this case the source of the monies used to gamble were community property, therefore, the gambling winnings were also community property. The Court of Appeal rejected Husband's argument that the winnings were his separate property post-separation earnings because gambling is primarily a game of chance where the skill component is small.

In the case In re Marriage of Wall, Wife used her post-separation earnings (or support payments) to buy an Irish Sweepstakes ticket and won $120,000. Although Husband claimed the winnings were community property, the Trial Court disagreed and awarded the winnings to Wife as her separate property. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Unlike the Shelton case, in this case the source of the monies used to buy the Sweepstakes ticket was Wife's separate property. Therefore, the Sweepstakes winnings were also her separate property.

Continue reading "The Gambling Spouse " »

It is not surprising that many California couples decide to adopt pets. But what happens to those pets when the couple decides to seek a divorce? Across the country custody battles over family pets are increasing. Although pets are not technically the couple's children, they can become a core part of the family that neither spouse is willing to part with. If the couple does have children, the judge is likely to order the pet to stay with the child.

One reason these pet custody cases are on the rise is the dissolution of same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships. These legal unions are relatively new and the couples tend to adopt pets in lieu of or in addition to children. Unlike children, pets are a form of property in every state. In the past, pets have been divided up along with the rest of the marital property without distinction. The family courts are changing and beginning to recognize that pets are more like children than furniture. The shift may be resulting from a widespread recognition of pets as part of the family rather than mere possessions. Litigants are now passionate and unashamed to fight for custody of a pet.

When a couple divorces, the best interest of the child guides a judge's decisions on child custody and visitation. For pets, this is not the case. Since pets are a form of property, the laws regarding pets are generally aimed at benefitting the owner. The court will consider the same factors when deciding who gets custody of the pet as they would in deciding who gets custody of a television set. The court takes into consideration factors such as: whether either spouse owned the property prior to marriage or post separation, how much the property is worth, and any agreement the couple reached about who gets the property.

As California family law stands today, there is no pet visitation provision. The courts simply have the authority to award custody of the pet to one party or the other. If splitting couples wish to split time with their pets they must work out a visitation schedule together. These schedules can be negotiated with the help of lawyers and mediators. Some can be rather elaborate and include long-distance traveling for the pet, a holiday schedule, daycare expense sharing, grooming responsibilities, training, treats, food, medical care and other related decisions. Like parents who share legal custody of a child, some couples agree to share a form of legal custody of a pet. This means that both parties will have the right to make decisions regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the pet including end of life decisions.

Another area of family law that has begun to recognize pets as family members is domestic violence. In the past, domestic violence restraining orders could not be issued to protect pets. More recently, this has become a common practice. Under California Family Code section 6320(b), "on a showing of good cause, the court may include in a protective order a grant to the petitioner of the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned...the court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking...the animal." Local community organizations have also reached out to victims of domestic violence and their pets. For example, Rancho Coastal Humane Society offers shelter for the pets of these victims while they escape their abusers and seek shelter themselves. Because abusers tend to threaten harm to the animal as a tool to control their victim, these programs facilitate a victim's decision to escape and take part of the abuser's power away.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding custody. San Diego Family Law Attorney Nancy J. Bickford is the only board-certified divorce lawyer representing clients in San Diego who also holds an MBA and a CPA. Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

After a long and embarrassingly public divorce, Beverly Hills Housewife Camille and Broadway star Kelsey Grammer reportedly end their custody battle. The couple shares two children: Jude, 7 years old, and Mason, 10 years old. It seems that Camille will have physical custody of the children since their primary residence will be with her. Kelsey will reportedly have "meaningful contact" with the children. After a 13-year marriage it appears both stars have moved on. Kelsey remarried within two weeks of finalizing his divorce. He and his new wife are expecting twins. According to Camille's statements on her show the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" , she is also happily in a relationship with lawyer Dimitri Charalambopoulos.

Camille filed for divorce on July 1, 2010 after learning of Kelsey's affair with a stewardess, Kayte Walsh. Kelsey was able to marry his new wife Kayte Walsh before settling all aspects of his divorce with Camille through the bifurcation process. In order to accomplish this, Kelsey asked the judge to grant a divorce decree while suspending the division of the large and complex marital estate. The estate is estimated to be worth $120 million dollars and because the couple did not have a prenuptial agreement, Camille demanded $50 million.

In San Diego, the court will agree to bifurcate a divorce case. States like New York, Texas, Arizona, and Michigan only bifurcate cases in exceptional circumstances. California is part of a minority of states that bifurcate divorce cases for almost any reason. To bifurcate a case is to split it into two parts. Generally, as in the Grammer divorce, the first issue to be litigated is marital status. By resolving marital status, each spouse becomes divorced and therefore single and able to legally remarry. The remaining issues may include disputes over property distribution, child custody and visitation, child support, and alimony.

A party may wish to bifurcate a case in order to remarry like Kelsey or the spouse may be motivated by tax consequences or implications. A person can file his or her taxes "single" as long as his or her marital status was terminated before the end of the year. During a divorce proceeding, the court often makes temporary orders for spousal support. Any spousal support payments are 100% deductible for the payor and must be claimed as income by the payee. This tax consequence is not implicated if the couple decides to file a joint tax return. In other instances, when the divorce is a particularly acrimonious one, bifurcation can prevent one spouse from exerting control over the other's personal life by delaying the ultimate result, divorce.

A bifurcation may be obtained by agreement of the parties. In this case, the parties stipulate that the cause may be tried as an uncontested matter. Because a divorce can take many months or even years to proceed through the California family court system, many parties seek to bifurcate their case in order to obtain some degree of finality. They will be legally divorced and able to move on with their lives while in the process of litigating other matters. Not surprisingly, Camille opposed Kelsey's motion to bifurcate the divorce proceedings. Although many speculated that Camille was simply acting as a woman scorned, she was also concerned that legally divorcing Kelsey would leave her with uncertain rights to the marital estate that had yet to be divided.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding custody. San Diego Family Law Attorney Nancy J. Bickford is the only board-certified divorce lawyer representing clients in San Diego who also holds an MBA and a CPA. Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

We have blogged several times about the potential problems that Facebook and other social media sites can have on a divorce. The same potential for problems also applies to the text messages you send. Although it is sometimes difficult to get text messages into evidence (meaning properly in front of a judge), once the text message is in evidence, it could change the outcome of your case!

Unlike Facebook and other social media posts, text messages cannot be deleted or recalled. Any text that you send to your spouse, or even to a third party, can end up being used against you in a divorce. With phones now having up to 64 gigabytes of storage, or more, texts from many years ago could end up being presented as evidence to the judge in your divorce case.

• If you threaten to harm your spouse in a text, that may be the basis for a restraining order, or even criminal prosecution.

• If you call your spouse names in texts, the judge could end up with an unfavorable opinion of you.

• If you say one thing in your declaration (such as, "I do not use drugs") and text something contrary to your spouse or a third party (such as, "I can't believe how stoned I was at the party"), you will ruin your credibility with the judge.

In a recent story on NPR, Ken Altshuler, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, provided the following tips for keeping your texts out of court, upon which I elaborate:

• Do not text your spouse anything that you would not want a judge to see. This also applies to Facebook and other social media posts, messages or comments, emails, and even voice mail messages. It is always best to assume that any text, anything you write or any voice message you leave for your spouse will end up in front of your judge. Some examples of what not to post, blog or text about can be found here.

• If your spouse or former spouse sends you an inappropriate text, do not respond in kind because a judge will see that. The judge usually does not care who started an inappropriate exchange because the exchange is usually just a small part of the bigger picture. In one of my cases after reviewing hateful emails back and forth between the parties, the judge (slightly misquoting Mercutio's famous line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Julie), said "A pox on both your houses." When the other party blurted out, "She started it!" the judge replied, "Sir, two wrongs do not make a right - and your emails back to here were totally inappropriate, no matter who started it."

• Do not send messages that set your spouse up for an inappropriate or angry response. On the other hand, some Judges will look into who started it. You do not want your judge to find that you were the party that started it, or someone who is baiting the other side. This could ruin your credibility with the judge for the rest of your case.

• If you are worked up and want to send your spouse a message, take time to calm down before putting anything in writing. Again, if it is in writing, you must assume that your judge will eventually read it. If you are unsure about a written response to your spouse, send it to your attorney for review before sending it to your spouse.

Always remember, do not text anything to anyone that you would want the family law judge in your case to see or read.

Continue reading "Texting Can have a BIG Impact on your Divorce Case" »

Many San Diego residents own businesses that continue to operate and generate income throughout the owner's divorce. It is well established in California, absent an agreement otherwise, that a spouse is entitled to an interest in community property assets. Community property generally consists of all assets acquired during the marriage. We have previously blogged about the date of separation and its importance in the division of property in a dissolution proceeding. Business owners are confronted with a unique problem - is their business community property? What about the increase in value between the date of separation and trial?

As a general rule, for the purpose of division of the community estate upon dissolution of marriage, the court shall value the assets and liabilities as near as practicable to the date of trial. Any income or assets acquired by a party between separation and divorce are separate property. However, the value of a particular asset is not determined until the date of trial. For example, consider this hypothetical. Husband and Wife decide to separate with intent to end the marriage accompanied by objective acts to demonstrate that intent. At the time of separation, the couple owns a house that is worth $150,000. Husband decides to move into a nearby apartment and Wife takes over all mortgage payments. Because they have a daughter still in high school, the couple decides not to file for divorce immediately. Two years later, because of market fluctuations, the house is worth $200,000. Although Husband moved out of the house and Wife made each mortgage payment following separation, they are both entitled to share in the increase in profit. The court may make orders to account for the mortgage payments made by Wife, but Husband will generally share in the increased value. Real property values can fluctuate dramatically between the date of separation and trial because parties may separate months or years before their case is finalized. If the asset is a typical community property asset such as a family home the value is determined as close as possible to the date of trial.

There is an exception to this general rule. Under California Family Code section 2552(b), "Upon 30 days' notice by the moving party to the other party, the court for good cause shown may value all or any portion of the assets and liabilities at a date after separation and before trial to accomplish an equal division of the community estate of the parties in an equitable manner." Any party may petition the court to value an asset at the date of separation rather than closer to trial by showing that this alternate valuation is fair. A date of separation valuation of property is appropriate when the hard work and actions of one spouse alone and after separation, greatly increases the "community" estate, which then must be divided with the other spouse. However, if the asset increases in value from non-personal factors such as market fluctuations or inflation, it is fair that both spouses share in that increased value.

When a spouse operates a community property business after separation, there is a sense of unfairness when applying the general rule that the business must be valued as of the date of trial. The law recognizes that an increase in value of these businesses is primarily a reflection of the contribution of the owner's services. This exception applies especially to professional businesses such as law practices, medical practices, or contracting businesses. If the skill and reputation of the owner accounts for an increase in the assets value, the court may value the asset at the time of separation and divide the property accordingly.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse or have questions regarding property valuation. San Diego Family Law Attorney Nancy J. Bickford is the only board-certified divorce lawyer in San Diego who also holds an MBA and a CPA. Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

Often, the line between being married and being separated is blurred. Couples considering divorce have the option to experiment with a trial separation in order to give the spouses time to consider if divorce is their best option. Other couples decide to file for divorce and later reconcile. Sometimes those couples continue with the marriage and other times they resume divorce proceedings. The decision to end a marriage can be difficult and messy, however the parties' actions between the time of separation and a dissolution judgment can impact their case significantly.

One reason why date of separation is so crucial is that it is used as the dividing line between the beginning and the end of the marriage. Surprisingly, for the purposes of property division, the date of divorce is not used as the date of the end of the marriage. California is a community property state. This means, for the most part, any contributions by either spouse after the date of marriage belongs jointly to both spouses. Any income of either spouse belongs jointly to both spouses. Further, any property or assets purchased with that income belongs jointly to both spouses. Few assets such as inheritances or property acquired before marriage are separate property.

To complete the divorce process, depending on the circumstances, can take anywhere between a few months to over a year. Presumably, both spouses will continue working during this time and purchasing assets. Do these assets and income belong to the respective spouses as separate property or to the spouses jointly as community property? How will these assets be divided upon divorce? Under California Family Code section 771, the earnings and accumulations of a spouse, while living separate and apart from the other spouse, are separate property of the spouse. Therefore, anything acquired by either party between the date of separation and the divorce is separate property. The next problem is - when did the couple "separate"?

Date of separation is often a hotly contested issue because it can determine how a number of significant items are distributed. For instance, it can determine whether a marriage is long-term or short-term, if one spouse is entitled to the lottery winnings of the other, and whether one spouse is entitled to any number of valuable assets acquired by the other spouse during the dissolution process. It would seem that deciding when the parties separated is an easy task that both parties could easily agree on. However, in a potential divorce situation, the behaviors of the parties can be confusing and separating spouses often send mixed signals to each other. When determining the parties' date of separation, the court looks to their private conduct rather than how they behave publically. This comes from an understanding that many couples keep up public appearances of a marriage for many different reasons such as for the benefit of any children they have. The ultimate question to be decided in determining the date of separation is whether either or both parties has the subjective intent to end the marriage and furthers that intent through objective conduct. This is a factual question and the court looks at various steps taken by the spouses to demonstrate the final breakdown of the marriage.

In order to ensure the court views your actions as conduct furthering the intent to end the marriage there are a few steps you can take. First, live separate and apart from your spouse. To be clear, this means moving out of a common residence. Second, cease engaging in any romantic conduct. Do not send cards, flowers, or any gifts to your spouse because this could be construed as an attempt at reconciliation. Third, do not perform marital duties such as doing laundry, cooking, or cleaning for the benefit of the other spouse. Fourth, communicate your intent to end the marriage to your spouse clearly. Fifth, immediately cease the commingling of finances with your spouse, especially the purchase of any real estate. Finally, simultaneously attending social gatherings with your spouse is a mixed bag. One court held that as long as the spouses were not attending these functions "together" there was no problem deciding date of separation at an earlier time. However, many still argue that this attendance is controversial.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse or have questions regarding custody. San Diego Family Law Attorney Nancy J. Bickford is the only board-certified divorce lawyer in San Diego who also holds an MBA and a 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" »

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?" »

Few people would agree that there is a good time to get divorced. It can be a long, drawn out process and complex. Not only that, but it can lead to overwhelming stress and problems with other family relationships if not handled well.

A new article published on MSNBC.com by Investopedia looks at the best and worst times to consider a divorce in San Diego. Many people are struggling financially right now because of the effects of the Great Recession. Some people have the desire to get a divorce, but feel as if they can't afford it and stay together in order to save money.

That can lead to volatile situation that can lead to domestic violence issues as tempers flare, egos are bruised and feelings hurt. Even if you think your finances prohibit you from getting a divorce, it would be prudent to set up a consultation with an experienced San Diego Divorce Lawyer to discuss your options and talk about your situation.

Here are some events that can impact a divorce:

An up and down real estate market: At one time, a house was a major asset that couples might fight tooth-and-nail to obtain, but times have changed. According to foreclosure tracking site Realtytrac, every zip code but one in San Diego has "high" foreclosure activity level, with nearly 1 in every 147 housing units in foreclosure.

San Diego, like many parts of the country, has seen housing prices drop as foreclosures saturate the market, leaving many people upside down on their mortgages. For that reason, a house in a divorce may be less of an asset and more of a debt that must handled. While in past divorces, one spouse may be awarded the house and the other spouse would be awarded other assets in exchange, now the other spouse may have to give up assets if an ex agrees to take on an upside-down house.

A shaky economy: With the economy slowly recovering (and some would argue slowly is an exaggeration), many people are hurting financially. Going through a divorce at this time can be difficult.

A poor credit score: A bad credit history coupled with a divorce can be bad news for a person going through the process. Having to obtain a car loan or perhaps rent a house on your own can be more difficult without the added security of a second income or a house that may already be paid off in full. Again, a trusted attorney will be invaluable in assisting you in avoiding the common pitfalls of the divorce process.

If one of the two spouses has a bad credit score, negotiating to keep the car or house to avoid having to venture out for a loan may be prudent.

Minor children: Divorce is more complex and stressful when children are involved. Child custody in San Diego divorces can make a divorce more contentious and more financially difficult. With two sets of living expenses instead of pooled money, each parent will have less to give to college funds and other expenses, but financial aid may be easier to obtain.

Continue reading "Is There a Good Time to Get Divorced in San Diego?" »

You have just received a court stamped copy of your Judgment from your San Diego divorce attorney. Everything has been resolved - custody, visitation, child support, spousal support, division of assets and division of liabilities - there is nothing left to do, or is there?

In a recent arbitration case, Husband who had been through a bitter divorce, did not change the beneficiary on his IRA, which listed ex-Wife as beneficiary. When he died 10 years later the IRA money went to his ex-Wife. Husband's Widow sued to collect on the IRA money. The arbitration panel denied Widow's claims. The panel found that Husband opened an IRA in 1994. Husband and Wife divorced in 1999. Husband remarried several years later. Husband was an attorney who made his own business decisions. Husband changed the beneficiaries on several of his other accounts, but not the IRA account. Although Husband probably did not intend for the IRA money to go to his ex-Wife, it was Husband's responsibility to change his IRA beneficiary.

This arbitration case highlights how important it is to follow up on items stemming from your divorce. Not doing so may result in your ex-spouse receiving monies you do not want them to receive, and could also subject you to enforcement motions, attorney fees and sanctions for not following the terms of the Judgment.

Here are a few things to review once you receive your Judgment back from the court:

Equalizing Payments. Is there an equalizing payment set forth in the Judgment? If so, make the payment. I had a client whose ex-spouse was ordered make an equalizing payment forthwith. The ex-spouse decided to "play games" - writing the first check to the wrong name, not signing the second check, claiming the third check was "lost in the mail" and wiring funds to a closed account. The ex-spouse ended up paying the equalizing payment after 45 days, but was required to pay a month of interest and sanctioned by the court, which found the delay intentional.

Beneficiaries. As illustrated in the arbitration case above, review, and if necessary, change the beneficiaries on all of your retirement accounts, bank/financial accounts, and disability/life insurance policies. Be careful though, your Judgment may require you to keep your ex-spouse as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy in order to protect the children/ex-spouse if you die before child or spousal support terminates. If you receive support and your ex-spouse is required to keep you as the beneficiary, periodically check that you are still the beneficiary. If you have an insurance agent, meet with the agent to go over any changes you may wish to make that are consistent with the Judgment.

Financial Accounts. If financial accounts need to be divided, be sure to do so pursuant to the terms of the Judgment. Contact your bank and financial institutions to ensure that your ex-spouse cannot access or make charges to accounts awarded to you. This may require closing the account and opening it in your name alone with a new account number.

Credit Cards. Contact your credit card companies to ensure that your ex-spouse cannot charge to credit cards awarded to you. You may need to close the credit card account and open a new one to ensure that an ex-spouse is not able to charge to credit cards he or she could previously charge to.

Retirement Accounts. Are retirement plans or pensions being divided and is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order required for the division? Although you and your ex spouse may be able to divide some retirement accounts, like IRA's, fairly easily, a QDRO specialist is often retained to calculate and divide the community interest in retirement/pension plans. Check with your attorney to determine how to best proceed with the division of retirement assets.

Real Property / Vehicle Title and Loans. Were you awarded or did you buy out your ex-spouse's interest in community real property? If so, discuss with your attorney changing title into your name alone. If your former spouse refuses to sign the title change documents, the court can appoint an elisor to sign for your ex-spouse.

Also be sure to change title on any vehicles awarded to you. This can usually be done through the DMV with forms available online.

If you were ordered to refinance real property loans, be sure you do so. Even if you are only required to make your best efforts to refinance (it is difficult to qualify for re-financing in this economy), make your best efforts by applying with several lenders, and keep trying. If you do not do so, depending on the Judgment language, you may lose the property!

Wills and Trusts.

Meet with your estate planning attorney or advisor to prepare a new will/trust as well as other estate planning documents like Powers of Attorney and Health Care Directives. Although the divorce may automatically cancel your former spouse's rights under a will, trust and power of attorney, it is important to meet with your estate planning attorney to update or prepare these documents to ensure your current intent is accurately reflected.

Internet / E-Mail. Be sure to change the passwords and answers to security questions for all of your e-mail accounts and for any internet websites you visit (Facebook), purchase from (Amazon) or use for finances (Banks). Make sure the new password something that your ex-spouse cannot easily guess. Many websites let you write and answer your own security questions. This can help prevent your ex-spouse hacking into your online accounts and e-mails.

Continue reading "Your Divorce is Final, Now What?" »

The Toronto Sun reports a woman is suing her divorce attorney for $14 million, claiming the attorney failed to adequately identify assets.

Division of property and valuation of property are among the primary responsibilities of a San Diego divorce lawyer. Too often, people think that a property division in a divorce must be equal because of California's no-fault divorce law. In reality, spouses can and do walk away with far less (or far more) than an equal division of assets.

You can tell a lot about how seriously an attorney takes the obligation by the time he or she has put into acquiring the knowledge and skill that will allow for the best possible legal representation of clients. Nancy J. Bickford is a certified family law specialist -- a distinction earned by less than 2 percent of California attorneys -- who also holds an MBA and is a licensed certified public accountant through the State of California.

In the case out of Canada, the woman claims she is out at least $3 million worth of assets she should have received in a split from her common-law husband. The suit claims her divorce law firm failed to fully investigate and identify the availability of assets and to determine the appropriate value of those assets.

"As a result of the defendant lawyer's breach of contract and negligence, this has resulted in the plaintiff receiving substantially less property than she should have received," the lawsuit states.

Distinguishing separate property from community property can be more complex than many realize. What if a spouse owned a house before marriage but both have made mortgage payments for years? What about retirement accounts? Year-end bonuses? Inheritance? A business that began prior to marriage but was built up significantly during marriage? And don't forget liabilities -- those can be community property as well. Too often, a party to a divorce believes just because a former spouse is responsible for a car payment or house payment according to the terms of a divorce agreement, that a bank cannot come after the freed party in the event of missed payments. Banks don't care what your divorce agreement says. Your attorney will work with you to sever such ties and protect you to the fullest extent possible.

The identification and evaluation of community property can be particularly challenging in marriages where one spouse is the major wage earner and keeps the books. In such cases, you may be best served by speaking to an experienced family law firm in San Diego before announcing your intentions to your spouse. The ability to gather evidence and taking other steps to protect your rights can be easier before relations turn hostile on the homefront.

Continue reading "Suit over Identification of Marital Property Highlights Need for Experienced Divorce Lawyer in San Diego" »

A federal court has ruled against Continental Airlines in a fight over whether it could sue pilots it claimed faked their divorces in order to tap into retirement funds.

The ruling in Brown et al. v. Continental Airlines was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Associated Press reports Continental had accused nine pilots of sham divorces so their ex-spouses could tap their lump sum pensions while they still worked for the airlines. The pilots then remarried their former spouses. The court ruled that employers cannot decide whether a divorce is genuine. The original lawsuit by Continental had been dismissed.

San Diego divorce attorneys understand the importance of determining how retirement funds are divided in a divorce. For many couples, retirement funds represent their biggest asset. Failure to properly secure your share of retirement funds during property division can impact the rest of your life. Too many spouses will not have time to rebuild adequate funds to maintain their standard-of-living in retirement.

An attorney for the pilots called the decision "a victory for employee privacy rights -- nobody wants their employer looking into their divorce." The pilots were fired or resigned and are now suing Continental in federal court in Houston, claiming wrongful termination and interfering with their pension rights.

The airline claimed it paid out as much as $11 million in distributions that the pilots had assigned to their spouses. The airline claims that the pilots -- seven men and two women -- got divorced in states that assigned nearly all of the retirement benefits to their former spouses, who then demanded payment.

Continental is now owned by United Continental Holdings Inc. The airline claimed the pilots were worried the airline might turn over pension obligations to the government -- as many airlines have done in the past decade -- leaving them with reduced benefits.

The ruling noted a pension plan might be able to recover payment if a court ruled a divorce was a sham -- but that did not happen in this case.

There are other important division-of-property considerations aside from retirement funds. In many cases, the marital home is a large asset, although that is an issue that has become more complex since the economic downturn. Obtaining a valuation of marital home is also critical. Is a home valued at the purchase price or the current market value? The former may leave a spouse with a paper asset while the latter provides only a liability in cases where the marital home is underwater.

Year-end work bonuses and taxes are two other often overlooked issues. Inheritance and the value of a college degree earned during the marriage may also warrant your San Diego divorce attorney's careful attention.

Continue reading "Brown et al. v. Continental Airlines Highlights Importance of Retirement Funds in San Diego Divorce " »

It is becoming increasingly common for at least one member of a married couple to carry a heavy student loan debt. The price of a college education has soared in recent years. As more people go back to school to obtain college or graduate degrees, or additional training, they have been forced to apply for federal and private loans to cover the costs. Since these loans come with high interest rates, paying them off can become a real burden over time. One recent study found that more students were defaulting on their loans than ever before.

Many clients worry that they will be stuck having to bear the burden of their soon-to-be ex-spouse's student loan debt. The following are some questions that clients typically ask a San Diego divorce attorney.

Since California is a community property state where the division of property is split evenly, will I be responsible for paying off half of my ex-spouse's student loans?

Not necessarily. While it is true that most debts that are incurred during a marriage are subject to equal division between the spouses, a debt incurred for education debt may be an exception. Pursuant to California Family Code section 2641, the spouse who takes out the loans can be the one responsible for paying for them, depending on how long ago the loan was taken out, and other facts.

What if I have already helped pay for part of the loans? Will that money be returned to me?

Spouses often do have a right to reimbursement for "community" funds paid toward one spouse's education. Any income earned during the marriage, by either spouse, is considered part of the community fund. So if one spouse uses his or her earnings to pay for the other spouse's education, his or her income would be viewed as community income that was used as a community contribution to education.. In this case, the community may be entitled to reimbursement if the education enhanced the other spouse's earning capacity. Whether the community is reimbursed, however, depends upon a variety of circumstances, including length of time that has elapsed since the loans were taken out.

Are there circumstances where I would not be repaid for the money I paid for part of my spouse's student loans?

There are two typical circumstances where the spouse might not be reimbursed. One is if 10 years have passed since the degree was awarded. Then the other spouse might successfully argue that you have already benefited from the increase in wealth that resulted from the advanced degree. If you cannot successfully refute that argument, you will not be reimbursed. Some of the other circumstances would be whether you also obtained an advanced degree, education or training during the marriage that your spouse paid for out of his or her community income. The two degrees, would then, in effect, cancel each other out. You will also not be repaid if you and your spouse have an express written agreement to the contrary.

What if I have benefited from my spouse's advanced degree, but never helped pay back the loan? Would I be responsible for repaying it after the divorce?

No. The spouse who took out the debt would still be responsible for paying the debt in the event of a divorce. "Benefit to the community" is only weighed when the non-debtor spouse helped pay off part of the debt during the marriage.

Does it make a difference whether my spouse took out his loans during the marriage or before the marriage?

No, the circumstances remain the same. The debt would still be your spouse's to pay off, whether he or she took out education loans before or during your marriage, although if he or she took out loans before the marriage, and many years elapsed before your divorce, you might have trouble proving that you deserved reimbursement because your spouse would argue that the "community" had already benefited.

If you live in California and are considering a divorce, contact an experienced San Diego divorce attorney and learn the facts about student loan debt, other debts, and division of property laws.

Continue reading "Do I Have to Pay My Ex-Spouse's Student Loans?" »