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.
About | Why LPEP | Contact | Blog | Data Breach Information
© 2024 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Loss of Parental Rights = Loss of Standing in Proceedings Concerning the Child
/in Family Law /by Gina PolicastriOnce a parent has acquiesced to a termination of parental rights, he or she has no remaining legal interest in the child’s affairs. This means the parent also does not have standing to appeal orders relating to the child’s placement. A recent California Supreme Case affirmed this rule.
In In re K.C., 52 Cal. 4th 231 (2011), K.C. was one of eight siblings, two of whom were deceased and the other five of whom were placed with grandparents after separate juvenile dependency proceedings resulting in the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to the five siblings. While an infant, K.C. was removed from his mother’s custody and placed with a foster family who wished to adopt him. K.C.’s grandparents petitioned for K.C. to be placed with them, however, the child services agency doubted their ability to care for a sixth child and was concerned with the parents’ continued access to the kids. Father did not object to the termination of his parental rights and supported Grandparent’s request. The trial court denied Grandparents’ petition and they failed to timely appeal. Instead, Father appealed the order. However, he did not object to the judgment terminating his parental rights but limited his argument to the issue of K.C.’s placement.
On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed Father’s appeal and held that Father could not show that the placement decision affected his parental rights and he thus was not aggrieved by the decision. The California Supreme Court affirmed this decision. Only an aggrieved person has standing to appeal, otherwise the party does not have rights or interests injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way. Since Father acquiesced to the termination of his parental rights, he relinquished the only interest in K.C. that could render him an aggrieved party.
Throughout child custody or parental termination proceedings, proper objections must be made if a parent does not want to risk losing standing to appeal judgments concerning the child. The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex child custody and divorce issues. If you are contemplating divorce, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri, who can provide you with an in depth analysis of your issues. 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.
*Certified Family Law Specialist, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Connecticut Judge Orders Divorcing Couple to Exchange Facebook Passwords
/in Family Law /by David PattonEvidence from social networking websites is used more and more often in lawsuits and divorces these days. This information is typically obtained by visiting a party’s page or requesting information from the party personally, not from obtaining a party’s password and signing into their account on your own accord. However, judges are beginning to force parties to surrender passwords to their Facebook accounts.
On September 30, 2011, a Superior Court of Connecticut issued an order requiring “[c]ounsel for each party [] exchange the password(s) of their client’s Facebook and dating website passwords. The parties themselves shall not be given the passwords of the other.” Stephen Gallion v. Courtney Gallion, Clarification of Order. Courtney and Stephen are in a custody battle, and Stephen is seeking full custody of the parties’ children. To bolster his position, he sought access to Courtney’s Facebook and online dating accounts because he and his attorney suspected that they would find evidence of how Courtney feels about her children and her ability to care for them. They requested that the court order Courtney to provide her password; the court ordered the attorneys to exchange the parties’ passwords, and also issued an injunction prohibiting Courtney from deleting any information from these websites. (Summary from Forbes).
As social networking becomes a larger part of our lives, it will play a larger role in our lawsuits. Typically, if a party is ordered to provide social networking data, he or she will be required to produce responsive material (e.g. printouts of a party’s profile page), not the passwords, which would allow the other side to gain unfettered access to more content. However, recent cases show a different pattern. Lawyer and tech blogger Venkat Balasubramani has written about several other civil cases 1) where judges have issued similar orders, including a personal injury case, 2) where judges have taken it upon themselves to sign into someone’s Facebook account and look for evidence, 3) as well as cases where judges have rejected lawyers requesting opposing litigants’ passwords, as in an insurance case involving State Farm (Summary from Forbes).
The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed divorce and support issues. If you are contemplating divorce, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri, who can provide you with an in depth analysis of your issues. 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.
*Certified Family Law Specialist, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Tennessee Supreme Court Prohibits Lifetime Alimony for Ex-Spouse
/in Family Law /by Mitchell EhrlichOn September 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a woman who earned $72,000 a year was not entitled to lifetime alimony (permanent alimony) from her higher-earning ex-husband.
In Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 2011 WL 4116654 (Tenn. Sept. 16, 2011), Johanna and Craig were married for twenty-one years with two adult daughters. Johanna earned $72,000 a year in an IT position and Craig earned more than $137,000 a year as an accountant. At the trial level, the court declined to award spousal support of any type to either party. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered the husband to pay the wife lifetime alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month until her death or remarriage. The court reasoned that, although there was no need for economic rehabilitation given that Johanna was a college graduate and had a steady career, alimony in futuro was ‘necessary to mitigate the harsh economic realities of divorce’ due to the disparity in the parties’ incomes. Craig appealed.
The issue before the Tennessee Supreme Court was whether permanent alimony should be awarded to a spouse who has a college degree, good health, a stable work history in a relatively high paying job, and a lack of demonstrated need for such long-term alimony. The court reversed the appellate court decision, noting that it is unlikely that both parties will be able to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle given two persons living separately incur more expenses than two persons living together and there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Thus, Johanna should not be awarded permanent spousal support.
This decision affirmed Tennessee’s traditional analysis of considering both ability and need in making permanent alimony determinations. While Craig may have had the ability to pay lifetime alimony, Johanna did not have the need. In California, courts consider need and ability to pay when setting temporary spousal support, which may be ordered after separation pending trial. However, when setting permanent spousal support, the court must consider approximately fourteen statutory factors, including need and ability to pay, when determining permanent spousal support. As such, it is likely that the Gonsewski case would have been similarly decided in California grounds given the higher standard provided by the fourteen factors set forth in section 4320.
The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed divorce and support issues. If you are contemplating divorce, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri, who can provide you with an in depth analysis of your issues. 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.
*Certified Family Law Specialist, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Update: Gifts to Caregivers Prohibited
/in Estate Planning /by Michael LonichRecall that gifts to caregivers are generally prohibited by law under California Probate Code section 21350. (See blog: Gifts to Caregivers Prohibited noting what activities constitute “caregiving”). However, section 21351, enumerates several exceptions to this general rule. One of the exceptions—found in Section 21351(a)—provides that section 21350 does not apply if the transferor is related by blood or marriage to, is a cohabitant with, or is registered as a domestic partner of the transferee. Cal. Prob. Code § 21351(a) (West). The issue in a recent California case was whether this provision applied to a stepdaughter by marriage.
In Hernandez v. Kieferle (October 31, 2011), the Second Appellate District of California reviewed a probate court decision which invalidated an amendment to a trust designating stepdaughter Claudine Kieferle as the trustee and sole beneficiary of her stepmother Gertrude’s estate. The designated beneficiary of a prior amendment, Gertrude’s next-door neighbor Florentina Hernandez, challenged the validity of the second amendment removing her as the trustee and principal beneficiary of the estate. The probate court found for Florentina noting that section 21350 established a presumption that transfers to care custodians are the product of fraud, duress, menace, or undue influence and, since Claudine lived with Gertrude and cared for her in the evenings, Claudine was disqualified from taking under the trust.
In reviewing the lower court ruling, however, the Appellate Court reversed this decision and concluded that it was an error not to apply the exception found in section 21351(a). The Court rejected the argument that the exception did not apply to Claudine because she was not an “heir”—where her stepmother’s estate did not actually contain property attributable to her father (who passed away eleven years prior)—and found that a person is the transferor’s heir if some intestate rule identifies the person as the transferor’s successor, regardless of whether the transferor’s estate includes the type of property distributed under the rule. Therefore, the section 21351 exception applied and the second amendment was deemed valid allowing Claudine to remain as the trustee and sole beneficiary of Gertrude’s estate.
If you are interested in learning more about making amendments to a trust or creating an estate plan, please contact the San Jose estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri, LLP. 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.
2011 Tax Laws Affecting the Inheritance of Real Property
/in Estate Planning /by Michael LonichIn 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act (Tax Relief Act) of 2010 extended the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) for two years through 2012. For those who may be inheriting real property in 2011, it is important to note that the “step up in basis” rules will remain through 2012.
In order to adequately explain what this concept entails, here is an example from the Wall Street Journal:
Suppose your Uncle Joe died earlier this year and left you some valuable stocks, bonds and other items. Those assets have risen in value over the years. You’re thinking of selling them to buy a new home or to invest in something else. How would you figure out your tax cost for capital-gains tax purposes?
Typically, your tax cost is the fair market value of the assets on the date your uncle died — or, in certain cases, their value six months later. That means you don’t have to worry about figuring out what Uncle Joe originally paid for them. You don’t have to rummage through his old records or search the Web.
All that should matter is their fair market value on the date he died (or, in certain cases, six months later). This is known as “step up in basis” because your tax basis on those appreciated assets typically gets stepped up to the date-of-death value.
The General Basis Increase (the sum of the aggregate basis increases) is the maximum allotted amount the Tax Code will allow to be “stepped up.” The EGTRRA of 2001 preserved the step up in basis for up to $1.3 million dollars (plus an additional $3 million for assets given to a spouse) through 2010. Then the Tax Relief Act of 2010 extended the EGTRRA to 2012. Thus, the General Basis Increase for 2011 will remain at $1.3 million, and if assets are given to a spouse, up to $4.3 million. Therefore, if the value of assets inherited totals more than $1.3 million, assets beyond that sum will not be “stepped up.”
While creating an estate plan, it is always important to consider tax consequences on the estate, any named beneficiaries, and the planner himself. Any named beneficiaries who have an interest in real property should also be aware of the taxes they will be responsible for after inheriting real property. The Tax Code is intimidating and daunting; however, the Estate Planning Attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri can help clarify the process. If you are interested in learning more about taxes on your estate plan or how you may be affected by receiving an inheritance, please 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 include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.