Family Law Archives - Page 28 of 36 - Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Tennessee Supreme Court Prohibits Lifetime Alimony for Ex-Spouse

November 30, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

On 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

California Enforcement of Out-of-State Support Orders

October 19, 2011/1 Comment/in Family Law /by David Patton

If a child support order is obtained in another state and the custodial parent and child move to California, there are a few steps that need to be taken to enforce the out-of-state order.

All fifty states have adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The UIFSA governs when more than one state is involved in cases establishing, enforcing, or modifying child or spousal support orders. The UIFSA helps to determine the jurisdiction and power of the courts in different states and establishes which state’s laws will be applied in the proceedings.

California’s version is codified in California Family Code section 4900 et al., which outlines the general procedures for enforcing support orders or income-withholding orders issued by another state. Specified documents must be submitted to the California tribunal to register the order. Then, the registered order is enforceable in the same manner and subject to the same procedure as an order issued by California. It becomes a California judgment for any arrearages and subject to the same defenses as any other judgment. Although California lacks jurisdiction to reduce or modify the support arrearages, it has the discretion to determine the manner in which the judgment will be enforced.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed interstate child and spousal support enforcement issues. If you have a child or spousal support enforcement issue, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri, who can provide you with an in depth analysis regarding your case. 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

Court of Appeal Clarifies Seven-Day Waiting Period for Premarital Agreements

October 14, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

California Family Code §1615 outlines the factors a court will consider when deciding whether to enforce a premarital agreement. If the court finds that, among other reasons, the agreement was not executed voluntarily or if the agreement was unconscionable (a fancy word for unreasonable), it will void a premarital agreement.

Section 1615(c) states that a premarital agreement will not be deemed voluntary unless the court makes three findings; one of them being that the party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time the party was first presented with the agreement and advised to obtain a lawyer and the time the agreement was signed. The question most recently before the First Appellate Court was whether section 1615(c)(2) applied to a party who was represented by an attorney from the outset.

In Marriage of Cadwell-Faso & Faso, 191 Cal. App. 4th 945 (2011), husband (H) and wife (W) married in 2006. H was a wealthy, retired businessperson and W owned and operated her own business. Prior to their marriage, H’s attorney drafted a premarital agreement and presented it to W and advised her to seek independent counsel. W was unhappy with the agreement and her attorney subsequently drafted four separate addenda to which H disagreed. W faxed a goodbye letter to H following their inability to come to an agreement. Following further discussion, W’s attorney drafted a fifth addendum and faxed it to H. Six days later, H and W signed the agreement and were married

Eighteen months later, H and W sought dissolution of marriage. H asked the court to void the fifth addendum because he did not have seven days between the time of representation and execution and the agreement was thus involuntary per §1615(c)(2). The trial court ruled in H’s favor, finding that the requirements of §1615(c) were mandatory and the addendum was thus invalid. W appealed and the appellate court reversed. In its decision, the court could not determine from the text of the statute alone whether the seven-day rule was confined to unrepresented parties. Therefore, the court looked to the legislative history of §1615 and found that the legislature was concerned with situations where one party was not represented by counsel, not where counsel has been present from the start. The appellate court thus held that both the premarital agreement and the addendum were enforceable against H where he was represented by counsel throughout the premarital agreement process.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling premarital agreements. If you are contemplating marriage, 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

Relocation and Child Custody

September 14, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

When parents share joint custody of their children, one party’s desire or need to relocate can require reevaluation of existing custody orders and can be an extremely complicated issue.

Recently, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District addressed a “move-away” issue in a case involving an unmarried couple and their minor daughter. After the parties’ relationship ended in December 2007, the mother moved to Washington with the child, then later returned to California. Upon her return, the father petitioned for custody of their daughter; in response, the mother filed a motion requesting permission to move back to Washington with their daughter. The trial court granted the parents joint legal and physical custody and denied mother’s request to move with the child. Thereafter, mother requested to move to Washington with the child several more times. At trial, she testified that she was moving to Washington because she had a job prospect and family support there. However, the court apparently did not believe that she would move without her daughter, and denied mother’s request to move with the child because it thought it would be disruptive to the child to leave her father and friends. Therefore, the prior joint custody order remained in place. It was impossible for mother to comply with the joint physical custody order if she moved to Washington, and therefore, the court’s decision effectively prohibited her from moving even without her daughter. The mother appealed and the appellate court found that the trial court order amounted to a coercive attempt to get the mother to change her plans to move. The court does not have the ability to prohibit a parent from moving, only to determine where the child should live as a result of the parent’s decision to move. They reversed and remanded the decision for reconsideration.

The appellate court noted that in joint custody cases, when a parent is considering a move that makes the existing custody plan unworkable, the court must consider the child’s best interests de novo and make a determination of what physical custody arrangement would be in the child’s best interests- either relocating with the moving parent or remaining with the non-moving parent and having visits with the moving parent. Then, the court must fashion an appropriate parenting plan that takes into account the fact that the parents live in separate states.

Jacob A. v. C.H., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1591 (2011).

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed custody issues like this one. If you are contemplating moving and have joint custody of your child, 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

Actor Jon Cryer Ordered to Continue Child Support Payments Despite Having Primary Custody

September 12, 2011/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

“Two and a Half Men” television show actor Jon Cryer pays his former wife a hefty $8,000 per month in child support, even though he has close to full custody of their son. Cryer has 96% of the parenting time while Sarah Trigger Cryer only has 4%.

The two married in 2000 and divorced four years later. Sarah, also an actor, has not had a job since 2005 and is not inclined to look for work. Jon and Sarah each remarried and Sarah had a second child. Following a divorce from her second Husband, Sarah had custody of both her children when, in 2009, the two boys were removed from her after she was accused of being an unfit parent by Jon for leaving their son unsupervised, admonished by the court for negligent parenting, and allowed her second child to be injured while under her care. Jon was awarded physical custody of their son.

Thereafter, Jon requested a reduction of his child support payments from $10,000 per month to zero, as he was now the sole custodial parent. However, the trial court simply lowered the payments to $8,000 per month. On appeal, the court determined that despite Jon’s increased timeshare, any further reduction would be against the best interests of their child and have a detrimental effect, pointing to the fact that Sarah was in the process of reunifying with their son, and that a reduction in support would not allow her to maintain the home that their son would eventually return to once they were fully reunified.

Child support and child custody issues are difficult and complicated. The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed child support issues. If you are involved in a contested child support case, contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. 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.

Controversial Custody Decision Sparks National Attention of Child Custody Issues

August 12, 2011/in Family Law /by Julia Lemon

An Oregon woman, Trisha Conlon, fought to keep her two teenage sons out of the care and custody of their father, John Cushing, after learning he reconciled with his first wife, Kristine Cushing. Already the makings of a classic soap opera, the story only gets more twisted.

In 1991, Kristine Cushing was married to John Cushing and they had two daughters who were 4 and 8. One night while they slept, she shot and killed both daughters. After pleading insanity due to the side effects of Prozac, Kristine was acquitted of all charges and spent the next decade in a mental institution undergoing psychiatric monitoring. During that time, John Cushing met and married Trisha Conlon. They had two children together: two boys who are currently thirteen and fourteen years old.

Following the deterioration of their marriage, Trisha and John divorced. The two entered into a shared custody agreement where the elder son lived with Trisha during the school year, the younger son lived with John during the school year, and both sons split the holidays and vacations between each parent. This arrangement worked until Trisha learned that John had reconciled with his first wife, Kristine, after her release. Now, Trisha is fighting to have the court modify the original custody agreement based on the potential danger to her children. The trial court denied her request, ruling that Kristine did not pose a threat to the children since the boys had spent time with her since 2008 without any problem. Trisha is currently appealing. Final child custody parenting plans may not be modified absent a material change of circumstances and may be difficult to revisit. While the general public will likely view the current living arrangement as a material change, it is unclear how the court will rule.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed child custody issues. If you are contemplating divorce or seeking to modify an existing child custody agreement, 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

Divorce Today: Navigating through Divorce Lawyers Online

July 25, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

It used to be the case that people would turn to phonebooks to find an attorney. Based on little more than an affinity for the particular lawyer’s ad—from an appealing graphic or clever quote—people would hire a lawyer. Today, in the world of websites, ratings, and reviews, the landscape is much different. With websites like Yelp and Avvo, providing clients with the opportunity to review their experience with an attorney, finding a qualified lawyer is only a few clicks away.

On Yelp, reviewers may review everything from cemeteries to restaurants to baby furniture. Therefore it shouldn’t be surprising to learn that lawyers and law firms are frequently reviewed as well. In an official blog, Yelp recently summarized what percent of reviews in each business category on Yelp were written by people within five year ranges. Not surprisingly, searches and reviews for divorce lawyers are heaviest in the range of 30s all the way up to the mid-50s, an incredibly wide range of clients.

http://officialblog.yelp.com/2011/06/ages-of-yelp.html

When searching for a lawyer online, it is important to not only keep in mind what legal services you need but the source of the information posted. A younger client does not necessarily seek the same attributes in a lawyer as an older client might. Further, our legal system is adversarial and there is almost always a loser. Clients who are upset with the outcome of their case may take it upon themselves to post overly negative reviews even though it is not an accurate reflection of the representation received. Many times, reviews are not even written by an actual client. So while online ratings and reviews may be incredibly helpful, it is important to be aware of who may be writing them.

The Certified Family Law Specialists as certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling divorce issues for clients in different stages of life. If you are contemplating divorce or separation, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists as certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization 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.

Wyoming Supreme Court Grants Same-Sex Divorce

July 18, 2011/1 Comment/in Family Law /by Julia Lemon

Last month, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s courts have jurisdiction to grant the divorce of a same-sex Wyoming couple who legally married in Canada.

This decision slightly enhanced the rights of same-sex couples in Wyoming, but does not address the more controversial issue of whether Wyoming will permit same-sex couples to marry. Wyoming law defines marriage, in part, as a civil contract between a male and a female person. It also provides that all valid, out-of-state marriage contracts are valid in Wyoming. However, this rule is not absolute and is subject to certain recognized exceptions, such as marriages that are deemed contrary to the law of nature, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages, and those which the legislature of the state has declared shall not be allowed any validity because they are contrary to the policy of its laws.

In its opinion, the Wyoming Supreme Court took great care in ensuring the decision was sufficiently narrow, and expressly limited its decision to the issue of divorce in a footnote: “Nothing in this opinion should be taken as applying to the recognition of same-sex marriages legally solemnized in a foreign jurisdiction in any context other than divorce. The question of recognition of such same-sex marriages for any other reason, being not properly before us, is left for another day.” Christiansen v. Christiansen, 2011 WY 90 (2011). Recognizing a valid foreign same-sex marriage for the limited purpose of divorce, however, does not negate the law or policy in Wyoming against allowing the creation of same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage was, and continues to be a developing area of family law. New York first considered a similar case in early 2008 when a judge granted a divorce to a same-sex couple married in Canada.

In an effort to simplify the separation process for same-sex couples, the California Legislature recently made significant amendments to the governing law. The State Assembly adopted the Separation Equity Act of 2010 which clarified that same sex couples married outside the state are able to dissolve their marriage in California. Additionally, same-sex couples who married during the brief period in 2008 when it was legal will have the rights and benefits of married couples, including divorce.

If you have a family law matter and are interested in learning more on the law governing same-sex marriage or divorce in California, please contact the experienced Family Law 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.

Economics of Family Law: Alternatives for Attorney’s Fees in Family Law Cases

July 12, 2011/in Family Law /by David Patton

Outside the United States, the term “attorney’s fees” is not often heard (there are analogous terms in other countries). It is largely part of the United States legal system and is used to refer to an attorney’s compensation for legal services. While sometimes daunting, especially in family law cases, there are attorney fees payment options specific to family law that are worth knowing.

First, it is important to note that most states, like California, make accepting a contingency fee for a family law case a violation of rules of professional conduct or canons of ethics. Rule 1.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides guidelines on attorney’s fees. As it relates to family law, the rule states that a “lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of which is contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support, or property settlement in lieu thereof.” This rule expressly prohibits attorneys from accepting family law cases on a contingency basis; that is, an attorney’s compensation may not depend on the outcome of the case. This could limit the ability of some parties to obtain a lawyer in divorce proceedings.

However, there are other ways of compensating a lawyer for family legal services. Section 2033 of the California Family Code states that either party to a divorce “may encumber his or her interest in community real property to pay reasonable attorney’s fees in order to retain or maintain legal counsel in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation of the parties.” This encumbrance is known as a “family law attorney’s real property lien” (FLARPL) and attaches only to the encumbering party’s interest in the community real property—providing parties to a family law case the opportunity to compensate their attorney following representation. A FLARPL allows a party without liquid assets to access their interest in the home’s equity to compensate a family law attorney in divorce proceedings where they could not otherwise afford it.

While contingency fees are disallowed in the divorce context, parties should seriously consider the option of a FLARPL when obtaining a divorce lawyer. A FLARPL secures attorney’s fees, however, parties may always choose to pay their attorney over time and keep their interest in their home equity instead.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed family law 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

Post-Nuptial Agreements and Spousal Support

July 7, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

Spousal support and prenuptial agreements often make headlines in high profile divorces; however, the lesser known separation agreement (a type of post-nuptial agreement) can also pose difficult issues for divorced couples. In North Carolina, for example, NASCAR Chairman Brian France is fighting to rescind a separation agreement that calls for him to pay more than $40,000 a month in spousal and child support. [NASCAR Divorce Case Gets Messier]. These types of agreements involving spousal support are valid under California law.

Separation agreements—also referred to as property settlement agreements or marital settlement agreements— are often executed by spouses when their marriage breaks down. The parties are free to agree to a division of property rights and/or rights and duties of spousal and child support, and then have a court approve the agreement. There are, however, statutory limitations on agreements regarding spousal support that must be taken into consideration.

One of the primary obligations imposed by statute on married persons is the obligation of support. Spousal support provides one’s spouse with the necessities of life, measured by the lifestyle of the particular parties. This obligation of support has long been regarded as unalterable during marriage. California Family Code section 1620 explicitly states, “Except as otherwise provided by law, a husband and wife cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property.” Therefore, spouses in an ongoing marriage may not enter into post-nuptial agreements waiving or limiting the right of either spouse to support the other in the event of separation.

Section 3580 of the California Family Code, however, creates an exception to this prohibition. A husband and wife may agree, in writing, to an immediate separation and may provide in the agreement for the support of either of them and of their children during the separation or upon the dissolution of their marriage. The important distinction is that this agreement can only be made when a couple is ready for an immediate separation. Absent an immediate intent to separate, a court will not uphold a post-nuptial agreement altering spousal support.

If you have a post-nuptial agreement in place, if you are contemplating having one put together, or if you have been asked to sign a post-nuptial agreement and you are concerned about how it may affect your rights, the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have substantial experience in handling post-nuptial agreements. Please call our office to schedule a free 1/2 hour consultation.

*Certified Family Law Specialist, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

Tennessee Supreme Court Prohibits Lifetime Alimony for Ex-Spouse

California Enforcement of Out-of-State Support Orders

Court of Appeal Clarifies Seven-Day Waiting Period for Premarital Agreements

Relocation and Child Custody

Actor Jon Cryer Ordered to Continue Child Support Payments Despite Having Primary Custody

Controversial Custody Decision Sparks National Attention of Child Custody Issues

Divorce Today: Navigating through Divorce Lawyers Online

Wyoming Supreme Court Grants Same-Sex Divorce

Economics of Family Law: Alternatives for Attorney’s Fees in Family Law Cases

Post-Nuptial Agreements and Spousal Support

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

Contact Us