Posts

What Parents with a Disability Need to be Aware of in a Divorce

/in /by

Parenting while going through a divorce is hard, but also having a disability adds a new level of complexity that makes it is easy to feel overwhelmed and deflated. This is why it is so important to have a competent lawyer who will advocate for your parentage rights effectively and with care.

The thought of having parentage rights taken away will make any parent’s heart drop. But the chances of a disabled parent facing this nightmare is almost a guarantee. According to the National Council on Disabilities the removal rates of children from disabled parents are dispiriting. For children with psychiatric disabled parents the removal rates were between 70% and 80%; parents with intellectual disabilities were 80%; and parents with physical or sensory disabilities experienced high removal rates and loss of parental rights, as well.

If you are a disabled parent facing divorce or a child custody battle, it is important to find a lawyer who is sympathetic to your situation, who understands your condition, and will be effective in their advocacy for you. This is crucial because there are many unfortunate challenges a disabled parent can face in court.

Disabled parents may experience bias or speculation regarding best interest determinants. When dealing with a child, the court’s main objective is to produce a result that is in the child’s best interest; and a parent’s disability will be considered.

There is also a “no harm” requirement when determining a child’s best interest scenario, where the court factors the mental and physical health of all individuals involved to determine if there is a potential chance for harm to occur to the child. With this requirement, there is no obligation to show that the parent’s disability is actually causing, or will cause, any harm to the child or their environment. This can clearly disfavor any parent dealing with a disability.

If you are a parent who has a disability and is facing a divorce or custody battle, securing knowledgeable and effective counsel is imperative. There are a few key characteristics you should look for your future lawyer.

Of course, a knowledgeable lawyer in family law and child custody is a must, but you also want one who will focus on your parenting abilities and strengths. Your attorney needs to understand the specifics of your diagnosis in order to better advise and understand you. By being knowledgeable on your disability’s characteristics your lawyer will be more equipped to advocate on your parenting strengths and abilities. Finally, you want to find a lawyer who apprehends the benefits and pitfalls of various parental evaluations. Overall, your lawyer should give you assurance that your parental rights are protected and that you are given a fair opportunity to raise your child.

If you are considering a divorce or legal separation and would like more information about child custody and parental disability, please contact the experienced family law attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri.

Lastly, 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.

Parenting Plans for School-Aged Children After Divorce

/in /by

Children are undoubtedly important members to a family, but when they are caught in the middle of a divorce short and long-term consequences can occur.

Since school-aged children are more mindful than younger children, they are more likely to be affected by a divorce. Thus, in order to limit the negative effects a divorce will have on your child, an agreed upon parenting plan is key.

Having your child affected by disagreements with your ex should never be a goal. Therefore, it is helpful for both parents to set out ground rules in advance. Make sure you both come to an understanding for acceptable behavior by each around your child.

Life is also uncertain, so in the event of an emergency is it important that the other parent knows of changes to phone numbers, work information, or home addresses as soon as possible. In addition to being notified of important contact information, each parent should have access to your child’s school and medical records and allowed to be contacted by your child’s school.

Keep one another informed about your child’s life and school. Education, sports, music programs, and other events are important to your child during this age. It is important for you and your ex to agree upon specific school or extracurricular events each will attend; either alone or at the same time. Remember being present at your child’s events will give them a sense of support in an otherwise turbulent time.

Additionally, clarity and order in a schedule is going to become the best asset you can provide your child. Figuring out a schedule on how you and your ex will handle exchanges, custody, and visitation should be a high priority on the list of “To Do.” These situations are stressful, but exchanges and transitions between homes can be especially hard for children when not carefully handled. Create a consistent weekly or monthly schedule in advance. This schedule should be clear on when and where your child is staying including where the child will spend summer vacations and holidays. Having a consistent schedule in advance allows your child to acclimate to this new lifestyle and will help other areas in their life to become less disturbed. Yet, some terms of divorce can make this objective difficult or even impossible to obtain without the aid of attorneys.

Above all, your child’s comfort should be a main objective. Make sure each home the child is staying at is equipped with all their necessities. This will help them feel secure, cared for, and comfortable. Some things to always keep stocked are: extra set of clothes; favorite books, toys, or games; and specific childcare supplies or medication.

If you are considering a divorce or legal separation and would like more information about how to create a parenting plan suited to your child’s needs, please contact the experienced family law attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri.

Lastly, 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.

Mom and Dad Have Something to Tell You: Talking to Kids about Divorce

/in /by

With forty to fifty percent of married couples proceeding in marriage dissolution, thousands of children experience the stress of divorce each year. While the adults are navigating their own emotions, children are also struggling with their own feelings. Many of these children get lost in the process as their parents often find it difficult to talk to them about divorce.

When parents decide to break the news to their children, it is important to leave any feelings of anger or blame out. Practicing the conversation may be helpful as to release any feelings of anger before talking with them. If possible, parents should also break the news together to avoid confusion. Telling children together also helps to preserve the child’s sense of trust in both parents.

The conversation should also be age appropriate. In other words, “[t]he discussion should fit the child’s age, maturity, and temperament.” It should also always include the following message: “What happened is between mom and dad and is not the child’s fault.” It is imperative to include this message as most children will feel that they are to blame for the separation, when this may be far from reality.

It is also vital to be prepared to handle children’s reactions to the news. For the children who become upset, parents can let them know that they care about these feelings and reassure them that their feelings are understandable. Some children may not react immediately. For these children, parents can let them know that this is also okay and that they will be there for them when they are ready to talk.

While there is no easy way for parents to break the news to their children, there are important things that both parents can do to help guide their children through this challenging time. The following is a list of helpful tips:

·      Be truthful and discuss changes with your children.

·      For younger children, have a simple and to-the-point conversation.

·      Remember to keep legal talk, heated discussions, and visible conflict away from the children.

·      It is important to keep each parent involved in the children’s lives.

·      Try to minimize any disruptions in their daily routines.

·      Restrict negative talk to private therapy sessions or conversations with friends outside of the home.

·      Encourage children to share their feelings.

·      Remind your children how much you love them.

·      Most importantly, support your child as he or she is navigating through the process.

The Certified Family Law Specialists at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex family law matters.  If you have any questions about helping your children through this process, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists at Lonich Patton Ehrlich 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.

 

Source: http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/help_child_divorce.html

Source: http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/social-affairs/20150530/the-ins-and-outs-of-talking-to-kids-about-divorce

Source: http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-to-tell-your-child-youre-getting-divorced_3657051.bc

Tax and Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples

/in , , /by

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples is a form of segregation that the Constitution cannot tolerate.

In June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Windsor, held that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages and that it is up to state Legislatures to define marriage within state boundaries. Since then, numerous law-suits challenging the constitutionality of state DOMAs on equal protection and due process grounds have prevailed in various federal and state courts. Currently, 19 states, including California, plus the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage (recognition states), while 40 states prohibit it (non-recognition states).

The prevailing prediction is that a Supreme Court guarantee of a right to marriage is on its way. American support for same-sex marriage is at a new high of 55 percent, and California support is at 61 percent and increasing, if the trends continue. It is important for all couples to create an estate plan. Additionally, it is important for same-sex couples to be aware of the potentially complicated issues that arise when they move across state lines.

Same-Sex Couples Living in California

Same-sex married couples now living in California enjoy the same benefits and burdens under state and federal law as married opposite-sex couples. Before Windsor and IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (which extended federal tax benefits to married same-sex couples, regardless of their state of residency), many married opposite-sex couples likely took this preferential treatment for granted.

Some of these benefits include:

  • Property transferred between spouses incident to a divorce is not subject to income or gift tax;
  • Spousal support (alimony) payments are tax deductible to the paying spouse;
  • Child support payments are not subject to income tax;
  • Spouses receive a community interest in 401(k) accounts and other retirement plans; and
  • Spouses receive all community property and anywhere from one-third to all of the deceased spouse’s separate property for intestate (when a person dies without a will or other non-probate instrument) inheritance purposes.

All couples should be aware of their legal rights at marriage, divorce, and death. It is important for both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples to consider pre-marital agreements, estate plans, and any tax consequences that arise from marriage or divorce.

The Marital Status of Migrating Same-Sex Couples

When a same-sex couple moves out of California, their marital status will depend on the other state’s law with regards to various issues including, state tax filing status, intestate succession, guardianship and conservatorship appointments, and adoption and artificial reproductive technologies. In other words, a non-recognition state may not recognize the otherwise valid same-sex marriage.

If and when the Supreme Court guarantees a right to marriage, moving across state lines will no longer be an issue for same-sex couples. However, in the interim, it is important to be aware of the possible legal consequences.

For example, under Florida law, the definition of “heir” does not include same-sex spouses for intestate inheritance purposes. This means that a same-sex couple that was married in California, but permanently living in Florida, will not inherit from each other under the Florida intestate system. Some courts in non-recognition states are willing to recognize same-sex marriage in certain contexts through the doctrine of comity, which is where a court gives deference to another state’s laws. However, most surviving spouses want to avoid litigation because it can be a headache, requiring time, money, and mental energy.

In some cases, it might be worthwhile for same-sex spouses to opt out of the intestate system with non-probate instruments, such as estate plans. A same-sex couple’s estate plan needs to be drafted with precision, specifically naming beneficiaries, rather than using general terms such as “spouse.” This becomes especially important if a same-sex couple moves to a non-recognition state, where the court may not interpret a same-sex spouse to qualify as a spouse or heir. If any other blood related heirs of the deceased spouse were to contest the non-probate instrument, they could end up inheriting property that would have gone to the same-sex spouse in California or another recognition state.

If you are a same-sex couple and are considering marriage, or need to create or update an estate plan, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law and estate planning 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.

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

/in /by

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.

A sperm donor who signs a document waiving his parental rights doesn’t have to pay child support, right?

/in /by

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

/in /by

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 Ehrlich 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.

Residency Requirement for Divorce

/1 Comment/in /by

Part Two of a blogging series covering legal issues presented in the Cruise and Holmes divorce.

Katie Holmes filed for divorce in New York, but could she have filed in California instead? At the heart of this issue is if Holmes has met the New York residency requirement. Though a divorce settlement has reportedly been reached between Cruise and Holmes, just last week there was a dispute surrounding the simple filing of the action.

To file for divorce in California, one of the spouses must be a resident of California for six months and a resident of the county for the three months immediately preceding the filing. New York has a longer residency requirement. Holmes has allegedly been secretly renting an apartment in New York on her own for the past year, so she may be able to establish residency.

Residency requirements can be complicated, but the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex family law matters.  If you find yourself on either side of a divorce, contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Ehrlich 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 detail general 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

Transfers from Parents & Grandparents to Children: Avoid an Increase in Property Tax

/1 Comment/in /by

 Do you know how to shield your  intra-family property transfers from being reassessed for property tax purposes? Understanding the law about exclusions from reappraisal is the first step towards avoiding an increase in property tax.

In California, real property is reassessed at the market value if it is sold or transferred, and property taxes can sometimes increase dramatically as a result. However, if the sale or transfer is between parents and their children, or from grandparents to their grandchildren, the property will not be reassessed if certain conditions are met and the proper application is timely filed.

Transfers of real property are excluded from reassessment if either (1) the transfer is a primary residence (no value limit); or (2) the transfer is of the first $1 million of real property other than the primary residence. The $1 million exclusion applies separately to each eligible transferor. For example, a grandchild may exclude $1 million of property transferred from her father and his parents (paternal grandparents); and $1 million of property transferred from her mother and her parents (maternal grandparents) for a total of $2 million.

It is important to note that claiming this exclusion is not always beneficial. The attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex property matters. If you are interested in developing a property transfer strategy tailored to your family’s needs or learning more about estate planning, contact the experienced estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich 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 detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

General Assignments Effectively Transfer Shares of Stock to a Trust

/in /by

Recall that in order to ensure the creation of a valid trust, there must be trust property.  See Ensuring the Creation of a Valid Trust blog.  Written declarations and general assignments generally are not the best ways to create trust property; however, they can be sufficient to transfer shares of stock, but not real property, to a trust, according to a recent California Appellate case.

In Kucker v. Kucker, 192 Cal. App. 4th 90 (2011), Trustor signed a declaration creating a revocable inter vivos trust, a general property assignment, and a pour-over will.  Later, Trustor signed an amendment to the general property assignment transferring all of her shares of stock in eleven specified corporations and funds.  However, Trustor did not include her 3,017 shares of stock in Medco Health Solutions, Inc.  At the time the amendment was signed, the Medco stock certificate was lost and the issue before the court became whether the Trustor intended to include all the stock she owned when she amended the general assignment.

The lower court denied the petition to attach the Medco stock for failing to meet the writing requirement under the California Civil Code (which required a writing for contracts that granted credit for over $100,000).  The Second District California Court of Appeal reversed and held that a general assignment of assets was sufficient to transfer shares of stock to a trust, even if the assignment failed to specifically identify the stock.  The court further elucidated that, “There is no California authority invalidating a transfer of shares of stock to a trust because a general assignment of personal property did not identify the shares. Nor should there be.”  The Civil Code section used by the lower court applied to agreements to loan money or extends credit made by persons in the business of loaning money, not to transfers of shares of stock to a trust.

There are many intricacies involved in the creations of trusts, and estate planning in general.  To ensure your affairs are in order, or if you are interested in learning more about how to ensure the validity of your trust, please contact  the San Jose estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri, LLP.  Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice.  Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

3 + 0 = ?

Link to: Contact Us

Contact Us

LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI

1871 The Alameda, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 553-0801 | Fax: (408) 553-0807 | Email: contact@lpeplaw.com

Located in San Jose, Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri handles matters for clients in northern California, specifically San Jose and Silicon Valley. Our services are available to anyone within the following counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito. For a full listing of areas where we practice, please click here.

DISCLAIMER

This web site is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Nothing in the site is to be considered as either creating an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri or as rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri Web site without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

About | Why LPEP | Contact | Blog

© 2022 Copyright Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

LPEP COVID-19 Office Protocol