divorce Archives - Page 8 of 11 - Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Fiduciary Duties Between Spouses: Respect Thy Spouse

June 19, 2012/1 Comment/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

Husband uses wife’s private shopper and bank account to purchase $1.4 million worth of luxury goods from Neiman Marcus. Wife is bedridden the entire time recovering from a traffic accident. Private shopper is having sexual relations with husband, and earns a commission off of the sales. Neiman Marcus is reportedly refusing to return the goods. (See http://abcn.ws/KsRBy8.) Does wife have any legal recourse for the purchases she did not participate in? This true story is one extreme example of how spouses can breach the fiduciary duties they owe to each other.

Under the California Family Code, spouses are treated much like business partners and must deal fairly and in good faith with each other. The fiduciary duties require an “accurate and complete” disclosure of all transactions and provide that spouses share equal management and control of their community property. These duties are subject to few exceptions and the consequences for breaching them can be severe. If you find yourself on either side of a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri can assist you in determining your rights, obligations and exposure.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex family law matters. If you are interested in learning more about your fiduciary rights and obligations, contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* 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 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

Every Marriage Needs a Prenup

February 22, 2012/in Family Law /by David Patton

While a prenuptial agreement may not be the most romantic gesture, every couple can benefit from creating one, even if at the time of marriage there are little assets. Assets may accumulate during the marriage and even young couples just starting their own careers should want to make sure that what they acquire during marriage is not left for a court to divide.

While prenups are often associated with divorce, discussing hypothetical scenarios can help to shed light on relationship expectations and help ensure decisions are made accordingly. Many people also do not realize that post-nuptial agreements are possible. The only catch is that they can be more difficult to procure and enforce as there are additional requirements. Waiting until the last minute to think about a prenuptial agreement can result in unnecessary pressure and force more couples into the more difficult post-nuptial route.

Of the many considerations in discussing a prenuptial agreement, none is more important than the fact that California is a community property state. This means that couples’ assets are typically divided 50/50 despite any special circumstances. Any couple that would prefer anything besides equal division needs a prenup to avoid it. Attorneys have compared prenups to life insurance policies, no one enjoys imagining the worst-case scenario but having a policy or prenup in place can make a significant life event less difficult.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex family law matters. If you are interested in learning more prenuptial or post-nuptial agreements, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* 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.

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

D.C. Provides Same-Sex Couples with Divorce

February 1, 2012/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

This summer, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s courts had jurisdiction to grant the divorce of a same-sex Wyoming couple who legally married in Canada. (See Blog). Now, Washington D.C. is set to provide same-sex couples who got married in the District of Columbia with a way to get divorced. (See Article)

D.C. began allowing same-sex marriage in 2010; however, those marriages are not recognized in most jurisdictions, which means that divorce proceedings cannot be started since the marriages are not recognized in the first place. After hearing reports that same-sex couples who wed in D.C. were being denied divorces after moving to jurisdictions that do not recognize same-sex marriage, a D.C. councilman proposed legislation to help give these couples more options. The bill removes a six-month waiting period during which someone seeking a divorce must reside in the district, as long as the marriage took place in D.C.

Same-sex marriage and divorce continues to be a developing area of family law. New York considered a same-sex divorce case in early 2008 when a judge granted a divorce to a same-sex couple married in Canada. An Oklahoma court granted a divorce to a same-sex couple who married in Canada and filed using just their first initials and last names, only to revoke it upon discovering both parties were women on the grounds they were never legally married. As noted in the Wyoming blog post, the California Legislature recently made significant amendments to the law governing same-sex divorces in California. 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 same sex marriage was legal 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.

Maximizing Retirement: Where a Divorce Might Benefit You

January 30, 2012/in Estate Planning, Family Law /by Michael Lonich

If you’re elderly and divorced, you might be getting shorted on Social Security payments by collecting lower benefits than you might be eligible for, based on the earnings history of a former spouse. (See Wall Street Journal Article) A person can collect SS benefits based on (1) his or her own earnings, (2) fifty-percent of her spouse or former spouse’s benefit, if it greater than his or her own, or (3) one-hundred-percent if he is deceased. Divorced spouses must have been married ten years or longer and the person seeking a former spouse’s higher benefit must currently be unmarried, unless she remarried after age 60, in order to receive larger monthly benefits.

The Wall Street Journal provided this example:

Let’s say your mother was married in the 1950s or 1960s for at least a decade. Perhaps she was out of the work force raising children and subsequently worked at low-paying jobs, so her benefit might be, say, $800 a month.

By contrast, her former husband—with more years in the work force and higher wages—might be eligible for a monthly benefit of $2,000. (Social Security benefits currently max out at $2,366 a month.)

Your mother might not realize she can collect a total of $1,000 a month if her former spouse is alive, and $2,000 a month if he isn’t. If the Social Security Administration determines she is eligible for higher benefits, she also will receive retroactive amounts going back six months. For the woman in the example above, that would be a lump sum of either $1,200 (six times $200) or $7,200 (six times $1,200).

The fact that the ex-husband might have remarried does not affect what his current spouse will receive nor does it require any involvement with the former spouse. The Social Security Administration should have former spouse earnings history, whether alive or not, and make it determination based on those records.

If you are interested in learning more about divorce or preparing for your retirement, please contact the experienced family law and estate planning 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.

Ensuring Your Child’s Safety

January 13, 2012/1 Comment/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

George Molho, a kidnapping survivor, has recently shared his experiences from when his father abducted him in 1978 and moved them to Greece from his home in Texas. In sharing his story, Molho (for more information on his new memoir, Scarred, see www.georgemolho.com), a passionate advocate for child kidnapping and abuse victims, is trying to bring awareness to the problem and efforts to develop solutions that protect children.

As a seven-year-old in 1978, Molho was taken from his home in Houston by his father, a man with a bad temper, obsessive need for control, and desire to inflict pain. At the time, no one, not even his mother, believed Molho when he predicted his father’s plan and tried to warn them. When young children express fear or concern about even a close friend or family member, adults tend to chalk it up to shyness, a ploy for attention, or fantasy, Molho said. “Trust your child’s instincts,” he says. “If they act uncomfortable around someone because they can’t verbalize their feelings, or if they tell you they’re uncomfortable, trust them. No matter who it is, if they tell you a person scares them, protect them.”

Molho also offers these lesser-known tips for protecting children from kidnappers, whether they’re friends or family:

Teach children how to fib on the phone. If they’re home alone, for instance, and someone calls asking to speak to their mother or father, they might say, “My mother’s busy in the kitchen right now and asked me to answer the phone and take a message.” Put them to the test by having someone they don’t know, one of your friends or co-workers, call.
Make approved lists of people who will deliver any important news to them. If Mom or Dad is in trouble or hurt, only these people will know and will tell the child. Even if Uncle Bob tells them Mom is in the hospital and the child needs to go with Uncle Bob, if he’s not on the approved list, the child should not go. This is a common ploy.
Teach them, train them and give them permission to defend themselves. This is very important and it saves lives. Most children are taught to be polite and respect adults; it’s far safer to risk offending an adult – even if it turns out the adult meant no harm. Screaming, kicking and running away are perfectly acceptable if a stranger grabs your arm – even if the stranger is smiling sweetly.

Family law proceedings can be contentious. Emotions tend to run high for all those involved; sometimes this leads to actions that endanger the safety of the children caught in the middle. George Molho’s tips may help ensure the safety of your children. 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, 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

Connecticut Judge Orders Divorcing Couple to Exchange Facebook Passwords

December 6, 2011/in Family Law /by David Patton

Evidence from social networking websites is used more and more often in lawsuits and divorces these days. This information is typically obtained by visiting a party’s page or requesting information from the party personally, not from obtaining a party’s password and signing into their account on your own accord. However, judges are beginning to force parties to surrender passwords to their Facebook accounts.

On September 30, 2011, a Superior Court of Connecticut issued an order requiring “[c]ounsel for each party [] exchange the password(s) of their client’s Facebook and dating website passwords. The parties themselves shall not be given the passwords of the other.” Stephen Gallion v. Courtney Gallion, Clarification of Order. Courtney and Stephen are in a custody battle, and Stephen is seeking full custody of the parties’ children. To bolster his position, he sought access to Courtney’s Facebook and online dating accounts because he and his attorney suspected that they would find evidence of how Courtney feels about her children and her ability to care for them. They requested that the court order Courtney to provide her password; the court ordered the attorneys to exchange the parties’ passwords, and also issued an injunction prohibiting Courtney from deleting any information from these websites. (Summary from Forbes).

As social networking becomes a larger part of our lives, it will play a larger role in our lawsuits. Typically, if a party is ordered to provide social networking data, he or she will be required to produce responsive material (e.g. printouts of a party’s profile page), not the passwords, which would allow the other side to gain unfettered access to more content. However, recent cases show a different pattern. Lawyer and tech blogger Venkat Balasubramani has written about several other civil cases 1) where judges have issued similar orders, including a personal injury case, 2) where judges have taken it upon themselves to sign into someone’s Facebook account and look for evidence, 3) as well as cases where judges have rejected lawyers requesting opposing litigants’ passwords, as in an insurance case involving State Farm (Summary from Forbes).

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

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

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.

Posts

Fiduciary Duties Between Spouses: Respect Thy Spouse

Every Marriage Needs a Prenup

D.C. Provides Same-Sex Couples with Divorce

Ensuring Your Child’s Safety

Connecticut Judge Orders Divorcing Couple to Exchange Facebook Passwords

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

Divorce Today: Navigating through Divorce Lawyers Online

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

Contact Us