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
How Facebook Can Affect Your Divorce
/in Family Law, In the Community /by Gretchen BogerLast February 2013, a New York Father was awarded sole custody after a Mother utilized Facebook to “insult and demean” her ten year old child. The Court found that Father was “more able to provide a stable and nurturing environment” for the children, citing Mother’s “inappropriate use of the Internet and lack of remorse or insight into the appropriateness of such behavior.”
Social media can play a dangerous role during divorce proceedings. Facebook, which now has more than 800 million active users, has become an important and undeniable presence in today’s culture. Your profile shares and records everything from your personal information, to your new profile picture, and your mood. Your posts may be valuable evidence to your ex-spouse’s divorce attorney.
In recent years there has been an increase, especially in family law cases, of the amount of evidence collected from social media sites. Photographs, updates, and conversations you post online may be admitted into evidence. Further, it might not be a good idea to post about your divorce proceedings. If you do, choose your words carefully and express yourself diplomatically – on the same level as you would present yourself to your judge. This rule of thumb extends to iMessages, emails, Twitter, dating websites, your blog, etc.
Remember that anything online is extremely accessible. If you post anything that contradicts what you have stated in your pleadings, it can impeach your credibility and given the discretionary nature of family law cases, may negatively impact your case. For example, the following Facebook activity often makes its way into the family courtroom:
Even if you have de-friended people who know your ex and made your privacy settings air-tight, your ex may still be able to access your updates. Recently, Facebook was put in the spotlight over a controversial social experiment it conducted to determine whether emotions are contagious (conclusion: they are). Without first getting consent, Facebook manipulated 689,003 user’s News Feeds to display either positive or negative posts and then monitored the users’ reactions. People have had various reactions towards this experiment. Some feel violated for being used as a lab rat. This study is a reminder that regardless of your consent, you never know who has access to or has saved what you posted.
The bottom line: think before updating your Facebook status, especially during divorce proceedings. Online statements are similar to face-to-face conversations but they are much easier to document. Further, the court may consider your posts in your divorce proceedings.
If you have any questions or concerns about your or your spouse’s online presence and how it may affect your divorce, feel free to contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law proceedings and offer a free 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 include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
A sperm donor who signs a document waiving his parental rights doesn’t have to pay child support, right?
/in Family Law /by Gretchen BogerThe answer is: not necessarily. Early in 2014, a Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple while also signing documents waiving his parental rights may have to pay child support anyhow. “I donated sperm and that was it for me,” he told CNN.
A judge ruled otherwise, saying that he must pay child support. This was because the lesbian couple conceived the child through an artificial insemination procedure that was carried out at home, which fails to conform to Kansas law. In Kansas, a licensed physician must be involved in an artificial insemination process.
After following up on an ad on Craigslist in March of 2009, sperm was donated and documents were signed waiving parental rights. Now that the child is four years old, Kansas law says he is the father and has to pay up.
The issue has come up in California as well. In 2012, a California appellate court held that the renowned bodybuilder Ronnie Coleman was not required to pay child support for triplets (one of whom tragically died) he fathered through artificial insemination after a court ordered him to pay over $4,000 per month.
In 2006, Coleman agreed to donate sperm at a California Sperm bank for a friend. He admitted having no interest in having parental duties but was willing to donate his sperm to a woman who allegedly had an on-again off-again sexual relationship with the bodybuilder in his past. Four years later he was slapped with a paternity suit forcing him to pay child support. After dutifully paying the child support for several years, an appellate court overturned the verdict.
California Family Code section 7613 says that the donor of semen provided to a licensed physician or licensed sperm bank for use in artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of a woman, other than the donor’s wife, is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived. The court found that because the facts of Coleman’s case fell squarely within the parameters of 7613, any agreements between them as to parenthood were void.
The language of Code section 7613 can also help women who want to withhold parental rights from men who have donated sperm. A previous California case, Steven S. v. Deborah D., is a prime example. There, a man attempted to establish paternity for a child he fathered through artificial insemination with a woman he was intimately involved with but to whom he was not married. The woman argued against paternity and the court agreed that 7613 guaranteed the right of women to bear children without fear of paternity claims.
Paternity cases can be dramatic and complicated. If you find yourself in a difficult child custody situation, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization). Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law proceedings and offer a free 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 include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
See California Family Code § 7613.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/
http://www.sandiegodivorcelawyerblog.com/2012/06/a-california-appellate-court-held.html
Sometimes Diamonds are Not Forever
/in Family Law /by Julia LemonCalifornia is a community property state, which means that all property acquired during marriage by either spouse is presumed to be community property. Conversely, any property acquired by a spouse before marriage, by gift or inheritance during marriage, or after separation is presumed to be the acquiring spouse’s separate property. However, it is possible for a spouse to change the character of an asset by transmuting a community property asset into one spouse’s separate property, or vice versa.
Generally speaking, to qualify as a valid transmutation, there must be an express written declaration made, consented to, or joined in by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected. These strict requirements were enacted to avoid “he said/she said” situations where one spouse was presenting “pillow talk” evidence.
For example, a couple buys a car during marriage with community funds for the wife to drive. When the couple later divorces, the wife claims the car is her separate property because she was the only one who drove it. Unless there is a written agreement signed by her husband stating that the car is her separate property, her argument will fail because there was not a valid transmutation.
This rule makes sense for expensive items, like a car. However, spouses give gifts to each other all the time, and requiring a written agreement for every birthday gift or anniversary gift would be impractical and somewhat annoying. Imagine, “Dear Wife, Happy Anniversary! I love you so much. Here is a necklace that I am gifting you as your separate property.” Fortunately, the Family Code does not require an express written declaration for gifts such as clothing, jewelry, or other tangible items of a personal nature used solely or principally by the spouse receiving the gift unless the gift is “substantial in value taking into account the circumstances of the marriage.” In other words, an expensive gift to one spouse may be considered community property absent a transmutation.
In Marriage of Steinberger, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1449 (2001), the husband purchased a diamond ring and gave it to his wife on their fifth wedding anniversary with a card congratulating her on her recent promotion. The ring was worth at least $14,000. At divorce, the wife argued that the ring was her separate property because her husband gifted it to her on their anniversary. The husband, however, argued that he purchased the ring as an investment for them both to enjoy, and that it was not his intent to give her the ring as her separate property. He testified that the most expensive gift he had given her during the marriage was a Christmas gift card that cost a couple hundred dollars. The trial court found that the ring was a gift to the wife since it was tangible personal property.
However, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s finding. The appellate court reasoned that the ring was of substantial value considering the circumstances of the marriage, so the exception to the written declaration requirement did not apply. Since there was no express written declaration, there had not been a valid transmutation, and the ring was a community asset that should have been divided equally upon divorce. When it comes to substantial gifts in California, formality takes precedence over informality.
If you have any questions about how your personal property or your last anniversary gift may be classified, feel free to contact our experienced family law attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for further information.
Remember that each individual situation is unique. 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 Surprising Tax Benefits of Holding Title as Community Property with Right of Survivorship
/in Estate Planning /by Michael LonichA married couple in California can hold title to their real property in various forms. Historically, many couples took title in joint tenancy without first consulting with an attorney, merely because their real estate agent would suggest it. However, the way that a couple holds title to an asset can have significant consequences in the event of divorce or the death of a spouse.
Community Property with Right of Survivorship is a relatively new way for married couples to hold title to property in California. Under Section 682.1 of the California Civil Code, property clearly titled “Community Property with Right of Survivorship” and deeded after July 1, 2001 will pass to the surviving spouse upon death of one of the spouses.
Depending on your situation, there may be significant benefits to holding title as Community Property with Right of Survivorship. When title is held in this manner and a spouse dies, their interest in the property is extinguished and it passes to the surviving spouse, avoiding probate. This can benefit the surviving spouse by eliminating any stress associated with probate procedures, family disputes, and attorney’s fees. For more information regarding the probate system and why people choose to avoid it, see our previous post.
Additionally, this form of title allows the surviving spouse to obtain the tax benefits of community property upon the death of the other spouse. Consider the happily married couple, Hank and Wendy, who bought a home in 2004 for $100,000. This is their basis. Now, the house is worth $1,000,000. If Hank and Wendy were to sell the house for $1,000,000, they would be taxed on the difference between the sale price ($1,000,000) and their adjusted basis ($100,000), or $900,000. Now let’s assume that Hank unfortunately dies and Wendy wants to sell the house. In this scenario, the amount of taxable profit will depend on how title is held.
If the parties hold title to the house as Joint Tenants, each spouse owns a 50% interest in the house. When Hank dies, Wendy automatically inherits his half share of the house. The basis of inherited property is adjusted to the value of the property at the date of death. Wendy’s basis will stay the same ($50,000) and the share she inherited from Hank will be adjusted to the value of his share of the property at his death ($500,000). Wendy’s new adjusted basis in the house is $550,000. If Wendy sells for $1,000,000, she is taxed on the difference between the sale price ($1,000,000) and her adjusted basis ($550,000) or $450,000.
However, if the parties hold title to the house as Community Property with Right of Survivorship, each spouse owns the entire property rather than a 50% interest. Upon Hank’s death, both his interest and Wendy’s interest receive a stepped up basis. Thus, the basis of the home is adjusted to the date of death value for the entire property ($1,000,000). If Wendy sells for $1,000,000, she is taxed on the difference between the sale price ($1,000,000) and her adjusted basis ($1,000,000), or nothing.
In the event of a divorce, the house is treated as community property. If you have any questions regarding how your current property is titled or are considering changing your current estate plan, feel free to contact the experienced estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for further information.
Remember that each individual situation is unique. While this post may detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
A Cautionary Tale of Fill-in-the-Blank Wills: Not So E-Z After All
/in Estate Planning /by Michael LonichOnline platforms like Legal Zoom and Rocket Lawyer, as well as form wills marketed by companies like E-Z Legal Forms, are gaining popularity in the estate planning world. However, a recent Florida decision* serves as a fresh reminder that using one of these one-size-fits all approaches to estate planning could land your family in court despite your wishes.**
In a recent case, a Florida woman created a will through E-Z Legal Forms, leaving all of her property to her sister and finally to her brother if her sister predeceased her. The sister died first, so the brother claimed the entire estate. That would have been the result that fit with the deceased woman’s wishes. However, because the document was made without attorney oversight, the document lacked a residuary clause (important in Florida) and opened the door to disagreement over the interpretation of the will. Two of the woman’s nieces sued for a share of the estate.
The nieces, who were born to another brother who had already passed away and who were not mentioned in the will, walked away with a portion of the estate because they argued that they should receive part of any property that the deceased earned after signing the original will. The Florida Supreme Court agreed, determining that all property earned after the will was signed must go through probate and be distributed based upon the State’s intestacy laws. (Intestacy laws govern who will receive property when a person dies without a will). Because she had a will, this was clearly not what the deceased woman intended, and one Justice shared a word of caution:
“I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. As this case illustrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator’s intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney’s fees—the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place.”
The court also acknowledged that people want to avoid dealing with lawyers and spending additional money, but sometimes making an investment in legal counsel will help the party and their family avoid even greater legal feels and turmoil in the future.
Creating a will doesn’t always have to be complicated. Nevertheless, it is best to create yours with the aid of an experienced estate planning attorney if you wish to avoid probate and future disputes over your estate. If you need estate planning advice, call Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri to schedule a free half-hour consultation. Our attorneys are passionate about estate planning and have decades of experience handling complex estate planning matters, including wills and living trusts. If you need a will or would like to review the will you currently have, contact the experienced estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for further information.
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.
*FlascBlog: The Florida Supreme Court Blog reports on the opinion (PDF).
**To see the original article that inspired this post: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/e-z_legal_form_proved_to_be_complicated_in_litigation_over_wills_missing_re/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email