San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

Often in San Diego, one or both spouses are awarded stock options from their employer. A stock option gives the employee a right to purchase stock in the company at a later time and for a specified price. All property acquired by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be community property. If a stock option is awarded and vests during the marriage, it is community property and each spouse is entitled to a one-half distribution of the asset. What if a stock option is awarded during marriage but vest after the date of separation? The community still has an interest in the stock option to the extent it was acquired during the marriage as earnings of the spouse. In determining the community portion of the stock option, the court will examine the primary intent of the employer in awarding the stock options.If the court determines that the stock option was awarded primarily to reward the spouse for past services, the court will use the Marriage of Hug formula to calculate the community’s interest. In this case, the stock options are a form of deferred compensation and thus the community property earnings of the spouse and subject to division upon divorce. The court will multiply the value of the stock by a fraction. The fraction represents the total number of years the spouse worked until exercise of the stock option and the total number of those years in which he or she was married. Thus, the community’s interest will be proportional to the number of years the parties were married between the beginning of employment and the exercise of the option. Each spouse will be awarded a one-half interest of the community portion, and the employee-spouse will also be awarded the separate property portion.
Continue reading

According to the data released for law school graduates in 2011, San Diego law students graduate with one of the highest debts in the country. California Western School of Law and Thomas Jefferson School of Law take spots two and three respectively on the list of the average indebtedness incurred. 89% of California Western and 94% of Thomas Jefferson graduates incurred debt during law school. The average debt incurred for a California Western education is $153,145 compared to $153,006 for a Thomas Jefferson education. With such high debts to consider, married students should know how this debt would be allocated upon divorce.

As a general rule, a debtor spouse’s separate property and all of the community property are liable for debt incurred before or during marriage. However, the non-debtor spouse’s is not liable for this debt. The California Family Code contains several special rules specifically regarding education and training. As an exception to the general division of debt, any student loan debt outstanding at divorce is assigned solely to the educated spouse. If a spouse is married when he or she receives his or education, community funds may have been used to pay for the education.

Education and training acquired during marriage is not treated as community property. Therefore the non-educated spouse can claim no interest in the education of the other. Instead, upon divorce, the community may be entitled to an equitable right to reimbursement with interest when: (1) community funds are used either to pay for the education or training or to repay a loan related thereto and (2) education or training substantially increased the earning capacity of the spouse. Therefore, in the case of law school debts, if the non-student’s earnings during the marriage contribute to the student’s education, the community may be entitled to repayment for this amount.The educated spouse may advance some defenses to reimbursement. If both spouses received a community-funded education then the community would likely not be entitled to reimbursement. Reimbursement may be reduced or modified if the community has already substantially benefitted from the education or training. There is a rebuttable presumption that the community has already benefitted if more than ten years have elapsed between the contributions and the initiation of divorce. This presumption enables the court to allocate an equitable division of property upon divorce. It assumes that the educated spouse has already returned the educations expenses to the community in the form of increased earnings.

 Courtney Cox has been a beloved American icon since her role as Monica Geller on the timeless television series Friends. Cox married her husband David Arquette in 1999 while still filming Friends. By 1999 the show was a raging success and all of the Friends characters were collecting a reported $125,000 per episode. Interestingly, however, the divorce paperwork filed in the Cox-Arquette case makes no mention of a premarital agreement.

Arquette signed the dissolution paperwork on March 23, 2012. However, the couple has been separated since October 2010. In October they announced they were taking time apart in order to reevaluate themselves and the relationship. The initial paperwork indicated that Arquette was filing pro per and therefore pursuing a divorce without formal legal representation. Even more shocking, Cox filed her initial responsive documents pro per as well. Currently, Cox is worth an estimated $75 million dollars while Arquette is worth only $18 million. With such a large discrepancy between the parties’ net worth and no mention of a premarital agreement, it is surprising that so far no lawyers have been called to represent either spouse. Although neither party has formal legal representation, it is possible that both spouses have consulted attorneys prior to filing any paperwork.

Former Dallas Cowboy quarterback and NFL legend Troy Aikman paid $1.75 million dollars to his ex-wife as part of an agreed divorce settlement. Aikman was married to his wife Rhonda for eleven years until the couple split in April 2011. As we have previously blogged, ten years of marriage is a significant turning point under California family law and can greatly impact the rights of the parties to a divorce. Aikman’s estimated net worth is $25 million dollars and it is unclear whether he has or will make additional payments to Rhonda.

The San Diego family court system encourages parties to reach voluntary agreements, rather than pursuing a court-determined judgment. Before a divorce or child custody case will go to trial, the court requires the parties to participate in a mandatory settlement conference. A mandatory settlement conference is overseen by the judge on the case but is facilitated by a volunteer attorney within the community. The volunteer attorney is a recognized family law expert in the field and is called the “settlement judge.” Prior to the conference, the parties are required to submit briefs to the settlement judge so that he or she will have an opportunity to review the facts and issues in the case ahead of time. If the parties are represented, all attorneys are permitted to attend the conference and speak with the settlement judge. However, the settlement judge may ask an attorney to step out of the room so that the judge has an opportunity to hear the client’s concerns. Often, the settlement judge will propose solutions that address the needs and interests of both spouses and most importantly, any children involved in the case. The scope of the issues that the parties can agree on, and therefore exclude from any further litigation, is limitless. The parties may settle property disputes, spousal and child support, child custody and visitation, and any other issues in the particular case.

Settling a case that involves such personal and intimate issues, as in all family law cases, is advantageous for all parties. Reaching a settlement can give parties control over the outcome of the litigation. The order of a judge is not debatable and might not address the specific concerns of all parties. Trial and extended litigation can also be expensive for both parties. The earlier in the process that the parties reach an agreement, the less they will be forced to spend on costs and attorney’s fees. Settlements can also be reached much faster than a final adjudication of the case in court.