Family Law Archives - Page 32 of 36 - Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Florida Court Orders Chidi Ahanotu to Surrender His Half-Time Championship Ring in Divorce Case

January 21, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

USA Today reports that a Florida divorce court recently ordered Chidi Ahanotu to handover the championship ring he won in 2002 while he was a defensive lineman for the St. Louis Rams. This decision has been viewed as unfair by some members of the public.

The court ordered Ahanotu to surrender the ring in order to pay the $130,000 he owes for his ex-wife’s legal fees. Ahanotu was not quiet about his view on the ruling: “This court system is a farce . . . This court wants a man to hand over his once-in-a-lifetime accomplishment to pay some damn attorney’s fees? I could see if it was going to pay something for my children or my ex-wife.”

It is important to remember that the law relating to divorce and legal procedures vary by state. In California, a trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to award attorneys fees and costs in marital proceedings. The court’s decision will not be overruled on appeal unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion. This means that the judge’s decision will remain intact on appeal unless it is shown that no judge could have reasonably decided to order (or deny) awarding attorneys fees and costs.

For more information about California’s divorce process, please contact our attorneys 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.

Source: USA Today

California Court Invalidates Dodger Owner’s Postnuptial Agreement

January 20, 2011/in Family Law /by David Patton

Earlier last month, a California court ruled that the postnuptial agreement entered into by Frank and Jamie McCourt, best known in their roles as owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, was invalid. The invalid postnuptial agreement was alleged to have given Frank McCourt sole ownership of the LA Dodgers.

The court held that this agreement was invalid because when the contract was signed, there was not a mutual understanding between the parties regarding the contents of the agreement. The court supported its decision by noting that two conflicting versions of the postnuptial agreement were signed by the spouses, and both Frank McCourt and Jamie McCourt admitted they had not read the agreement.

For those individuals who are not familiar with the term “postnuptial agreement,” it is a contract that is entered into by married spouses during marriage. The agreement typically addresses issues relating to asset protection, debt division, and spousal support.

The fiduciary duty obligations that apply to the execution of a postnuptial agreement do not apply to the execution of a prenuptial agreement. Unlike a prenuptial agreement, which is executed prior to marriage, a postnuptial agreement must be executed within the parameters of the parties’ fiduciary obligations. Specifically, the California Family Law Code explains that spouses entering into postnuptial agreements must act with the “highest good faith and fair dealing” towards each other and must not “take any unfair advantage of the other.” Although the prospective spouses entering into a prenuptial agreement do not owe each other fiduciary obligations, many other requirements must be met in order for a prenuptial agreement to be enforceable.

This ruling serves to highlight the importance of selecting a qualified family law attorney who is experienced in drafting effective postnuptial and prenuptial agreements. For more information about these types of agreements, please contact the Family Law attorneys 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.

Source: ESPN

Something to Consider Before Marriage: Divorce Insurance & Prenuptial Agreements

January 18, 2011/in Family Law /by David Patton

A divorcee, John Logan, knows all too well that divorces bring out the worst in people. Logan is the founder of “WedLock,” a company providing divorce insurance to couples. He described his own divorce as “world-class ugly.” Most couples do not plan on getting a divorce in the same way as they plan their wedding day. However, divorces are prevalent in today’s world. In addition, a divorce often causes immense financial and emotional strain on the divorcing parties. But the question remains, is divorce insurance the answer?

WedLock provides divorce insurance to individuals for as little as $16 per month for one “unit” of $1,250 in divorce coverage. For greater coverage, you can increase your “units” of coverage at the same rate per month. In addition, as long as you pay your premiums, the company will increase your coverage $250 per year. If you meet the eligibility requirements upon a later divorce, the insurance company pays out the current value of the policy. This money can then be used to help you defray the costs associated with your divorce.

A prenuptial agreement can also provide you with protection in the event of a subsequent dissolution of your marriage. A prenup is a contract between the two prospective spouses. The agreement can cover issues relating to division of assets upon divorce and your marital property rights and financial responsibilities during your upcoming marriage.

For more information on how a well drafted prenuptial agreement can help protect your assets, please contact us. 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.

Thanks to http://californiadivorce.blogs.com/. For the original article, please click here.

An Overview of California’s Supervised Visitation Law

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

Supervised visitation is judicial order for a neutral third party to be present when a child is spending time with his/her parent. When making a supervised visitation order, a judge may consider a wide variety of factors and goals. Some of the reasons a judge may order supervised visitation include giving the parent time to deal with specific issues, helping reintroduce a parent to a child after a long absence, introducing the parent to the child when there has been no prior relationship, avoiding potential domestic abuse or neglect, or if there is a threat of abduction.

If you think that supervised visitation may be in your child’s best interest, please contact the well-informed child custody lawyers at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for more 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.

What Happens to Out-of-State Real Property Upon a Divorce in California?

January 11, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

Upon a divorce, it is often a complicated and challenging process to divide real property existing in another state. The correct treatment of an out of state home or piece of land depends on how the property is characterized under California community property law. Generally, most property acquired during marriage is considered community property. At divorce, community property is divided equally between spouses. However, property acquired during marriage while living in a non-community property state is not community property. To find out what happens to this out of state real property, it is best to look at an example.

Let’s assume you and your spouse meet, marry, and reside in non-community property state. While married, you purchase a home with the savings you both earned during your marriage. Now, let’s assume, your spouse gets a job in California and you relocated without selling your home. Years later, you file for divorce. Under California law, this property is not community property as it was not acquired in a community property state. Instead, this property is characterized as “quasi-community property.”

Quasi-community property is property (wherever located) that would have been community property if the spouses had acquired it while domiciled in California. In a California divorce proceeding, quasi-community property will be treated the same as community property. Thus, in the above example, the out of state home would be divided the same way as if it were located in California. If located in California, the home would have been considered community property as it was acquired during marriage with martial earnings. It is important to remember that California community property law is complex, and it is filled with numerous exceptions.

For more information on how your property would be characterized under California law, please contact us. 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.

“He Wants What?!” – The Basics of California Community Property Law

January 6, 2011/in Family Law /by Julia Lemon

Did you just find out that your husband or wife wants ownership of a special piece of personal property or real estate that you acquired before you were married? If so, you should be aware of some basic rules in California family law.

First, California is a community property state. This means that all property acquired by spouses during marriage while living in California is presumed to be community property. However, property that is acquired during marriage by gift, bequest, or devise, or income from property acquired prior to marriage is presumed to be separate property of the receiving spouse. In addition, all property acquired by each spouse prior to marriage is presumptively the property of the owner spouse. Thus, if your spouse is currently twisting your arm to give you possession of a valuable asset you acquired before marriage, your spouse may not have any legal claim to this property.

However, under certain circumstances, your spouse may have a claim in your separate property. For example, if you owned a home before marriage but community funds were used during the marriage to pay down the mortgage, the community may have an interest in the home. In addition, if you purchased real estate or personal property during marriage with your separate property but agreed with your spouse in writing that you were converting this property into community property; your spouse may also have an interest in the asset.

For more information on California community property law, please contact us. 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.

Celebrity Engagements Remind Couples of the Importance of the Prenup

December 30, 2010/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

Over the past year, numerous celebrity couples have stepped forward with plans to marry. In early November 2010, Nick Lachey announced he was engaged to his longtime girlfriend, Vanessa Minnillo. The couple had been dating for approximately four years prior to the engagement. Shortly after Nick announced his soon-to-be marriage, news of Jessica Simpson’s (Lachey’s ex-wife) engagement surfaced. Unlike the long courtship of her ex-husband, Simpson had only been dating her now-fiancé, NFL player Eric Johnson, for five and a half months prior to the engagement. Additionally, Kelsey Grammer, who is not yet divorced from his third wife, announced plans to wed his fourth, Kayte Walsh. With all of the buzz around celebrity engagements and divorces, one can only hope that these pop culture icons will enter into prenuptial agreements to protect their sizable assets.

Jessica Simpson has allegedly learned a valuable lesson involving the dangers of marrying without a prenuptial agreement. Simpson’s decision not to sign a prenuptial agreement with Lachey reportedly cost her around $10 million. Rumors in early December 2010 show that Jessica has learned her lesson and will “definitely” have a prenuptial agreement prior to marrying Johnson.

Unlike Simpson, Grammer does not appear to have learned the importance of the prenup. Grammer’s soon-to-be ex-wife, Camille Donatacci, has just recently rejected Grammer’s offer to settle their case for around $30 million. Because Donatacci and Grammer did not enter into a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage, Donataci appears to be holding out for at least $50 million in addition to child and spousal support. According to Perez Hilton’s blog, an insider close to the couple shares that Grammer is “deeply in love” with Kayte Walsh would not “insult her by asking her to sign a prenup.”

As divorce rates rise, family law attorneys recommend that engaged couples consider entering into prenuptial agreements prior to marriage. Prenuptial agreements are especially recommended if either party has significant assets or owns real estate. For more information on California prenuptial agreements, please visit our website. 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.nypost.com/p/pagesix/how_camille_got_more_M6sGhLN4M07esaEQP6AKaJ

http://perezhilton.com/2010-12-30-kelsey-grammer-not-getting-prenup-for-third-marriage

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?entry_id=76889

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/inside-jessica-simpsons-e_n_786165.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/joe-simpson-reacts-to-jes_n_783508.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/12/09/2010-12-09_jessica_simpson_will_have_a_prenup_with_eric_johnson_report.html

What is Domestic Violence? How You Can Get an Emergency Protective Order

December 30, 2010/in Family Law /by David Patton

Note: People can tell what internet sites you have visited on your computer. Be safe, and use the internet at a local library, friend’s house, or at work!

Domestic violence is not just physical violence. It includes spoken, written, emotional, and physical abuse. It includes hair pulling, sexual assault, breaking into the victim’s home, stealing the victim’s property, etc. A verbal threat of physical violence or a pattern of harassing behavior is also considered domestic violence. Domestic violence is never acceptable, and it is also known as “abuse.”

In order to constitute domestic violence, the abuser and the victim must have a close relationship (i.e. married, divorced, separated, dating or dating in the past) or be related (i.e. parent, child, etc). Domestic violence is not only damaging to the victim, but it is destructive to children living in the home as well.

If you are in danger, ask a police officer to request an “emergency protective order.” You can ask for this order at any time – day or night. An emergency protective order only lasts for five court days or seven calendar days. Thus, before the emergency protective order expires it is highly suggested to seek a longer-term restraining order by filing the papers in family court.

If you need emergency shelter, or help with a restraining order, you can contact any of these local Santa Clara County resources:

For North County, call Support Network
24-hour crisis hotline (800) 572-2782
For Central County, call Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
24-hour crisis hotline (408) 279-2962
For East San Jose, call Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
24-hour crisis hotline (408) 279-2962
For South County, call the Community Solutions Women’s Shelter
24-hour crisis hotline (408) 683-4118
For help county-wide, call the Asian Women’s Home (AACI – Asian Americans for Community Involvement) Domestic Violence Program 24-hour crisis hotline (408) 975-2739
In Fremont, call SAVE (Shelter Against Violent Environments)
24 hour crisis hotline 510-794-6055
For Santa Cruz, call Women’s Crisis Support 831-477-4244, both English and Spanish.

For more information on how to protect yourself, or to proceed with a divorce, please contact our family law attorneys 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.

Visitation Rights May be Affected by One Parent’s Decision to Move Out of the Area

December 17, 2010/in Family Law /by David Patton

Parental custody and visitation can be a contentious issue in divorce proceedings. In general, the court will grant the noncustodial parent reasonable visitation rights unless it is shown that visitation would be detrimental to the child. Whether you have visitation rights or primary custody of your children, you should be aware of the implication a change in residence may have on your responsibilities to your children and your ex-spouse.

For example, if you have primary custody of the children and live near your ex-spouse and you decide to move away with your children, your responsibility for ensuring your ex-partner continues to have reasonable visitation rights will increase. The court has broad discretion to modify visitation orders to lessen the impact of the loss of contact with the non-custodial parent in these situations. For example, the court may choose to increase visitation rights for the non-custodial parent during school vacations. The court could choose to allocate the financial burden for paying for the children’s travel costs to you. The court could also deny the custodial parent the right to move at all.

However, let’s assume you have primary custody and your ex-spouse decides to move out of the area. In this case, the court may decide to modify the visitation schedule to provide for longer, but less frequent, visitation periods.

If you are interested in learning more about California custody and visitation, please contact us. 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.

Sperm Donor Parental Status in California

December 17, 2010/in Family Law /by Julia Lemon

As artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization technology continues to rapidly develop, California law has been struggling to keep up with the times. Specifically, it is becoming increasingly important to protect the rights of mothers who conceive using donor sperm.

To date, the California Family Code has partially addressed this issue. The Family Code provides that a donor who has provided semen to a sperm bank, or to a licensed physician for insemination of a woman, is treated by the law as if he were not the natural father of the child conceived as a result. A recent news story illustrates the importance of the continued development of family law in relation to sperm and egg donation and usage.

Karen B., a writer in Los Angeles, California was looking for a sperm donor to help her start her family. She met the man who would become her sperm donor, Daniel C., on Craiglist after first seeking a donor among her group of close friends. Initially, they agreed that she would retain custody and would make all the parenting decisions while the donor would have visitation privileges. However, after Karen already became pregnant, Daniel began forcing himself into Karen’s life and sought custody rights. The court ruled in favor of Karen’s parental rights, but granted Daniel with twice monthly visitation privileges. However, because of this informal arrangement, Karen lives in fear that Daniel might someday abduct the child to his native Brazil. For the full article see ABC news.

As this particular story illustrates, it is important that California family law continue to develop to protect the parental status, custody, and visitation rights of parents and donors who enter into agreements to conceive a child. In addition, it is of utmost importance that the law continues to expand to serve the primary function of ensuring the safety, stability, and mental health of the child.

For more information about sperm donor rights, please contact us. 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.