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
Educational Degrees and Divorce
/in Family Law /by Michael LonichMore individuals today have received some sort of professional degree or training than ever before. But with the influx of costs for higher education many married students rely on their spouse for financial support. And upon legal separation or divorce a spouse who supported the other through their education may be entitled to reimbursement for their community fund contributions.
If a spouse chooses to obtain a professional degree or training during their marriage usually two events occur. First, the non-student spouse supports the other financially by paying for the community and educational expenses. Second, after the education is complete, community funds may be used to repay any outstanding loan amount. Upon legal separation or divorce in California these educational loans will be assigned to the spouse who received the education or training and the non-student spouse may have a right to reimbursement for their community contributions. However, California does not recognize an obtained degree or training as community property and therefore its value cannot be divisible upon divorce.
The reimbursement for community fund contributions to a spouse’s education or training is an exclusive remedy governed by Family Code Section 2641. But the spouse seeking reimbursement has a burden to trace the funds to a community property source such as earnings acquired during the marriage. Reimbursement is seen to give a fair “quid pro quo” (this for that) of the community’s investment in the education of a spouse. A supporting spouse may receive reimbursement if the education or training “substantially enhanced” the earning capacity of the spouse or the marriage has ended before the community obtains a benefit from such education. Contributions that may be reimbursed involve payments made with community or quasi-community property to support the student spouse’s education expenditures. These expenses include: tuition, fees, books, supplies, transportation, and directly related educational expenses. However, a spouse will not receive reimbursement for ordinary living expenses since these would have been incurred regardless of a spouse’s educational expedition.
Full reimbursement is not guaranteed though and a court may choose to impose limitations on a spouse’s reimbursement amount if their case’s circumstances warrant such a decision. There are several reasons for a limitation and the ones listed below are by no means exhaustive, but merely illustrative.
A person embarks on an advanced degree or training for a multitude of reasons, one of which may be for better financial standing. Yet, even though there is an expectation that the education will benefit the marital community there is no presumption that the enhancement will be “substantial.” Thus, if a spouse cannot demonstrate the education received in fact substantially enhanced the earning capacity, then reimbursement may be limited.
“Unjust reimbursement” can also limit reimbursement. This occurs when a court determines specific circumstances within a case renders a full reimbursement of the community contributions unfair. For example, if both spouses have obtained a degree or training at the community’s expense a reimbursement to only one would be unjust since both were at one point supported by the other. Unjust reimbursement may also occur when a spouse receives education or training that substantially reduces their need for spousal support. These examples however are merely illustrative and many other circumstances may lead a court to deem full reimbursement to a spouse as unjust.
Finally, a written agreement between the spouses that waives or modifies a reimbursement right may limit a spouse’s amount receivable. Such a waiver or modification must be written expressly; it cannot be agreed upon orally or implied and must be signed by the adverse party.
The achievement of obtaining a degree or training is rewarding for all involved. However, upon legal separation or divorce, rights to reimbursement for community contributions can become complex. If you are considering a divorce or legal separation and would like more information about divorce and educational reimbursement, please contact the experienced family law attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri.
Lastly, 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.
Hardship Factors in Child Support Cases
/1 Comment/in Family Law /by Michael LonichMay a parent claim a child from a different relationship as a hardship on their income when figuring in the guideline amount of support? The short answers is yes, you can claim a minor child from a different relationship as a hardship deduction if you meet the requirements.
Hardship deductions from income for supporting other children only apply to a child who is either a natural or adopted child of the party involved in the child support case. For example, if you were married and had two children from the marriage, then get divorced and later have another child form a second marriage, the child from the second marriage could potentially considered as a hardship on your income when calculating support for the two children from your marriage.
However, it is important to note that stepchildren cannot be considered as a hardship deduction, only natural or adopted children. The reason is that it only applies to children where there is a legal obligation to provide support. Also, the hardship child needs to reside with the parent. A child from another relationship that doesn’t reside with the parent involved in the child support case would not qualify, although child support paid for other children can be considered separately from hardships in calculating guideline child support.
Another important element to understand is that the maximum hardship deduction for a hardship child cannot exceed the amount of support allocated to each child covered by the child support order. This puts a limitation on how much hardship can be claimed, with the intent to protect the children who already are due support by the parent.
California Family Code sections 4070-4073 regulate the hardship claims that can be made in a child support case. Something to keep in mind is that the hardship deduction for another child may not affect the amount of support as much as the parent thinks it will. For a person paying support, a hardship child deduction will lower the support, but since there usually is also a benefit from the extra tax deduction that another child provides, it often does not lower it as much as people expect.
Many courts, such as the Santa Clara County Superior Court, use a computer program when calculating support called Dissomaster. A Dissomaster report is often attached to any child support order, and shows the breakdown of each parent’s income, and automatically calculates the guideline support. If using this software, the hardship child would usually be given either a factor of .5 or 1.0 in the hardship deduction section, depending on if the hardship child is fully or partially supported by the parent. When the factor is entered, the program will automatically calculate the amount of the hardship deduction, and apply it to the child support guideline calculation.
Because getting a hardship child to be figured into the child support amount can be complicated, it may be necessary for a parent to obtain the assistance of a family law attorney to ensure that the parent gets the proper deduction credited to them.
If you are considering a divorce or legal separation and would like more information about hardship factors, please contact the experienced family law attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. We can help you understand and manage any support issues that may arise.
Lastly, please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this posit 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.
The More The Merrier Revisited: Tri-Custody in New York
/in Family Law /by Michael LonichAs we have discussed on this blog before, California allows a child to have more than two legal parents. With the rise of assisted reproduction and wider recognition of non-traditional family units, it is growing apparent that children may receive substantial physical and emotional care from more than two people.
In California, the Martinez v. Vaziri case concluded that a child’s biological mother, biological father, and third person—the man who cared for the child and was the child’s only father figure—could all claim legal parentage. The case’s holding was grounded in a California statute (Family Code Section 7611) that allows children to have more than two legal parents if recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child.
Now, New York has stepped up to the plate in a case involving a polyamorous family. After a lengthy custody battle, a judge awarded custody of a child to three different people. When the child was born, the three people had been involved in a longstanding intimate relationship. Two of the people were married, and the remaining person lived next door. The married woman (Wife) could not conceive, so the family decided that the married man (Husband/Father) would impregnate the third woman (Mother), and the family would raise the child together. Ultimately, Mother gave birth to a boy, but then, Wife and Husband/Father got divorced while Wife and Mother continued their relationship. Even though Wife continued to see her son during his custodial time with his biological mother, Wife wished to formalize her own legal link to the boy.
Concluding that the child viewed both women as his mothers and would be devastated if any of his three parents were removed from his life, a New York judge granted parental rights to Wife, Husband/Father, and Mother. Unlike in California, this decision is not grounded in a statutory right to have more than two parents, but the case evidences an emergent shift in the judiciary’s interpretation of what constitutes a family unit.
If you have any questions about establishing your child’s legal parentage, please contact the experienced family law attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri—we can help you understand and secure your and your child’s legal rights.
Lastly, 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.
SOURCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/health/three-parent-custody-agreement-trnd/
Understanding the Impact of the Spousal Fiduciary Duty on Estate Planning
/in Estate Planning, Family Law /by Michael LonichWe have outlined the spousal fiduciary duty on this blog before; now, we’re delving a bit deeper to discuss the impact of the spousal fiduciary duty on estate planning. Traditionally, California courts rely on a common law burden-shifting framework when confronted with the possibility that a spouse has unduly influenced his/her spouse’s estate planning decisions. However, a 2014 case from a California Court of Appeal—Lintz v. Lintz— took a different approach, and instead, relied on the statutory spousal fiduciary duty articulated in California Family Code section 721 to resolve an estate planning/undue influence claim.
The common law framework provides that the person alleging undue influence bears the burden of proof. However, the challenger can shift the burden to the proponent of a testamentary instrument by establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, three elements: 1) a confidential relationship, 2) active procurement of the instrument, and 3) an undue benefit to the alleged influencer.
Departing from the common law, the Lintz court—faced with an allegedly abusive wife who intimidated her husband into amending his trust to her tremendous benefit and to the extreme detriment of her stepchildren—looked to Family Code section 721 when it decided in favor of the husband’s estate. Section 721 creates a broad fiduciary duty between spouses that demands a duty of “the highest good faith and fair dealing.” Further, neither spouse may take unfair advantage of the other. As a result, if any inter-spousal transaction advantages only one spouse, a statutory presumption arises under section 721 that the advantaged spouse exercised undue influence. The presumption is rebuttable—the advantaged spouse can demonstrate that the disadvantaged spouse’s action was freely and voluntarily made, with full knowledge of the facts, and with a complete understanding of the transaction.
California Family Code section 850 describes three categories of inter-spousal transactions: 1) community property to separate property, 2) separate property to community property, and 3) separate property of one spouse to separate property of other spouse. Notably, the section does not consider transferring community or separate property to trusts.
The court concluded that section 721 applies because section 850 does include property transferred to revocable trusts—in Lintz, Wife’s undue influence caused Husband, via his trust, to transmute a large part of his separate property to community property. Accordingly, the court held that Family Code section 721 creates a presumption of undue influence when one spouse names the other as a beneficiary in a revocable trust.
Criticism of the decision abounds—all estate plans that name a spouse as a beneficiary, by their very nature, benefit one spouse. In turn, use of the Family Code undue influence presumption threatens to disturb all testamentary instruments, and litigation may flood the family courts as spouses seek to rebut the seemingly automatic presumption that Lintz creates. On the other hand, some commenters believe Lintz does not indicate a new paradigm, but rather, showcases a court’s eagerness to remedy the serious injury inflicted by a spouse’s egregious influence.
At the very least, the Lintz case does demonstrate that estate planning and family law are deeply intertwined. Consulting with an attorney to learn how a marriage or divorce can impact your testamentary wishes is always wise. If you have any questions about your family law and/or estate planning needs, please contact the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri—we offer free half-hour consultations.
Lastly, 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.
SOURCES:
California Family Code section 721
California Family Code section 850
Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346.
Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri In The Community!
/in In the Community /by Michael LonichMock trial is a great way to learn the practical tools of the legal trade. Just ask Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri attorney, Bobby Khalajestani, who competed in several moot court competitions during law school and was a member of Santa Clara Law School’s Trial Team! Now though, Bobby is taking a seat at the judges’ table–in early February, he judged the 2017 Santa Clara High School Mock Trial Tournament. In a mock criminal trial, over 400 participating students had to get several statements in during pretrial motions, make objections based on the Evidence Code, conduct direct and cross examinations, and give opening and closing statements. Bobby reports that everybody competed at a very high level and displayed great court room skills! The tournament is ongoing as the students progress through multiple rounds, so be sure to check out the competition schedule if you would like to watch these future lawyers in action.
Congratulations to the tournament’s participants, and good luck to everybody still in the game!
For more information about Bobby or any of our firm’s attorneys, please contact Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri—we offer free half-hour consultation appointments to assess your family law and estate planning needs.
Please remember though, that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed on this site are not a guarantee of future results. While our blog posts may detail general legal issues, they are not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.