Family Law Archives - Page 25 of 36 - Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

We’re Getting Divorced – Who Gets the Stock Options?

August 20, 2013/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

This year, compensation packages for top levels executives rebounded considerably following a decline last year and the most significant increase was seen in stock option awards.* For example, Apple’s Bruce Sewell led the pack with a whopping $66,571,750.00 in stock options! Though usually not to the tune of $66 million dollars, you or your spouse may have received some number of stock options during your marriage. During divorce, characterizing stock options and how determining how to appropriately allocate the options between the spouses often becomes very contentious. However, there are two prevailing methods for allocating intermediate stock options, i.e., options that were awarded during the marriage but will vest after the date of separation: the Hug formula** and the Nelson formula***. Ultimately, the Hug formula tends to be more favorable to the community, while the Nelson formula is typically more favorable to the employee spouse.

Under the Hug formula, the number of options determined to be community property is the product of the following fraction: the numerator is the total number of months between commencement of employment and the date of separation, and the denominator is the total number of months between the commencement of employment and the date when each option vested. This fraction is then multiplied by the number of shares of stock which could be purchased on the date each option vested.

In the Marriage of Hug, the Court recognized that stock options could be construed, depending on the particular facts of the case, as compensation for either past, present, or future services or a combination of these possibilities. The Court found that in Hug, the stock options were granted partly to entice the husband to leave his prior job and partly as an incentive to work hard in the future. Therefore, the Court concluded that the husband was earning the options from the date his employment started to the date the options vested.

On the other hand, under the Nelson formula, the numerator is the number of months from the date of grant of each block of options to the date of separation, and the denominator is the period from the time of each grant to its date of exercisability.

In the Marriage of Nelson, the Court observed that the options in Marriage of Hug were designed to attract new employees and more generously reward past services. However, in Nelson, only prospective increases in the value of the stock could result in a profit to the employee option-holder. Therefore, the Court determined that it was appropriate to place more emphasis on the period following each grant to the date of separation than on the employee’s entire tenure with the company up to the time of separation.

Allocating stock options is a very complicated and confusing issue. If you have any questions regarding the appropriate characterization of your stock options or you are simply looking for more legal advice regarding your current situation, 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 dissolution proceedings and are more than happy to meet with you.

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.

*Corporate Counsel Finds 2012 General Counsel Compensation Turnaround: Every Pay Category Rose, Stock awards Jumped 64.8%: http://www.alm.com/about/pr/releases/corporate-counsel-finds-2012-general-counsel-compensation-turnaround-every-pay

** In re the Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. App. 3d 780 (1984).

*** In re the Marriage of Nelson, 177 Cal. App. 3d 150 (1986).

Sperm Donors: Are You (Legally) My Father?

July 19, 2013/in Family Law /by Gretchen Boger

When actor Jason Patric broke up with his long-time girlfriend, Danielle, he told her he didn’t have any money to give her at the end of their ten-year-relationship – but he could give her his sperm so she could have a baby. In return, Danielle agreed to never tell anyone, never to ask for child support, and made herself an appointment to be artificially inseminated (this is important). In 2009, Baby Gus was born, and true to his word, Jason never paid child support. Then last year, Jason decided he wanted to be part of Gus’ life after all and he filed for 50/50 custody. Fast forward to today, and Jason’s story has evolved from Hollywood headline-fodder into a California legislative bill: Senate Bill 115 (SB 115).

Under current law, sperm donors are not legally considered to be the natural fathers of the children born using their donated sperm except under certain circumstances.* Furthermore, Cal. Fam. Code § 7613(b) makes it clear that if a man provides his semen to a licensed physician, surgeon, or sperm bank for the purpose of impregnating a woman who is not his wife, the man is legally barred from claiming parentage of the child the woman conceives.**

For example, in a 1986 case, Jhordan C. v. Mary K., a man gave his semen directly to a woman to artificially inseminate herself. The Court held that these facts did qualify for the statutory preclusion of paternity, because a California statute required the semen be instead given to a licensed physician. Accordingly, the Court allowed the donor to raise his claim for paternity.*** Conversely, a strong aspect of Jason and Danielle’s case is that she was inseminated by a physician – their case was not statutorily barred because her pregnancy did not result from a do-it-yourself insemination.

The purpose of the current artificial insemination laws is to allow unmarried women and women married to an infertile spouse the freedom to conceive via a sperm donor without the fear that the donor would interfere following the baby’s birth by asking for parental rights. However, SB 115 now seeks to allow a specific group of sperm donors to claim parentage – any donor who has “received the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child,” regardless of the method of conception, would be presumed to be the father of the child. SB 115 passed the California senate in April 2013 and now, it’s up to the California assembly to determine if the bill will be signed into law. This raises questions about what qualifies as “openly holding out” a child as one’s own. There are many definitions of the concept of “family,” and the impetus for agreements to claim, or not to claim a child can change over time.

Parental rights can be a complicated and confusing issue. If you have any questions regarding your parental rights and obligations, or you are simply looking for more information regarding your legal options, 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 are happy to offer you 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.

*The Uniform Parentage Act, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/FAM/1/d12/3.

**Unless the donor and the woman agreed otherwise in a signed writing prior to the conception of the child. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_115_bill_20130408_amended_sen_v97.pdf

*** Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 179 Cal. App. 3d 386 (1986).

Domestic Violence: “Abuse” Encompasses More than Just Physical Blows

July 12, 2013/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

Domestic violence scholars have questioned the appropriateness of the ever-present inquiry, “why did she stay?” Professor and author Martha Mahoney describe the importance of understanding the complexity of women’s experience and struggle and “recast[ing] the entire discussion of separation in terms of the batter’s violent attempts at control.”*

“Every legal case that discusses the question ‘why didn’t she leave?’ implies that the woman could have left.”* The threat of violence and the aggressor’s continued control preventing women from leaving, financial dependence, and emotional ties are some of the reasons she cites.*

Mahoney writes that battered women often struggle with denial (a defense mechanism which allows us to unconsciously “disavow…[the] external reality….which [is] consciously intolerable.”).** Victims of domestic violence also “tend to minimize the history of assault against them and the pain they have suffered.”**

Often this denial is a result of the belief that the abuse suffered is not “bad enough” to qualify as domestic violence. Many Californians believe that they have to be hit or display bruising in order to be considered a victim of domestic violence. This notion, however, is very far from the truth. The definition of “abuse” included in California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”) is intentionally broad. There are many ways in which we can suffer abuse, including psychological abuse, stalking, financial abuse, and in some instances, even cyber-bullying. Take a look at the California Family Code statute that outlines what our state considers impermissible “abuse”:

“For purposes of this act, ‘abuse’ means any of the following:

a) Intentionally or recklessly to cause or attempt to cause bodily injury;

b) Sexual assault;

c) To place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another; or

d) To engage in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to Section 6320.”

Cal. Fam. Code § 6203.

The first two sections of Section 6203 (above) are easily recognized as traditional forms of domestic violence – when a person suffers physical injury or sexual assault at the hands of their partner it is clear instance of DV. The last two prongs, (b) and (c), however, leave room for interpretation. Section (c) refers to what a reasonable, average person would find threatening to such an extent that they fear that they or someone else will be seriously harmed by the alleged perpetrator, and imminently.

Section (d), however, expands the concept of abuse to include more than violent abuse alone. Section 6320(a) of the family code includes a long list of behaviors that can be halted by restraining order:

“The court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls…., destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party, and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause, of other named family or household members.” Cal. Fam. Code § 6320(a).

As can be seen, the DVPA’s definition of abuse is intentionally broad, and a restraining order may be appropriate protection from a myriad of different kinds of abuse. One notable catch-all provision in Section 6320(a) is “disturbing the peace,” meaning that a restraining order may be granted against someone who is disturbing your peace. What does it mean exactly? “[T]he plain meaning of the phrase “disturbing the peace of the other party” in section 6320 may be properly understood as conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.” In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1497.

In Nadkarni, the husband broke into the wife’s email account, learned and tracked her constant whereabouts, and distributed personal and business information about the wife and her business interests. This conduct, the wife alleged, caused her “to suffer ‘shock’ and embarrassment,’ to fear the destruction of her ‘business relationships,’ and to fear for her safety.” Nadkarni, at 1499. It is important to note that the court found that because of the past physical abuse against her by the husband, the wife’s fears regarding the husband’s potential for further abusive conduct in the future were reasonable.

If your partner is harassing you or treating you in a way that “destroys your mental or emotional calm,” you may be a victim of domestic violence and you can seek relief from the court. The Court has discretion to issue a restraining order pursuant to the DVPA if the court is satisfied by “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” See Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal. App. 4th 327, 334 (2007); Cal. Fam. Code § 6300.

This is huge for California residents because, “[a]buse takes many forms. It’s more than just the obvious slap in the face, punch, or push. It’s about power and control, any way possible.”*** Californians are no longer forced to suffer in silence but instead get a helping hand from the courts on their journey to a better home life. The purpose of DVPA is to prevent the reoccurrence of acts of violence and to separate the parties so the causes of violence can be resolved. Cal. Fam. Code § 6220. In addition, under the DVPA, after notice and a hearing the Court may issue an order for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Cal. Fam. Code § 6344.

If you believe that you may be suffering from domestic violence, or are contemplating a divorce, 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 matters and here to meet with you and offer you a free consultation. Life is too short to live with an abusive partner.

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.

*Martha R. Mahoney, Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issue of Separation, 90 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (1991).

**Julie Blackman, Potential Uses for Expert Testimony: Ideas Toward the Representation of Battered Women Who Kill, 9 WOMEN’S RTS. L. REP. 227, 228-29 (1986).

***Quote by Julie Saffren, Santa Clara University Law Professor and Domestic Violence attorney, from San Jose Mercury News, “Domestic Violence: Bill Targets Cyberbullying,” printed July 1, 2013; quote obtained with permission from Mrs. Saffren.

Cohabitation Agreements: A Beneficial Tool For Both Parties

July 8, 2013/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

So your relationship is going well and you’ve decided to start living together. Before couples get married, many consider creating a pre-nuptial agreement. But you’re just moving in together, just testing the waters – no harm, no foul, right? Not necessarily.

Although it may seem like no legal consequences can arise from simply living together*, California recognizes a particularly pesky action: the Marvin claim. In 1976, the California Supreme Court held that express contracts between non-marital partners are enforceable.** In Marvin, Lee and Michelle lived together as an unmarried couple for seven years and Michelle claimed Lee promised to take care of her for the rest of her life. Although Michelle was ultimately unable to provide proof of an implied contract, the Court’s holding was clear: express contracts between unmarried couples are fair game and enforceable.

As a result, with the sharp increase in the number of cohabitating couples in the past decade, a cohabitation agreement is a highly useful tool for unmarried couples to consider – much like a prenuptial agreement is for married couples. Some factors, amongst many more, to keep in mind when drafting a cohabitation agreement include:

Everything must be voluntary: cohabitation agreements must be entered into freely and voluntarily – just like prenuptial agreements.
Put everything in one document: include an integration clause that provides that the document signed by you and your partner constitutes the entire agreement – that there are no other outside agreements or oral agreements to be taken into consideration.
Put everything in writing: have a clause that requires all amendments to be made in writing, preventing the possibility that one party will later argue that later oral or implied changes were made to the original agreement.

A cohabitation agreement can benefit both the Lee’s of the relationship – the wealthier partner who has financially more to lose, and the Michelle’s of the relationship – the “weaker” partner who relied upon a partner’s promise to her financial detriment. If you are interested in creating a cohabitation agreement or reviewing your current cohabitation agreement, 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 matters and are more than happy to meet with you and offer you 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.

*1 in 4 people living together believes they have the same legal protections as married couples (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/mar/09/cohabitation-agreement-essential-non-married-couples).

**Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976)).

Educational Debt: Be Smart at Divorce

June 24, 2013/in Family Law /by David Patton

Upon divorce, many people find that they are still saddled with substantial educational debt. So, where does that debt go? It depends. California is a community property state. When a couple divorces, each spouse receives fifty percent of all assets earned during the marriage. Similarly, a couple must split whatever debts they have acquired during the marriage. (For example, if you owe $10,000 on a particular credit card, each spouse is responsible for $5,000 of that debt or a debt of equal value.) Simple enough, right?

Not always. The allocation of educational debt at divorce can look much different. “A loan incurred during marriage for the education or training of [one spouse] shall not be included among the liabilities of the community for the purpose of division….but shall be assigned for payment by the [student spouse].”*

It is sometimes said that “the debt follows the debtor” in this situation. Usually, the student-spouse will keep the loan taken out for his or her education. Take, for example, the situation where a husband takes out a loan (in his name) to pay for his wife’s nursing credential. There, it is likely that the wife will be solely responsible for paying off that debt after dissolution, not her husband. (So, if you and your spouse have no debt except for your spouse’s student loans, you may be able to walk away from the marriage debt-free!)

On the other hand, however, the distribution could be much more complicated. Educational loans come into play in several ways upon divorce depending on when the loan was taken out and whether payments were made during marriage. Here are some scenarios you could face:

If your student-spouse took out an educational loan during your marriage and your combined earnings were used to repay that loan, you might be a candidate for reimbursement. In this situation, you could potentially receive half of whatever was paid for the student-spouse’s educational costs (e.g., tuition, books, transportation, supplies).
On the other hand, if your student-spouse took out an educational loan during your marriage and your combined earnings were used to fully repay that loan, you may not be able to recover all of those expenses. If the student-spouse can show that the community (you, your spouse, and the property acquired by you and your spouse during marriage) substantially benefitted from the educational loan, the community may not receive a reimbursement .
- For example, if you put your husband through medical school but have been enjoying a high standard of living due to his increased earning capacity, you may be out of luck as the non-student spouse. Nevertheless, every situation is unique, and depending on the specific circumstances of your case, reimbursement could still be on the table and it is worthwhile to investigate fully.
If the student-spouse took out the loan before the marriage, the debt incurred is probably the student-spouse’s separate property obligation, meaning that you will not be liable for repayment of that loan.**
If both spouses went to school during marriage, there could be a reduced right to reimbursement or offset of the resulting debt.
Additionally, the likelihood of reimbursement could be reduced for a non-student spouse if the education or training funded by that spouse enables the student-spouse to engage in gainful employment that substantially reduces the student-spouses need for financial support.
- In the long run, keeping spousal support payments in mind, eating the educational debt could be best alternative when compared with financially supporting your ex for many years to come (or indefinitely).

There are several different ways the educational-loan story can pan out. Similar to other areas of family law, the outcome really depends on the facts of that case.

Needless to say, educational debt problems can be complicated under California law, and you may need legal assistance to ensure that debt distribution is fair at divorce. Contact the certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri to learn more about handling educational debt at divorce. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law matters.

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.

*Quoting California Family Code §2641.

**See California Family Code §2627.

The Indian Child Welfare Act: Child Custody and Adoption Issues Hit The Supreme Court

June 13, 2013/in Family Law /by Gretchen Boger

Family law cases, albeit important, are almost never heard by the U.S. Supreme Court because the Tenth Amendment typically leaves family matters to the states. However, a recent custody clash over an adorable Native American girl has found its way to our nation’s highest court, giving the Justices an opportunity to scrutinize the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The law was put in place to protect the one-third of Native American families who were losing their children to white foster and adoptive parents. However, as you will see, this 35-year-old law and its sweeping effects may be out of place in today’s modern society.

At the heart of the current dispute is a three-year-old girl who is the product of a relationship between a Cherokee Indian man and a Hispanic woman. The couple was previously engaged but, when the couple broke up before the child’s birth, the father let the pregnant woman know that he was relinquishing all of his parental rights. The child was born, put up for adoption, and spent two years with her adoptive parents until a South Carolina Court ordered that the girl be returned to her biological father. Apparently, the child’s father only intended to relinquish his parental rights to the Mother—not to an adoptive family—and he objected to the adoption four months after the adoption took place.

The little girl’s adoptive family is devastated, and rightfully so. If the state of South Carolina was permitted to apply its standard child custody procedures, and the “best interest of the child” standard adopted by many states including California, the biological father would have had no rights whatsoever and the little girl could have remained with the parents who raised her from infancy. Nevertheless, in the United States, the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statutes enacted by Congress are the supreme law of the land and completely trump any state laws that come into conflict. Justice Kennedy noted, “What we have here is a question of a federal statute which…displaces the ordinary best interest [of the child] determinations of the state courts.”

The Supreme Court will deliver its opinion on this case later this month. In all likelihood, the effects of the decision will reach not only families interested in domestic adoption, but will also touch on the bigger question that asks who is best-suited to handle family law matters or determine parenthood—the states and their family courts or the federal government? We should have an answer soon.

As you can see, even simple family law matters like adoption can quickly become complicated. If you have any questions relating to adoption or any other family law issue, please contact the 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 matters and would be happy to meet with you for 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.

My Spouse Won’t Sign: Till Death Do Us Part?

June 5, 2013/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

When contemplating divorce, it is hard to ignore the “what-ifs” that inevitably arise. Questions like, “who will get the house?” and “where will our kids end up living?” are complicated, and you will inevitably receive the typical lawyer response from your attorney—“it depends.” This is because most questions regarding divorce really do depend on the circumstances of your case. While there is substantial California family law which the Court will apply to the facts of your particular case, it is impossible to predict or guarantee outcomes with absolute certainty. In some cases it can take months before you see concrete results. Nevertheless, there is one great guarantee with divorce law in California: as long as you are a California resident*, you are entitled to a divorce if you want one.

We have all seen a movie where one party is trying to obtain a divorce, but the other party just won’t sign the divorce papers. Sometimes the other party is a romantic who is holding out for reconciliation, but nine times out of ten, the other party refuses to cooperate out of spite. Worried this could happen to you? Never fear! If the only certainty you have is that you want a divorce, then go ahead and make preparations to file:

“Either spouse or partner can decide to end the marriage, and the other spouse/partner, even if he or she does not want to get a divorce, cannot stop the process by refusing to participate in the case. If a spouse or domestic partner does not participate in the divorce case, the other spouse/partner will still be able to get a “default” judgment and the divorce will go through.”**

The State has your back; California law will not force you to be prisoner to a broken marriage. Unfortunately though, no one can promise that your divorce experience will not resemble a scene from a movie (but there is a way out if your personal life resembles a drama fit for Lifetime). Whether or not anyone is “at fault,” you can file for divorce and either your spouse responds to your papers, or the court will make a decision for him or her. If you are ready to liberate yourself, or are interested in learning more about the divorce process, contact the 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 matters and would be happy to meet with you for 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 “California Resident” is a person who has lived in California for the last 6 months and has lived in the county where the party desiring a divorce has lived for the last 3 months.

**Source: California Courts: Judicial Branch of California, “Options to End a Marriage or Domestic Partnership,” found at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/1224.htm

Spousal Support: Are You Entitled to Any?

June 3, 2013/in Family Law /by David Patton

Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore’s divorce has been stalled – and purportedly because Demi, who’s estimated to be $10 million richer than Ashton, is seeking spousal support from him in order to renovate her $25 million Central Park apartment. Though it doesn’t appear fair at first glance, courts take into consideration various factors to determine spousal support that could result in a judgment in Demi’s favor.

In regards to your case, could you be entitled to spousal support? Or conversely – could you obligated to pay spousal support for your wealthier spouse? As always in law, it depends.

California courts determine spousal support by taking various circumstances into account, as set forth in California Family Code Section 4320.* They include, but are not limited to:

How much the earning capacity of the party seeking support is affected from unemployment due to devoting time to domestic duties during the marriage;
How much the party contributed to the supporting party’s education, license, or career;
The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support;
The ability of the supported party to work without interfering with the interests of their children;
The needs of each party (determined by the standard of living established during the marriage);
The duration of the marriage;
The age and health of the parties; and
Any other factors the court determines are “just and equitable.”

Depending on how Demi and Ashton’s attorneys present these fact-sensitive issues, Demi just might get to renovate her sprawling New York apartment – on Ashton’s (many) dime(s).

Spousal support can be a complicated and confusing issue. If you have any questions regarding your spousal support rights and obligations in the event of a divorce, or you are simply looking for more information regarding your legal options, 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 dissolution proceedings and are more than happy to meet with you.

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.

*Cal. Fam. Code § 4320

Private Justice: Family Law’s Low-Hanging Fruit

April 2, 2013/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

If you are contemplating divorce, there is one question you ought to ask: is a private judge right for me? The answer could be a positive one if you are looking to conclude your divorce quickly and would prefer to avoid the crowded (and very-public) family court. What’s the catch? Well, private temporary judges (typically retired veteran family lawyers) must be compensated for their time much like an attorney.

Nevertheless, hiring a privately compensated temporary judge could be an investment for you and your family. Although there is a cost on the front end, a private judge will undoubtedly have more time to devote to your case. This means that your divorce could be finalized in a fraction of the time with a private judge, compared with the several months or even years that you could spend tied up in the public family court . Your judge will apply the exact same California family law statutes, evidentiary codes, and rules of court as a publicly-sitting family judge. However, the scheduling flexibility that comes with a private judge means that you can work through your case on your time. As a result, you and your spouse will spend less time in litigation, potentially saving your family a great deal of money and stress in the long run.

Private judging is legal in Santa Clara County and can be requested through the Clerk’s office. A private judge may not be the best option for every family, so talk to your family lawyer for more information. Contact the certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri to learn more about the possibility of pursuing divorce with a private judge. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law matters and have worked directly with private judges in the past.

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.

Contemplating Divorce: What to Consider Before You Cut Ties

March 21, 2013/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

Divorce is simple, right? Absolutely not, unfortunately. There is a great deal to consider—financially and emotionally—before filing for a divorce. In some startling ways, divorce slams one chapter of your life closed. Nevertheless, obtaining a divorce decree could be the first step into the first chapter of the new life you’ve been dreaming of.

Natasha Burton’s article, “What I Wish I Knew Before I Got Divorced”* features solid considerations for individuals who are thinking about divorce or legal separation. Though Burton’s article was written for a female audience, the predominant message of the article applies to everyone: be prepared in more ways than one. Some noteworthy observations and considerations:

Recovery from divorce could take you a long time—which is absolutely normal.
Choose your legal counsel wisely.
Create a detailed plan for tackling your future living expenses.
Take a hard look at your joint finances and educate yourself.
Be ready for “unexpected” costs like health insurance.
Being vengeful toward your spouse will probably harm your family in the end and is public record.
Being divorced is not something to be ashamed of.
The holidays will be hard—really hard.
Your children will suffer from the divorce and may act out.
Finally, divorce can be completely worth it.

These considerations highlight just how far reaching the impact of a divorce can be and why it is so important to be fully prepared. Take it from Burton and be prepared from the start by choosing your legal counsel wisely. Contact the certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri to learn about your legal options. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law matters.

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.

*Used with permission via email from Women’s Day author Natasha Burton.

We’re Getting Divorced – Who Gets the Stock Options?

Sperm Donors: Are You (Legally) My Father?

Domestic Violence: “Abuse” Encompasses More than Just Physical Blows

Cohabitation Agreements: A Beneficial Tool For Both Parties

Educational Debt: Be Smart at Divorce

The Indian Child Welfare Act: Child Custody and Adoption Issues Hit The Supreme Court

My Spouse Won’t Sign: Till Death Do Us Part?

Spousal Support: Are You Entitled to Any?

Private Justice: Family Law’s Low-Hanging Fruit

Contemplating Divorce: What to Consider Before You Cut Ties

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

Contact Us