Family Law Archives - Page 22 of 36 - Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Halle Berry Owes $16,000 a Month in Child Support: How Much is Too Much?

July 10, 2014/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

Halle Berry’s last breakup came with a price tag: $16,000 a month for the next 13 years.

On May 30, a Los Angeles court ordered that the Academy Award-winning actress must pay $16,000 a month in child support to her ex-boyfriend, Gabriel Aubry, to support their 6-year-old daughter, Nahla, until she turns 19 or graduates from high school. This amounts to $192,000 a year and almost $2.5 million of nontaxable income over Nahla’s childhood (not including another $115,000 Halle must pay retroactively, plus $300,000 to cover Aubry’s legal fees).

The pricey child support settlement raises the question: Does a 6-year-old really require $16,000 a month?

In California, child support is calculated using a uniform statewide guideline formula that considers both parents’ income, if one parent makes more money than the other, the amount of time each parent spends with the child, and a variety of other related factors. The guideline formula is presumed to be correct and courts should only depart from the guideline in rare circumstances. Under Family Code section 4057(b)(3), one of these circumstances is when “the parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the children.”

Determining what exceeds a child’s needs is subjective, can be tricky, and involves somewhat circular reasoning. The ability of support must be suitable to the child’s circumstances and can depend on whether the parent is merely wealthy, such as a senior engineer at Google making $300,000 per year, or extremely wealthy, such as Halle Berry, who has a net worth of $70 million and earns approximately $16 million per year. For example, in Marriage of Chandler, based on the Husband’s monthly income of $117,000, the trial court reduced the guideline amount of $9,000 to $3,000 to reflect the child’s reasonable needs. The appellate court then reversed, finding that reducing support to one-third of the guideline was erroneous, and that $3,000 would not come close to providing the child with the lifestyle she was used to.

In Marriage of Bonds, which involved the baseball player Barry Bonds, the trial court awarded his ex-wife $20,000 per month in child support. Bond’s pre-tax salary was $8 million per year and the guideline child support would have been $67,000 per month. His ex-wife appealed, claiming that $20,000 only covered “bare necessities.” The appellate court dismissed ex-wife’s argument, stating that the trial court has discretion to order whatever amount it decides will meet the reasonable needs of the children, consistent with the basic principles behind child support.

The court in Marriage of Catalano noted that a child is an innocent victim of a divorce, with no choice in the breakup, but with reason to expect that both parents will continue to provide for him or her in whatever manner they can. Indeed, the Legislature has expressly provided that children should share the same standard of living as both parents, and child support may be used “appropriately” to improve the standard of living in the custodial household to “improve the lives of the children.” Thus, the parent receiving child support from a high-income earner may derive some personal benefit from the extra cash. With Halle forking out $16,000 a month, Nahla will likely continue to live a comfortable life while Gabriel benefits personally from some extra cash, as well.

If you are a high-income earner and are concerned about making excessive child support payments, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law matters 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.

How Facebook Can Affect Your Divorce

July 2, 2014/in Family Law, In the Community /by Gretchen Boger

Last 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:

Posting pictures of an extravagant vacation – you at a resort indulging in the day spa can provide evidence of financial misconduct with regards to spousal support or child support.
Updating your status while inebriated – constant updates with slurred-speech or checking-in to five happy hours each week can suggest you have drug or alcohol dependency problems and sway the judge in awarding custody.
Bad mouthing your divorce proceedings – complaining about your judge or your ex-spouse’s nasty opposing counsel can appear as if you do not take the process seriously.

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?

June 30, 2014/in Family Law /by Gretchen Boger

The 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

June 23, 2014/in Family Law /by Julia Lemon

California 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.

Judge Grants Restraining Order against School-Aged Boy

April 8, 2014/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

In a potentially precedent-setting move, a father from San Francisco has asked a judge for a restraining order – against an alleged nine-year-old bully. Generally, restraining orders are routinely issued against adult abusers, stalkers, significant others, and the like. However, as most parents presumably would, Stephen Feudner wanted answers after learning his 9-year-old son told him he’d been bullied, pushed, and punched at Rolling Hills Elementary School. When the public school claimed its hands were tied and refused to help, Feudner turned to the law.

Feudner’s temporary restraining order (TRO) from a Solano County judge stipulates that the alleged bully must remain 2 yards away from his son at all times and have no contact with him whatsoever. Daryl Snedeker of the Solano County Sheriff’s Department says he’s never heard of a restraining order against a grade-school student. However, the boy’s mother points out that there is no law against filing a restraining order against a child – and she’s right.

There are different kinds of restraining orders available through the court system, and each order has different eligibility requirements. For a restraining order against a child similar to the Feudners’ situation, a Civil Harassment Restraining Order would likely be the most appropriate. Civil Harassment Restraining Orders can be filed in Santa Clara County if the filing party and the other party do not have a familial or dating relationship (married, divorced, separated, dating or used to date, live together or used to live together) or are not related (parent, child, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, in-laws).

As for the Feudners, there’s a small but possibly determinative glitch in their case: the Solano County Sheriff’s Office officials had to serve the TRO within five days for it to go into effect. However, in order to serve the TRO, officials needed the alleged bully’s first and last name and full address. As of now, the school district still remains unwilling to release the information.

Although the Feudners’ restraining order against a school-aged child is unique, temporary restraining orders are very common, particularly in domestic violence situations. If you have any questions about restraining orders or are contemplating filing one, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law proceedings and offer 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 include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/father-files-restraining-order-year-allegedly-bullying-son/story?id=23040537

Mediation: Because Litigation Isn’t Always The Answer

April 2, 2014/in Family Law /by Gretchen Boger

Divorce is rarely fun. Nevertheless, divorce and painful litigation don’t always go hand-in-hand. For many couples, divorce mediation could be the best way to dissolve your marriage, protect your children, and maintain a mature relationship with your spouse.

In family law mediation, a neutral mediator works with a divorcing couple to creatively reach an agreement on some or all of the issues in their divorce. Experienced family law mediators are typically attorneys that understand the legal landscape. A well-versed mediator can help you and your spouse reach a settlement on all aspects of your marriage—financial distribution, child custody, and even child and spousal support.

The mediator does not represent either spouse, but is instead an unbiased facilitator who uses unique strategies that will result in an agreement that meets the needs of both parties. Once all of the issues are covered, the mediator will help the parties create a marital settlement agreement to memorialize their arrangement. At this stage, each party should consult their own attorney to ensure that the agreement is fair and in each party’s best interest. Finally, the agreement is sent to the family court where the agreement will be signed off as an enforceable court order.

Here are just a few reasons why you and your spouse should consider mediating your divorce:

The non-adversarial aspect of mediation can help your and your ex maintain a better, more mature relationship.
Mediation will allow you to keep your “dirty laundry” private, while family law litigation requires parties to discuss their personal issues on the public record.
Because mediation doesn’t require several filings, voluminous court costs, or extensive attorney’s fees, you may be able to reduce your expenses.
Mediation can be much easier on children than family law litigation.
You and your spouse are in charge of the results of your divorce instead of a family law judge.
Mediation may enable you and your spouse to reach an agreement much faster than in typical litigation.

Remember, divorce does not have to involve litigation. At Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri, we provide divorce mediation services to clients throughout the Silicon Valley. Michael E. Lonich facilitates all family law mediations handled by the firm, and he is widely regarded as one of Silicon Valley’s most effective mediators. Michael works closely with parties to help them shape the decisions that will be drafted into the marital settlement agreement. In addition to handling divorce mediations, he has extensive experience in handling business law litigation. He draws on his business background when mediating divorce matters for business owners, executives, foreign nationals and their spouses.

Please note that family law mediation is not recommended for couples with domestic violence issues. If you have any questions about divorce mediation, or divorce in general, and would like to speak to an attorney, please contact Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for a free initial consultation. Our attorneys can be reached by phone at (408) 553-0801 or through the intake form on our Contact Us page.

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.

Does “Shacking Up” Mean We’ll Be “Splitting Up”?

March 17, 2014/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

As it turns out, cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce after all – but rather, the age at which you cohabitate determines your risk for divorce. For years, social scientists have linked cohabitation with divorce, cautioning couples to resist moving in together by correlating “shacking up” with “splitting up.” However, recent studies reveal that the biggest predictor of divorce is actually the age at which a couple begins living together, whether before the wedding vows or after.

Previous studies compared the divorce rates of couples who cohabitated with those who didn’t by using the age of marriage as the focal variable. Arielle Kuperberg, a sociologist behind the new studies, used a different variable: Kuperberg compared the relationships using the date of first moving in together. That date, she reasoned, is when a couple really takes on marriage roles, regardless of whether they have a legal certificate. Using this novel method, Kuperberg found no link between whether people had cohabited before marriage and their rate of divorce. She also found that the turning point in age for picking a life partner appears to be around 23, an age that likely coincides with college graduation. “That’s when people are able to pick a partner who is more compatible,” she explains. “Maybe they are a little more mature. They’re a little set up in the world.”

Sociologists also discovered that while moving in may be irrelevant to divorce rates, rushing into cohabitation may have its disadvantages. Sharon Sassler, a sociologist at Cornell University, found that most cohabitors with college degrees move in together only after a long stretch of dating. On the other hand, more than half of the cohabiters without college degrees move in together after less than six months of dating. Sassler explained this phenomenon through financial motivators: financial need seems to push the less well-off into romantic roommate situations before they are ready, increasing the chances that the relationship will dissolve. Therefore, Sassler argues that it is the type of premarital cohabitation that predicts divorce, and not necessarily cohabitation in itself.

If you are interested in cohabitating with your partner and are concerned with your rights in the event the relationship dissolves, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization). Having a knowledgeable, experienced family law attorney by your side can prove to be invaluable for resolving your concerns. Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri’s attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law proceedings and offer 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 include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/best-predictor-divorce-age-couples-cohabit-study-says-131122832.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory; http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/03/10/cohabitation-doesnt-cause-divorce-after-all/

Can Your Child Sue You For Child Support?

March 12, 2014/in Family Law, In the Community /by Mitchell Ehrlich

No, your child cannot sue you for child support – not yet, anyway. Recently, 18-year-old Rachel Canning caused a national stir when she sued her parents in a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit: the New Jersey teenager filed a lawsuit against her parents requesting $654 in child support per week, thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and immediate reimbursement of her high school tuition.

Ms. Canning claimed her parents threw her out of their Lincoln Park home two days before her 18^th birthday, whereas her parents insisted the teenager moved out voluntarily. Her father, Sean Canning, explained that his daughter left the family home because she didn’t want to do reasonable household chores, be respectful, or abide by their curfew. Mr. Canning stated that “the whole thing is just destroying our family. We love our daughter. She’s our pride and joy.” A retired Police Chief, Mr. Canning explained that he’s “a liberal, liberal parent… I was tougher on my cops at work than I’ve ever been at my home, that’s for sure.”

Last week, Morris County Court Judge Peter Bogaard ruled in favor of the Canning’s, reasoning that any other decision would set a bad precedent by setting limits on parenting. The court expressed concern that Ms. Canning’s rare case, if successful, could inspire similar suits in the future. Brian Schwartz, chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association’s Family Law Section states that “in my 20 years of practicing family law in New Jersey, I’ve never seen anything like this.” Adds Jeralyn Lawrence, the incoming Family Law Section chair: “This could open the floodgates of recalcitrant kids fighting with their parents, moving out, and then suing them to keep paying.”

To the relief (presumably) of all parties involved, Ms. Canning returned home to her parents and siblings this morning. During this afternoon’s press conference, Ms. Canning’s lawyer said the suit brought against her parents had been settled “amicably,” and that her return home was not contingent upon any financial or other considerations.

Notably, Ms. Canning was not seeking to be emancipated from her parents – her lawsuit was primarily financially driven. With emancipation, minors essentially function as adults in society. Generally, they can attend the schools of their choice, enter into legally binding contracts, purchase a home, keep any income earned from a job, and so on. In court filings, Ms. Canning insisted she was “old enough to do what she wanted” – but perhaps she realized that without anyone bankrolling her endeavors, her options to do whatever she wants at this stage in her life are fairly limited.

If you have any questions about your family law issues, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization). Having a knowledgeable, experienced family law attorney by your side can prove to be invaluable for your situation. Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri’s attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law proceedings and offer 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 include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/05/new-jersey-teen-sues-parents-for-support-claiming-was-kicked-out-home/; http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-rachel-canning-goes-back-to-family-20140312,0,1541517.story#axzz2vmlZmHUm

Beware: Sign Your MSA With Care

March 12, 2014/in Family Law /by Gretchen Boger

A Marital Settlement Agreement (or “MSA”) is essentially a contract between a divorced couple that memorializes the division of property and debt. The document also allows the parties to include almost anything they desire in the agreement, such as who will provide support for adult children. The MSA is usually incorporated into the final judgment and signed by the judge, giving the contract the same effect of a court order.

Due to the finality and force of an MSA that has gone before the judge, promises made in the agreement should be made very carefully and taken very seriously. If you agree to something in your MSA, you must be prepared to follow through. One New Jersey father* learned that the hard way and will be required to provide fifty percent of the support his daughter needs at Cornell law school, per the MSA he signed with his ex-wife.

The father argued that although he agreed to help his daughter with her higher-education costs, he wanted to have a say in where she studied and where she lived. Not surprisingly, he wished her to choose a less-expensive alternative, but she chose Cornell. As of today, Cornell law school’s cost of attendance is around $80,000.

In the end, this father must pay about $120,000 for half of his daughter’s legal education because the agreement did not include typical language that would have given father a say in his daughter’s educational decisions. MSA’s are serious business; this situation is one example why it pays to have a great attorney looking out for your interests.

If you need guidance creating your MSA or are interested in creating a prenuptial agreement, 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 MSA’s and complex family law proceedings, and happily offer a free consultation to new clients.

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.

*“Dad must pay half of his daughter’s law school expenses at Cornell, appeals court says,” via ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dad_must_pay_half_of_his_daughters_law_school_expenses_at_cornell_appeals_c

The “Dirty DUI” Case

March 4, 2014/in Family Law, In the Community /by Gina Policastri

The last of the participants in a widespread police corruption scandal was sentenced last week, finally concluding the saga that has been dubbed the “Dirty DUI” case. For those who haven’t been following the case, former Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputy, Stephen Tanabe, along with multiple other former police colleagues, aided a private investigator in arresting unsuspecting men outside bars for drunken driving. The private investigator’s attractive female employees had lured the men into drinking and driving in a plot to help their wives gain an advantage in their divorce and custody battles.

These elaborate stings were known as “dirty DUIs” and caused significant damage – both personally and financially – for all parties involved. Last week, Tanabe was ordered by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to spend 15 months in prison for his role in the scandal, which was notably lighter than the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s guidelines of 21-27 months for the crimes. However, Judge Breyer didn’t elaborate on his reasoning, only stating that the case was unique in his 15 years on the bench.

Another individual implicated in the ring was Mary Nolan, a former San Ramon family law attorney who represented the ex-wives of two men who were arrested for the DUI sting operation. Nolan hired the same private investigator working with Tanabe to wiretap the cars of people she was opposing in divorce and child custody cases. After setting up the spouses of her clients for DUI arrests, Nolan would then use the evidence gathered as leverage in family court. Though prosecutors were initially seeking a 33-month prison sentence, Nolan was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison for evading taxes and for illegally eavesdropping on a client’s spouse. Nolan was also required to relinquish her law license and pay nearly $500,000 in back taxes.

Family law cases are oftentimes emotionally charged and can lead parties to take desperate measures. A knowledgeable, experienced family law attorney can help you legally navigate the system and guide you through this trying time. If you have questions about divorce planning, 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.

Sources: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Ex-Contra-Costa-Co-Deputy-Sentenced-in-Dirty-DUI-Case-246253961.html; http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Ex-Deputy-Sheriff-Stephen-Tanabe-sentenced-in-DUI-5249741.php; http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25053072/dirty-dui-attorney-gets-two-years-prison-her

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

Contact Us