San Diego Divorce Attorney Blog

Divorcing couples in San Diego, and throughout the state of California, have the complicated and emotional task of sorting through their community property to determine how to divide the assets. But spouses on the verge of divorce should also pay close attention to the debts that have accumulated throughout the marriage. Those too may be equally allocated. Each state has its own set of family laws and procedures to follow. In matters concerning property division, the importance of hiring an experienced, local divorce attorney who is well-versed in the particular laws of California, cannot be overstated.

The extent to which a spouse inherits the other's debt depends in large part on the laws of the state within which they were married. Because California is a "community property" state, debts incurred during the marriage will be evenly divided during the divorce proceedings. A recent Fox Business article focuses on what happens to a woman's credit after a divorce if her husband has a business credit card debt. The main message in the article was: the answer may vary from state to state. In most cases, it seems that the person who filled out and signed the credit card application agreement will be the one the company goes after in seeking to recover payment.

While the credit card company is known to go after the signatory when some type of wrong-doing has been detected, if the issuer of the credit card happens to win a judgment against that person, it can still seek the couple's joint assets to satisfy that amount.

There are many ways that people can protect themselves in such situations. Calling the credit card issuer directly to identify the signatory is one way to ensure that you will not be the one they go after in the event of a default in payment. Another way to protect your assets after a divorce is to make sure your funds are in your name only and clearly separate from your ex-spouse's. Of course, if the couple signed a pre-nuptial agreement, all bets are off and each party should consult with a local attorney to understand their respective rights under that contract.

Once a couple has decided to divorce, in order to understand what assets and debts you jointly have, a good idea is to make lists of everything you own and owe. Part of this task is to determine which items are considered community property versus separate property. Once you have that figured out, the logical next step is to calculate the fair market value of the assets.

Under California law, divorcing spouses are required to fill out and exchange with one another a "Schedule of Assets and Debts." Essentially, it is each party's financial declaration of disclosure. Spouses are encouraged to be open and honest in preparing the schedule of information. Even after the debt allocation is completed, there could still be issues that arise later on. For instance, when spouses agree to divide up the debts they owe, it is important to realize that the entities or people you owe the money to are not required to honor or recognize the arrangement between you and your spouse. There are many complicated issues that can arise from the division of community property, especially when it comes to marital debt.

Continue reading "In California, A Spouse's Business Debts May Be Divided Evenly in Divorce" »

For spouses seeking to divorce in San Diego, California law generally requires that marital property be divided equally. Identifying marital property and determining its value are critical parts of any divorce case. In some instances, a party to a divorce settlement could later argue that because of fraud or errors made in determining the value of marital property, the court should set aside the settlement. Because the value of marital property is of crucial importance to the outcome of the settlement, spouses are encouraged to hire an experienced San Diego family law attorney who will work to get the best settlement for their case.

According to a Bloomberg news article, Jamie and Frank McCourt dissolved their marriage in 2010. They announced their divorce settlement in October 2011, which allocated to Ms. McCourt a tax-free sum of $131 million. Six months after their settlement was finalized, Frank McCourt sold the Los Angeles Dodgers for $2 billion. After learning about the sale of the team, Ms. McCourt petitioned a California Superior Court judge to set aside the settlement, claiming that it was based on fraud. She contends that as co-owner of the team, she was entitled to a great deal more than the $131 million she received under the settlement.

According to some reports, it is said that Ms. McCourt received 7% of the couple's assets, while Mr. McCourt received 93%. The motion filed recently claims that after the sale of the team, less any relevant debts, Mr. McCourt's assets turned out to be worth $1.7 billion, more than 10 times the amount Ms. McCourt received in the settlement.

Although the process can become costly and time consuming, California law does provide an avenue of relief for parties who wish to set aside a divorce settlement. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, or Family Law Code Section 2122, an ex-spouse may seek to set aside the settlement on grounds such as fraud or mistake, among others.

As part of her motion to set aside the divorce settlement, Ms. McCourt sought to uncover testimony from a confidential mediation proceeding between the Dodgers, Frank McCourt and various league officials. According to another article, the U.S. Bankruptcy judge who oversaw the team's bankruptcy case refused to allow Ms. McCourt access to the information revealed during the mediation sessions. In the judge's opinion, the confidential mediation was "an essential ingredient in the success" of resolving the Dodgers' bankruptcy case.

It should be clear that the best course of action is to be fully aware -- in advance of the settlement discussions -- of all of the marital property and the respective worth of each item. Ms. McCourt admitted to being surprised at herself for making such a "huge mistake" as to the value of the marital assets, namely, the baseball team. An experienced, local divorce attorney can assist you in the thorough identification and valuation of all marital property, and should conduct an exhaustive investigation of your and your spouse's marital finances.

Continue reading "Former LA Dodgers' Owner Back in Court as Ex-Wife Petitions to Set Aside Divorce Settlement" »

Going through a divorce has been described as one of the most difficult times in a person's life. In order to lessen the stress and expense, divorcing couples in San Diego may request that the court order a settlement conference with the intention of resolving any outstanding matters in dispute. By doing so, the parties may be able to avoid taking their case to trial. Under California Law, the court also has the authority to order one or more mandatory conferences on its own motion, if doing so would serve to move the case along more efficiently. Only an experienced San Diego Family Law attorney can help you to navigate a process steeped in local rules and procedures.

In what may not be such a big surprise, Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian are encountering another little hurdle in their very public divorce proceeding. According to a recent news article, Mr. Humphries failed to show up at a recent mandatory settlement hearing with a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles. It has been reported that the judge was not happy about Humphries' absence at the conference and scheduled another hearing to determine whether he should be penalized for not appearing. One reporter said the judge believed Humphries was "mocking" the entire court system by failing to appear. In addition to that hearing, the court ordered a new date for the settlement discussions in the hopes that this time Humphries will attend. The trial is still scheduled for May 6.

The Superior Court in San Diego provides a great deal of information on its website for parties who are pursuing a settlement conference. At this hearing, a judge -- or perhaps a volunteer attorney -- helps the parties by reviewing the case and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. The ultimate purpose is to encourage the parties to negotiate a settlement of the dispute. At this point, the judge (or volunteer attorney) would not have the authority to make any decisions or orders in the case. Often, a mandatory settlement conference is held close to the parties' trial date, giving them one last opportunity to resolve their differences before spending the time and money to endure a trial.

Before the parties attend the settlement conference, they are expected to exchange a "good faith" settlement demand and offer. The attorneys representing the parties must be fully familiar with the case and have complete authority to negotiate and settle the matter.

The Humphries/Kardashian case is interesting because he wants the marriage annulled while she is seeking a traditional divorce, despite the fact that they were married for only 72 days. Humphries has alleged that the marriage was based on fraud, claiming that Kardashian only married him because of her reality show, "Keeping up With The Kardashians".

While the Humphries/Kardashian divorce proceeding has been so extensively reported on, with paparazzi and reporters cramming the courthouse, many of the issues they are facing occur in a great deal of divorce cases. A divorce proceeding and settlement conference can be a relatively smooth process with the help of a dedicated and experienced attorney

Continue reading "Kris Humphries Fails to Show Up at Court Settlement Conference with Kim Kardashian" »

California is a "community property" state. This means that in the eyes of the law, a marriage makes two people one legal "community." In effect, when couples marry in San Diego, the wealth (and debts) they accumulate become community property, which entitles each spouse to one-half of the total amount. In the event of a divorce, community property and debts are typically divided equally. It is a widely accepted principle throughout the country; in some states it is referred to as "marital property."

A recent Reuters article describes the looming divorce between Harold Hamm, chief executive of Continental Resources, described as America's fastest growing oil company, and his estranged wife, Sue Ann Hamm, who has held "key posts" at the company over the years. The article focuses a great deal on the eventual division of marital property and how that will affect Harold Hamm's current controlling stake in Continental Resources, worth approximately $11.2 billion. It is unclear whether the couple had previously signed a pre-nup agreement and without one, the divorce settlement could split up Harold Hamm's 68% ownership of the company.

In this case, the company experienced a massive financial growth that took place during the course of the couple's marriage. According to the article, the stock share price increased virtually 500 percent during the five years following the initial public offering. The increase in the value of an asset during a marriage is typically deemed part of the marital property. And while this marriage falls under the laws of Oklahoma, many of the same legal principles apply as in California. In Oklahoma, just like in California, wealth that accrues during the marriage by the efforts of either spouse would usually be subject to equal distribution between the couple.

The court is expected to take a close look at what each spouse contributed to the increase in the business' financial worth. An interesting factor here is that Sue Ann Hamm was also working at the company during the marriage. In situations like these, when the issue of company control comes up in a divorce proceeding, it is reported that a spouse will likely get paid the value of the shares to which he or she is entitled.

Separate property, not subject to division between divorcing spouses, is anything that one owns before the marriage. For example, inheritances and gifts to one spouse even during the marriage are separate property. Further, rents, profits, or other money earned from one's separate property, and items one purchases with separate property are also deemed separate property.

For clarification, property is anything that can be bought or sold, such as a home, cars, clothing, or furniture. Property also includes other items that have measurable value, such as a business (as in the case here), bank accounts and cash, pension and 401(k) plans, stocks, security deposits on an apartment, life insurance with cash value, or a patent.

Determining what is marital or community property versus separate property can be complicated and typically has its roots in established local laws. Divorcing spouses are encouraged to contact an experienced Family Law attorney who practices in the San Diego area.

Continue reading "Under Community Property Principles, Impending Divorce Could Threaten Chief Executive's Control of Billion Dollar Oil Company" »

Just last month, an appeals court in New York sided with a wife who had been on the losing end of a prenuptial agreement -- and essentially threw it out. While the laws in New York do not govern marriages that take place San Diego, the unexpected decision is sending shockwaves through the Family Law community at large. Divorce attorneys throughout the country are talking about the decision, and many believe that a solidly drafted prenup will still hold up in court, despite the surprising decision. If you are contemplating marriage and believe a prenup is the right agreement for your situation, it is imperative, now more than ever, that you consult an experienced, local attorney to draft the agreement.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, four days before their wedding, Peter Petrakis asked his soon-to-be wife, Elizabeth Cioffi, to sign a prenuptial agreement. He gave her an ultimatum - if she didn't sign the document, he would call off the wedding that was already paid for by Elizabeth's father. She agreed to sign, but only after Peter promised to tear up the agreement once they had children. He also promised to put her name on the deed to the house. These last two provisions were not included in the prenup.

After having two sons and one daughter, Elizabeth claimed that Peter reneged on his end of the bargain. Under the prenup, Elizabeth is entitled to $25,000 a year. She argued in court that Peter fraudulently induced her to sign the agreement just days before their wedding. The court agreed, even though Peter's promise was not part of the prenup. It is reported that Peter will appeal the decision to the highest court in the state.

With the prenup decision under her belt, Elizabeth plans to initiate divorce proceedings and will seek half of her husband's assets, estimated at $20 million. Some divorce attorneys have speculated that this decision could be quoted in every case going forward. Others are not sure whether the ruling will establish precedent or if it will be considered a singular decision, applicable only to the facts in this case.

California law requires parties to wait seven days from the day they first see the prenup before signing the document. And as we discussed in an earlier blog post, two important rules governing prenups dictate that the agreement must be in writing and must be fair. "Fair" means that the parties are expected to disclose all relevant financial information, a party must not coerce the other party to sign, and both parties must fully understand what they are signing. As we have seen from the decision in New York, the court agreed that the prenup was not fairly executed, as Elizabeth relied on her husband's verbal promises to tear up the agreement after they had children.

In order to avoid, or at least minimize, unexpected arguments concerning the validity of a prenup, parties are strongly encouraged to contact a local, experienced family law attorney for guidance through this complicated process.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Voids Prenup on Basis of Fraud" »

It is no secret that Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher separated more than a year ago. The news spread through the tabloids in no time. But it took until this past December for one of the parties to file for divorce. According to a Huffington Post article, Kutcher filed first and Moore just recently responded by filing her own papers. The intriguing, and perhaps surprising part of this story is that Demi Moore is seeking spousal support from Kutcher. When a couple decides to end their marriage, often one of the parties is entitled to spousal support. If you or someone you know is contemplating divorce, it is imperative that you seek the advice of an experienced San Diego family law attorney, as early in the proceedings as possible, to identify and help protect your rights.

The article reports that Moore, who is 50-years-old, is asking Kutcher for spousal support and, to pay her attorney's fees, despite that she is worth (financially) more than he is. Some news sources have speculated that Moore was hurt by an affair Kutcher was thought to be having with a 23-year-old woman right before their separation. Reports also suggest that Moore is upset about Kutcher's publicly known relationship with Mila Kunis, an actress who starred in "That 70's Show" years ago, along with Kutcher.

From a financial standpoint, the request for spousal support seems to be stemming from bad feelings rather than a need to get by. According to the article, when Moore divorced Bruce Willis, she received $90 million. Currently, she is reported to be worth $150 million, compared to Kutcher's reported worth of $140 million. The decision on the amount, if any, of spousal support Demi Moore is entitled to will be determined by the court.

Under California law, when parties are divorcing, the court may order one spouse to pay the other a specified amount of money for support each month. A judge will look at what each spouse is able to earn to keep their standard of living as close to what they had during the marriage. In order to do this, the court will consider a variety of factors: (1) any marketable skills of the spouse receiving the support; (2) the current job market for those skills; (3) the expense and time it will take for the spouse who receives the support to obtain the training or education to get a job or to develop marketable skills or; (4) the extent that the earning capacity of the spouse who receives the support was adversely affected by unemployment during the marriage due to domestic responsibilities.

When one considers the above factors, it will be interesting to see what a court will order in terms of spousal support for Demi Moore. She seems to have earning potential and to be worth a great deal of money. For divorcing spouses who are not famous actors, the situation can be quite different. In order to ensure that you are treated fairly when it comes to spousal support, it is important to have an attorney who you can trust to protect your rights.

Continue reading "Demi Moore is Seeking Spousal Support in Divorce From Ashton Kutcher" »

Raymond and Roberta Melissa were married on August 8, 1985. He was 41 and she was 32. He owned a Newport Beach home, a jaguar and had a net worth of over $2 million. She rented an apartment and worked as a nurse. As a condition to getting married, Raymond required Roberta to sign a prenuptial agreement that was drafted by a neighbor's attorney-son, Craig Wilford. Roberta did not hire her own attorney to review the document, even though Wilford told her she could. The parties signed the agreement in 1985.

The issue contested in this case pertains a clause that relieves both parties of the responsibility to provide spousal support in the event of a divorce or legal separation. This part of the prenuptial agreement specifically and explicitly recognized that California law (at the time of the document's execution) prohibited the future waiver of spousal support. The agreement even cited the case, In re Marriage of Higgason, as standing for that current state of the law. However, the agreement further provided that the law regarding waiver of spousal support was in "a state of flux" and because of that, they agreed to mutually waive such rights.

The parties subsequently had a son who has autism and suffers from Fragile-X syndrome. Back in 1997, Roberta stopped working full-time. In the fall of 2009, the parties separated and then Roberta filed a petition for divorce shortly thereafter. Roberta continued to care for their son who is now 24-years-old, and works as a part-time janitor, earning $9 per hour. Roberta is unemployed.

The issue before the trial court was whether the prenuptial agreement was valid. The court's main two concerns were (1) whether it was required to apply the law in effect in 1985 when the agreement was executed; and (2) if so, whether the waiver of spousal support clause was void as against public policy. The court reviewed the Higgason case, relevant statutes and the later decision in In re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman, and ultimately decided that it was required to apply the law at the time of execution. In so doing, the court held that it was "very clear" that spousal support waivers were void as against public policy in 1985. The court noted that relevant statutory amendments, as well as the decision in the Pendleton case, failed to overrule the Higgason case. The court entered a partial judgment holding the spousal support waiver invalid. Raymond appealed.

The court of appeals affirmed the decision. After reviewing the evolution of spousal support waivers, and the reasons for holding such provisions as against public policy (namely the preservation of marriage and its connection to society's welfare), the court pointed out that things have changed over time. In Higgason, the court held the waiver of support to be against public policy because it sought to change the wife's statutory obligation to support her husband. A later case, In re Marriage of Dawley, added to this notion by holding that public policy renders an agreement unenforceable when it promotes or encourages dissolution of the marriage.

The status of the law in 1985 was that any written waiver of the statutory duty to mutually support each other was void as against public policy. The court of appeals refused to accept the language in the parties' agreement as circumventing the law in 1985. Despite the enactment of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1986 (which failed to specifically address waivers of spousal support at the time), and the later decision in Pendleton that acknowledged the shift in public policy regarding such waivers, the court concluded that it was required to apply the law as it existed in 1985.

As a side note, in response to the decision in Pendleton, in 2002, the Legislature amended the statute requiring spouses to be represented by counsel before waiving spousal support in a prenuptial agreement, among other things.

Continue reading "California Appellate Court Ruled Waiver of Spousal Support in Prenuptial Agreement Violated Public Policy at Time of Execution" »

When married couples and domestic partners in California seek a formal end to their relationship, the most common procedure is divorce, legally described as a dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership. California law allows alternatives to jumping head-first into a divorce. In relatively rare instances, couples may be able to annul their marriage, which wipes the slate clean in a legal sense. Couples can legally separate, either to make gradual changes to their finances, or to conduct a "trial separation" before divorce. Some couples choose to remain legally separated but never divorce, while other reconcile after a period of separation.

Grounds for Divorce or Legal Separation

Divorce and legal separation follow the same procedural rules. A spouse seeking a divorce or legal separation must petition a court, and must first state grounds for the divorce or legal separation. California is a "no fault" state, meaning that a spouse does not need to show specific wrongdoing by the other spouse in order to obtain a divorce or legal separation. The two grounds for divorce in California are "irreconcilable differences" and "incurable insanity." Irreconcilable differences, defined as reasons identified by the court that show that the marriage should not be continued, is by far the more common ground cited in divorces and legal separations. Incurable insanity requires medical or psychiatric evidence showing that the spouse was insane at the time the other spouse filed for divorce or legal separation, and continued to be insane up to the present.

Continue reading "Nullify, Dissolve, or Legally Separate? Understanding California's Divorce and Annulment Laws" »

Actress and model Liberty Ross filed for divorce from her husband, director Rupert Sanders, in late January 2013 in Los Angeles. The couple was in the news last summer after the story broke of an "affair" between Sanders and Kristen Stewart, who was the lead actress in his first feature film. Neither spouse has made a public statement, so the role of the affair in the divorce is only speculation.

Ross reportedly filed a divorce petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 25, 2013. She and Sanders have been married for nearly ten years, and have two children, ages eight and six. Both Ross and Sanders are British, and they moved to Los Angeles for his film career. Ross has had a successful career as a model, and has also acted in several films. She had a role in Sanders' first feature film, Snow White and the Huntsman. Ross pleaded irreconcilable differences in her divorce petition. She is seeking custody of the two children and spousal support. Sanders is reportedly asking for joint custody and shared attorney's fees.

Actress Kristen Stewart played the title role in Snow White. Sanders cast Ross in the role of Snow White's mother. A story appeared in July 2012, around the time of the film's theatrical release, that Sanders and Stewart had a "massive makeout session." Descriptions of the incident range from an "affair" to a "hook-up" or "fling," depending on who is describing it. By most accounts, it was a single incident as opposed to a lengthy relationship. Both Sanders and Stewart issued public apologies. A lengthy series of deconstructions of the "affair," as well as media examinations of Sanders' marriage to Ross and Stewart's relationship to then-boyfriend Robert Pattinson, ensued for much of the rest of the summer.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Actress Liberty Ross Files for Divorce from Director Rupert Sanders" »

The issue of confidentiality of financial records in a divorce matter recently came before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The court affirmed a lower court's order unsealing the documents in a man's post-divorce proceeding against his ex-wife, in which he alleges that she breached confidentiality provisions in their pre-nuptial agreement. After one judge initially sealed the pleadings, a different judge unsealed them, citing the public's interest in open judicial proceedings. The appellate court affirmed this decision in France v. France, No. COA12-284, slip op. (N.C. App., Dec. 31, 2012).

The plaintiff, Brian France, was married to and divorced the defendant, Megan France, on two separate occasions. Their second marriage, which began in December 2007, included a pre-nuptial agreement. In exchange for certain financial benefits in the event of divorce, the defendant agreed to keep any financial information in her possession about the plaintiff confidential, unless she was compelled by law to disclose such information. Breach of the confidentiality provisions, according to the pre-nuptial agreement, would constitute a material breach creating a cause of action for damages.

The couple separated in 2008. While the details of their divorce were kept confidential, statements made on the record in court indicated that the plaintiff, who is the chief executive officer of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), would pay the defendant $9 million, as well as child support of $10,000 per month and alimony, for a period of ten years, of $32,000 per month.

Continue reading "Court Upholds Order Unsealing Pleadings in NASCAR CEO's Divorce Matter" »

The case of an Arizona man seeking a divorce from his wife has encountered difficulty based on conflicting provisions of state law. The husband in the case, Thomas Beatie, is a transgender man, having been born a woman and transitioned to male through a variety of means. He obtained legal documents stating that he is a man, and he legally married his wife. He considers himself the father of his three children, but he, rather than his wife, gave birth to them, since he still has female reproductive organs. This has created a dilemma for the judge presiding over the couple's divorce, as Arizona law does not recognize same-sex marriages, and it is not clear if the state recognizes the validity of a marriage between a transgender man and a woman.

Beatie began the process of transitioning to male in 1997, when a psychologist determined that he had "male gender identification." He underwent testosterone therapy, and had his first of a series of surgeries in 2002. Arizona law allows a person, after a sex change operation, to obtain a new birth certificate and other official documents upon written request. After the first set of surgeries, he legally became a man.

He began dating his soon-to-be ex-wife, Nancy, in 1998, and they were married in 2003. Nancy was unable to have children, so Thomas bore all three of the couple's children. He made headlines as "The Pregnant Man," giving birth to children in 2007, 2009, and 2010. The couple separated in early 2012, and filed for divorce in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Continue reading "State Laws Present Difficulties for Transgender Man in Divorce Case" »

In affirming a trial court's child support order, an appellate judge quoted from Aesop's Fables, paraphrased as "be careful what you wish for." The case, In re Marriage of Barth, involved a divorce with petitions filed in two states, Ohio and California, a trip to the Ohio Supreme Court, and a final order in California that was far less favorable to the appellant husband. Ultimately, questions of credibility regarding the husband's financial representations persuaded the appellate court to affirm the large child support order.

The parties, Jeffrey and Andrea Barth, were married in 1989. They had two children, and they lived in Ohio until 2004, when the husband took an auditing job in California and moved to Orange County. The wife and children stayed behind in Ohio for about five months, during which time she quit her job and sold the family home. Several weeks after they joined the husband in California, he confessed to extramarital affairs. The wife and children returned to Ohio within days. She filed a divorce petition in Ohio on August 24, 2004, and he filed one in California the following day.

The Ohio divorce case went through litigation for nearly three years. The husband denied that the Ohio courts had subject matter jurisdiction, as the wife no longer had the required period of residency in the state at the time she filed. The Ohio court eventually entered an order setting current and retroactive child support. The husband appealed all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, which ruled in March 2007 that the wife's brief stay in California ended her Ohio residency. It vacated all prior orders and dismissed the case.

Continue reading "Interstate Divorce Case Lands in California, Results in Large Child Support Order" »

When a husband appealed of an award of attorney's fees in a divorce case, the California Court of Appeals for the Second District applied the "disentitlement doctrine" and dismissed the appeal outright. The husband's argument on appeal in Marriage of Hofer was that the trial court did not consider evidence of his own financial hardships when it ordered him to pay his wife's attorney's fees. The appellate court ruled that this lack of evidence was entirely due to the husband's own refusal to abide by the trial court's discovery orders.

John Hofer filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage to Lisa Hofer in January 2009, after about eighteen years of marriage. John derived much of the family's income from several business entities owned by his family, in which he owned some interest. He exclusively managed these assets of the marriage. During the marriage, Lisa was never employed outside the home, so all income of the marriage came from John.

The Superior Court of Ventura County granted their divorce in 2010 after several prolonged discovery battles. At a hearing on Lisa's motion for attorney's fees, the court found that Lisa had incurred nearly $165,000 in attorney's fees, and that John had paid more than $47,000 of that amount for her. John had paid his attorneys more than $300,000. California law requires courts to make reasonable orders ensuring both parties have access to legal representation. Because Lisa had no resources or income of her own, and John had the apparent ability to pay at least $347,000 in attorney's fees, the court ordered John to pay an additional $200,000 towards Lisa's attorney's fees and costs. John appealed this ruling.

Continue reading "Husband Ordered to Pay Wife's Total Attorney's Fees in California Divorce Case After Refusing to Produce Financial Information" »

The change of a former spouse's name is an often-overlooked issue in divorce. While anyone of any gender may request a name change, it applies particularly to women who take their husband's name upon marriage, but then want to go back to a previous name during or after a divorce. California law makes the process of returning to a previous or maiden name rather straightforward, but a name change requires further steps to ensure that the new or changed name is used consistently in all of a person's identifying information.

Traditionally, a person has been able to change their name simply by publicly using a different name. This is commonly known as the "usage method," although it has many limitations and has fallen out of favor as government requires more and more documentation to prove identification. Minors and convicted felons, for example, must obtain official documentation in order to change their name. Various government agencies require proof of identification as a means to prevent fraud, deter crime, or even pursuant to anti-terrorism statutes. For this reason, it is usually preferable to obtain a court order for a name change.

California law allows a spouse, usually the wife in a marriage, to petition the court during the divorce to change her name to her maiden name, or to another last name she has previously used. After a divorce is finalized, a woman may decide to go back to a previous name, and she can do so by petitioning a California court.

Continue reading "Name Changes After a California Divorce" »

A child support order between unmarried parents was nullified when the parents married each other, according to the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District. In Re Marriage of Wilson and Bodine involved a challenge by a father to the state's assertion that he owed child support under an order, entered before the parents were married, for a period of time after the parties subsequently separated and divorced. The appeals court held that the parties' marriage to each other nullified the prior order, and remanded the case to the trial court to calculate the amount of pre-marriage child support owed.

The mother and father had a son in August 2001. They were not married to one another at the time. After the father filed a voluntary declaration of paternity, the mother obtained a court order under the same cause number for the father to pay $1,600 per month in child support in July 2002. The court further granted the mother full custody and gave reasonable visitation rights to the father. A daughter was born to the two parents in June 2003.

The mother and father married each other on December 31, 2005, and lived together for about two years. They separated on January 30, 2008. The court bifurcated the divorce matter into a proceeding on the status of the marriage and a matter on child custody and support. It issued an order of dissolution of the marriage on January 30, 2009, reserving the issues pertaining to the children. The parents shared custody of the two children by agreement since their separation.

Continue reading "California Court Rules that Child Support Order Was Nullified by Parents' Subsequent Marriage to Each Other" »