Blog
Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation
Contact Us
LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI
1871 The Alameda, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 553-0801 | Fax: (408) 553-0807 | Email: contact@lpeplaw.com
LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI
Phone: (408) 553-0801
Fax: (408) 553-0807
Email: contact@lpeplaw.com
1871 The Alameda, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95126
Located in San Jose, Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri handles matters for clients in northern California, specifically San Jose and Silicon Valley. Our services are available to anyone within the following counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, and San Francisco. For a full listing of areas where we practice, please click here.
MAKE A PAYMENT BY SCANNING THE QR CODE BELOW:
DISCLAIMER
This web site is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Nothing in the site is to be considered as either creating an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri or as rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri Web site without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.
© 2024 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
California Divorce: What is a Moore Marsden Analysis?
/1 Comment/in Family Law /by Michael LonichWho or What are Moore and Marsden?
Moore and Marsden are two cases decided by the California Supreme Court and the California Appellate Court in 1980 and 1982 respectively. These cases dealt with the issue of how to determine the community property interest in a house.
Generally, a house purchased before marriage will be treated as the purchaser’s separate property. However, during marriage if the mortgage is paid with community funds a portion of the value of the house may become community property. Because California is a community property state, this means all community property is divided equally in a divorce.
When do I Use a Moore Marsden analysis?
The decisions of the Moore and Marsden cases are the basis for what is called the Moore Marsden analysis. The Moore Marsden analysis applies a formula to determine what portion of a house is community property due to mortgage payments made during marriage with community funds.
To apply the Moore Marsden analysis, you need to have two key factors. First, any mortgage payments made must be made with community funds. Second, these payments must include payment of the loan principal and not only interest.
How do I Apply a Moore Marsden Calculation?
If you meet the above two factors, you must compare the market value of your home at the time of your marriage and the market value at them time of your divorce proceedings to calculate the amount the house has increased in value during the marriage.
You then compare the amount principal paid during the marriage to the total purchase price of the house to calculate what percentage of the purchase price was paid during the marriage.
Next you take the percentage of the purchase price that was paid by the community and compare that to the amount your house has increased in value during marriage and add to it the amount of the principal paid by the community to calculate the total amount of the house that the community is entitled to.
Finally, in a divorce this amount is divided between the spouses because it is community property.
For example, if your house was worth $100,000 at the time of marriage and $200.000 at the time of divorce, then the house has increased in value by $100,000.
If you purchased the house for $50.000 and during your marriage paid off $10,000 of principal with community funds, then 20% was paid by the community.
Using the above examples, you take the percentage paid by the community, 20%, of the amount your house increased in value, $100,000, and add the amount of principal paid during the marriage, $10,000, which equals $30,000. This means that the community would be entitled to $30,000 of the $200,000 house.
This would mean that in the above example, each spouse would be entitled to $15,000 as community property is divided equally. The remainder of the house value and the balance due on the loan is kept by the spouse that purchased the house with separate funds before the marriage.
Is There Anything Else I Should be Aware of?
In a typical divorce, there are many additional factors that may be involved in the calculation. Refinancing and home improvements made with community funds both influence the calculation. Further, it may simply be difficult to agree on the required values of the home with your spouse.
Because of the complex nature of the Moore Marsden analysis, it is important to discuss your circumstances with a knowledgeable expert. If you own a home and are considering divorce, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri.
Please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Aretha Franklin Did Not Have a Will
/in Estate Planning /by Michael LonichBut Did Aretha Franklin Need a Will?
Tragically, Aretha Franklin passed away on August 16, 2018 from pancreatic cancer. She left behind four sons but no will or estate plan. Because she did not have a will, during the court process all her assets will be made public. Aretha Franklin’s estate is estimated to be around $80 million and includes financial accounts, personal and real property, and music copyrights. The law of Michigan, where Aretha Franklin died, requires that her assets be divided equally between her four sons. While this may seem simple, it is very common when there is no will for the estate to be contested.
For example, Prince’s estate has been highly contested by the executor of his estate, Comerica Bank and Trust, and his heirs – his six siblings – over the value of his estate and how it should be divided. Prince passed away in 2016 and his $200 million estate has paid lawyers and consultants over $5.9 million while his heirs have yet to receive anything. Lawyers for three of Prince’s heirs claim that it is a “legitimate concern” whether Prince’s heirs will receive anything at all.
If Aretha Franklin had created a trust, her estate would remain private, fees would be reduced, and her heirs would receive their portion of the estate much faster.
Do I Need a Will?
Over half of Americans do not have a will. Most claim they have simply not gotten around to it and many believe that they do not own enough property to pass down.
While most Americans will not leave behind an estate as large as Aretha Franklin or Prince, a will or trust is still extremely valuable.
It is important to remember that your debts as well as your assets are included in your estate. With a will, you can dictate which debts are paid first, this could allow specific property to not be used to pay debts.
Another crucial element is guardianship of children. When there is no will, the court will appoint a guardian. The court will generally appoint the surviving spouse as guardian. However, if the spouse is unavailable the court will appoint a grandparent, and failing that, the next closest relative. With a will, you may nominate a specific guardian who you feel will be best equipped to care for your children.
One more significant factor to consider is who you want, or who you don’t want to execute your wishes. In California if you do not leave a will, your family members may petition to be the administrator of your estate. The court will appoint the petitioner as an administrator if all family members with higher priority decline to serve as an administrator. With a will, you can appoint an executor who you feel is most capable. Alternatively, you may spell out in your will who you do not want to execute your will.
There are many tangible benefits of a will, however the process of drafting a will can be complex. If you are considering a will or another form of estate planning, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. We offer free half-hour consultations.
Please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Roses, Chocolates, and Prenups
/in Family Law /by Michael LonichAbout forty percent of all marriage proposals occur during the proposal season – the time between Thanksgiving and Valentine’s day – with Valentine’s day as one of the most popular days of the year. While Valentine’s day brings a romantic feeling full of roses and chocolates, February is also the beginning of another season: divorce season. February has the highest rate of divorce filings out of the year, and there is a dramatic increase in referrals for divorce lawyers the day after Valentine’s day. Valentine’s day can elicit strong emotions and the statistics show that people follow their passions this month either by beginning or ending a marriage.
Staying married is not always easy or simple. In the United States, the divorce rate is around 50% and is even higher for second and third marriages. There are many complex issues that arise during marriage that a couple must navigate, particularly surrounding finances. Money is often the number one cause of conflict in a marriage, and as many as thirty percent of couples that fight about money end up divorced.
Typically, a premarital agreement is intended to create conditions that will encourage the growth and health of a marriage. The traditional agreement tends to focus on property owned before marriage by the couple as well as property that may be earned during the marriage. Although it seems like a premarital agreement would be counter-intuitive to romance, discussion of these important financial issues can help a couple grow. It can benefit the confidence in a relationship for couples to openly discuss their concerns and to plan together for the future.
Because of the cost, a premarital agreement may not be for everyone. The traditional factors a couple should consider include the total amount of wealth they possess, and whether there is an un-equal amount of wealth between the couple. Additionally, premarital agreements are gaining popularity with young people who have pursued careers that may lead to a lucrative profession. Protecting their personal efforts is an increasing concern amongst people who might rather not have the state determine their financial future.
If you are feeling swept up by Valentine’s day romance and are planning to propose, considering a premarital agreement may be a great benefit to your future. For more information and advice, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri.
Please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Who Dunnit: Playing the Blame Game in a Divorce
/in Family Law /by Gina PolicastriObtaining a divorce can be time consuming and expensive, especially when one spouse blames the other for the marriage’s end. Will the court take into consideration who behaved badly or caused the divorce? Although courts in England will be concerned with who is at “fault” before granting a divorce, California courts will not take “fault” into consideration.
In California, a couple may obtain a “no-fault” divorce – neither spouse must prove the other is at fault for the marriage’s breakdown. In the 1800s, however, England only allowed divorces where one spouse could prove the other was at “fault.” This rule remains in effect today, in part.
In England, courts will grant a divorce only if the party seeking the divorce can prove the marriage has irretrievably broken down by establishing one of the five following facts: (a) adultery, (b) unreasonable behavior, (c) desertion, (d) two years of separation with consent, or (e) five years of separation with or without consent. While the last two grounds for divorce do not require one spouse to prove that the other spouse was at fault, proving adultery and “unreasonable behavior” often requires spouses to play the blame game.
On July 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled Tini Owens, an English wife, must remain married to Hugh Owens, her husband of 40 years after she failed to prove her husband was at fault for the breakdown in their marriage. Tini contemplated divorce in 2012 and moved out of the couple’s home in February 2015. Tini argued her husband engaged in “unreasonable behavior” such that she could not reasonably be expected to continue their marriage. Hugh argued if the marriage had broken down, it must have been because Tini had an affair or was “bored.”
While many progressives and lawyers hoped for the court to grant the divorce, the court refused. One Supreme Court judge stated that Parliament had “decreed” that being in a “wretchedly unhappy marriage” was not a ground for divorce. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the modern trend toward the “no-fault” divorce system in the United Kingdom and United States.
Fortunately, in California, grounds for divorce range from “irreconcilable differences” to “permanent legal incapacity to make decisions,” formerly known as “incurable insanity.” Moreover, evidence of specific acts of misconduct are not admissible in dissolution or separation proceedings, except for history of domestic abuse in cases involving child custody or restraining orders. If you are contemplating divorce, regardless of who is at “fault,” contact the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for a free half-hour consultation.
Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship
GAVRON WARNING – BE SELF-SUPPORTING OR RISK LOSING SPOUSAL SUPPORT
/in Family Law /by Lonich Patton Ehrlich PolicastriPart of the divorce process will require both parties to divide the assets acquired during the marriage, and one spouse is often required to support the other after divorce. How long will the support order last? Will the court allow the supported spouse to remain supported for the rest of his or her life? In cases where support is ordered, the court will likely issue a “Gavron Warning” to the supported party. This warning may have a significant impact on the spousal support order, and the supported spouse may risk having income imputed to him/her.
A Gavron Warning is a notice issued by the court to a spouse receiving support that he or she is expected to become self-supporting. Typically, a Gavron Warning will be issued at the time the spousal support order is made. Under certain circumstances, including marriages of long duration, the court may decide that a Gavron Warning is not necessary. Unless the supported spouse has been warned by the court, he or she cannot be penalized for not becoming self-supporting. Once the court issues a Gavron Warning, the court expects the supported spouse to make all reasonable efforts to become self-supporting within a reasonable period of time.
Courts will aim to issue Gavron Warnings for a reasonable period of time. A reasonable period of time is generally one-half the length of the marriage, except for marriages of long duration (over 10 years). (Fam. Code, § 4320.) However, the Court has discretion to order support for a greater or lesser length of time, based on other factors and the specific circumstances of the case. Spouses who need further education or training to become employable “will usually need more advance warning than spouses who already possess job skills and only need to find suitable work.” (Marriage of Schmir (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 43, 48.) If the supported spouse does not make reasonable good faith efforts to become self-supporting, the supported spouse risks having income imputed.
If the court issues a Gavron Warning to the supported spouse, and the supported spouse fails to become self-supporting, the court may treat the supported spouse as if he/she is earning an income within his/her earning capacity, or impute income to the supported spouse. Moreover, the court may use this imputed income to justify a modification or termination of spousal support. For example, if a party receives a warning to become self-supporting, and the party’s earning capacity is $60,000 per year, but the party fails to become self-supporting after receiving a warning, the court will treat the party as if he/she is earning $60,000 and no longer needs the existing amount of spousal support. The court may choose to reduce the spousal support order or terminate it altogether.
If the court issues a Gavron Warning, the court can impute income, and reduce or terminate spousal support if the warned party fails to make reasonable good faith efforts to become self-supporting. Spousal support and divorce are complicated processes, and an attorney can help you navigate through both. If you are seeking help with a Gavron Warning, obtaining spousal support, or divorce, contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri – we offer free half-hour consultations.
Each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.