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" »

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" »

The California Court of Appeals for the First District considered the characterization of benefits from the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) purchased by the husband during the marriage, but based on services performed prior to the marriage. The case, In re the Marriage of Green, was a matter of first impression for the court. The trial court found that the benefits were the husband's separate property, but the appellate court reversed that ruling. It ruled that the benefits were community property, and remanded the case for determination of allocation between the parties.

The husband, Timothy Green, served in the United States Air Force for four years between 1982 and 1986. He joined the fire department in Dublin, California in 1989, and he married Julie Green in 1992. His employer participated in CalPERS, which included a program that allowed an employee who served in the military to purchase up to four years of additional CalPERS service credit. He exercised this right in 2002, using around $11,000 of community funds to purchase the credits.

The wife petitioned for divorce in 2008. The parties disputed whether to characterize the military service credits as separate or community property. The husband argued that the credits were separate property, because his right to the credits arose before the marriage. The wife claimed that they were community property because they were obtained during the marriage using community funds, and she sought a separate account for fifty percent of the credits. The trial court ruled that the credits were separate property, but ordered the husband to reimburse the wife about $6,700 for half of the community funds used to make payments.

Continue reading "California Court Rules on Division of Public Employee Retirement Benefits in Divorce" »

Spouses going through a divorce have hidden assets from one another for as long as marriage and divorce have existed. Of course, not every divorcing spouse does this, but it is in the interest of both a divorcing spouse and a divorce attorney to know how to fight against the concealment of assets. Recent technological developments, such as the increasing use of computers and the internet for financial transactions, and widespread use of social media, offer a number of useful tools. Using the discovery process during divorce litigation to collect digital information, commonly known as electronic discovery or "e-discovery," can help a party to a divorce find the others spouse's misconduct or deception.

The Wall Street Journal cites statistics from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) showing that eighty-one percent of the lawyers in that organization reported in 2010 that they had seen a five-year increase in the number of cases that used evidence obtained from social media sites. A year later, ninety-two percent of members reported an increase over a three-year period of evidence obtained from smartphones appearing in divorce cases. Social media and smartphones can provide a wealth of evidence of a spouse's conduct (or misconduct), but they also often play a role in efforts to hide assets.

The intersection of internet and smartphone technology with the age-old practice of hiding assets presents both opportunities and risks for litigants and their attorneys. Hiding or failing to disclose assets in a divorce case could expose a party to contempt or other penalties in some cases, and it could play a role in a judge's final division of the marital estate. A lawyer who helps a client conceal assets could face discipline as well.

Continue reading "Electronic Discovery Helps Find Money Hidden by a Spouse During Divorce" »

German-born supermodel Heidi Klum filed for divorce from her husband of almost seven years, British-born singer Seal, earlier this month in Los Angeles. The two had separated, seemingly amicably, in January, Seal filed a response to Klum's divorce petition a few days after receiving the papers, suggesting that a more contentious case could be in the works. Several issues could be in dispute, including division of property and custody of their four children.

Klum has been famous for her modeling work in the United States since the 1990's. She currently hosts the television show Project Runway. Seal's music career began in the late 1980's and took off in the early 1990's. He has won numerous awards, including four Grammys. The two began dating in 2004 and were married in May 2005.

Klum was pregnant with her first child when she and Seal began dating. Seal legally adopted the child, Helene "Leni" Klum, in 2009, and her last name was changed to Seal's legal last name, Samuel. They have three biological children: son Henry, born in 2005; son Johan, born in 2006; and daughter Lou, born in 2009.

The couple announced their separation in January 2012. They told People that they decided to separate "after much soul-searching." They described the process as "amicable," saying that they still loved one another but had "grown apart." It was not clear at the time if or when the two would formally divorce.

Klum filed a divorce petition in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday, April 6, 2012. She cites "irreconcilable differences" as the grounds for divorce, and requests primary custody of the four children with visitation rights for Seal. The petition reportedly claimed that the couple has a post-nuptial agreement that determines property division and other issues.

Seal filed his own counterpetition for divorce on Tuesday, April 10, contradicting many of the claims in Klum's paperwork. Seal is requesting joint custody of the children. Despite Klum's claim of a post-nuptial agreement, Seal's court filing asks the court to assist in dividing "community and quasi-community assets." Klum's net worth is reportedly estimated at around $70 million, while Seal's is about $15 million. News sources now claim that "unnamed sources" say Seal has "rage issues." The divorce case clearly has the potential to be less-than-amicable.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Heidi Klum, Seal File for Divorce from One Another" »

A bill pending in the California Legislature intends to close a loophole that sometimes causes abused spouses to owe maintenance payments to their abusers. Under the bill, people convicted of certain criminal offenses committed against a spouse would be precluded from obtaining benefits, such as spousal maintenance or attorney's fees, from the abused spouse in a divorce case. The law would also amend the California Family Code to award one hundred percent of the community estate to a spouse who is the victim of a "violent sexual felony" committed by the other spouse. The Family Code currently awards one hundred percent of the community estate to one spouse when the other spouse is convicted of either the attempted murder or solicitation of the murder of that spouse.

The bill, filed in the state Assembly as AB 1522, passed the Judiciary Committee on a 7-1 vote on March 20. The bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and it has the support of the San Diego District Attorney, the California District Attorneys' Association, and the San Diego Board of Supervisors.

A San Diego case, previously reported in this San Diego Divorce Attorney Blog, inspired the bill. Crystal Harris, a San Diego financial analyst, was ordered by the judge in her divorce case to pay $3,000 per month to her ex-husband in spousal maintenance. This was despite the fact that her ex-husband, Shawn Harris, is serving a six-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting her. The judge reduced the spousal maintenance amount to $1,000 per month because of the domestic violence allegations. On appeal, the order of spousal maintenance was reversed, based in large part on Crystal Harris' argument that Shawn Harris has no expenses while in prison. Under current law, he could ask the court for spousal maintenance again when he is released. His release is scheduled for 2014 if he serves his entire sentence.

In a separate proceeding, a judge ordered Crystal Harris to pay her ex-husband $47,000 in attorney's fees. This was based on an agreement the Harrises made before Shawn Harris' criminal case, one that Crystal Harris does not believe should have been honored given subsequent events. The total amount later came down to $26,000 when the amount of restitution owed by Shawn Harris in his criminal case was deducted from the total.

Crystal Harris testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in support of the bill on March 19. She says she felt "re-victimized" by the spousal maintenance and attorney's fee orders. Other supporters of the bill say it is necessary to prevent a second injustice against domestic violence victims, and to give "peace of mind" to said victims.

Continue reading "California Bill Would Prevent Convicted Abusers from Receiving Spousal Maintenance" »

Yet another Hollywood love story is coming to an end with the news last month that comedian Russell Brand filed for divorce from singer Katy Perry. The couple had gotten married just over a year earlier, in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Rajasthan, India on October 23, 2010. Brand filed for divorce on December 30, 2011, citing irreconcilable differences.

The news of their split first brought on speculation about the division of property, since Brand reportedly refused to sign a prenuptial agreement. With no prenup, they could end up with a straight 50/50 split of the marital estate. Perry likely has the bigger fortune of the two, meaning that Brand may end up collecting a large share of her assets, something of a reversal of the stereotypical situation in high-profile divorces. She reportedly made about $45 million during their fourteen months of marriage from touring and endorsements. Brand, meanwhile, made somewhere between $6 million and $8 million during that time. This is no small sum, but it pales by comparison. They also own a Los Angeles mansion valued at around $6.5 million.

Their split has brought up an interesting question not often seen in California divorces--at least, not in California divorces outside of Hollywood. Reports from their wedding indicated that Brand gave Perry an unusual gift, a female Bengal tiger named Machli who lived at Ranthambhore National Park, where they held their wedding. In the realm of extravagant wedding gifts, Machli is perhaps among the most unusual. This led some to wonder what would become of Machli in the divorce proceeding.

According to The Today Show, the couple never actually brought the tiger back to California. Instead, it remained in its habitat at the national park in India, which is partly a tiger preserve. The money Brand "paid" for Machli would go towards her care and conservation plans at the national park. Divorces occasionally bring up complicated questions about ownership or custody of pets, and those disputes can be as contentious as custody battles over children. In this case, however, the gift of the tiger was more symbolic than anything else. Since the tiger is not present in California, and it is unlikely that Brand or Perry ever obtained anything like legal title, it probably will not be part of any property division.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Russell Brand's Unique Wedding Gift to Katy Perry Never Left India" »

Vanessa Bryant filed for divorce in Orange County Superior Court on Friday, December 16, 2011, citing "irreconcilable differences" in her marriage to Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant. The couple released a statement to the media later that day indicating that they will privately resolve all issues related to the divorce. Still, this is California, and when celebrities get divorced, discussion and speculation must run rampant. Their attempts to keep the details of their divorce private have not stopped various "legal experts" from offering up their own opinions on the couple's split and what sort of settlement they might reach.

Within days of their original report on the divorce filing, the Los Angeles Times weighed in with the conclusion of unnamed "legal experts" that Vanessa Bryant, as the spouse of a highly-paid professional basketball player, stood to receive a "windfall" in the division of the marital estate. The couple has been married for more than ten years, during which Vanessa Bryant has stood by her husband through scandals and a criminal charge of sexual assault in 2003. Kobe Bryant's overall net worth is estimated to be as much as $150 million, and the couple reportedly did not sign a pre-nuptial agreement when they married in 2001. Under California law, this could entitle Vanessa Bryant to half of the estate, or roughly $75 million. Times reporters Rick Rojas and Richard Winton described this sum as a "windfall" for Vanessa Bryant.

In a follow-up to this article, the Times' "reader Representative" Deirdre Edgar addressed a comment from a reader challenging the use of the word "windfall," suggesting it had sexist undertones with its implication that Vanessa Bryant was either not legally entitled to half the estate or was somehow undeserving. Edgar acknowledged that "windfall" was the wrong word to use in the context of this story, but disputed that it implies that the recipient of a windfall is undeserving. A windfall is commonly understood to be a surprise or a stroke of luck, whereas a divorce settlement is typically the result of, first, a lengthy marriage and, second, lengthy negotiations.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Bryant Divorce Produces Dialogue on Sexist Language in Legal Terminology" »

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist Lawyer, continuing education is a part of the work of my office. Since my office only works in the field of Family Law, the research of new cases and statutes is greatly limited whereas a general practice attorney has a duty of continuing education in a variety of fields of law. One issue in family law that seems to never go away is the Husband requesting the engagement ring returned to him, from the Wife, pursuant to the divorce proceeding. The Husband may claim that the ring is very valuable, or that it is community property, or that the Wife secured it by fraud, etc.

ABC News reports of a man, Mr. Mekalian (James), who sued his former fiancee, Ms. Grazioli (Nichole) for the return of the engagement ring and a car or monetary damages to replace the value of both items. I've researched James' pleadings and you may see the Complaint here. His case is based on alleged fraud, and other. He specifically cites Civil Code Section 1590 which allows the donor (giver of the engagement ring in contemplation of marriage) to require the done to return the ring or the value of the ring if the marriage does not occur.

James accuses Nichole of acting in a fraudulent manner. Nichole is not commenting on the law suit. Presumably she may state that she had many marriage opportunities and that when she received the ring she terminated all other relationships and that she acted in good faith during this engagement. 1590 does require the judge or jury to consider all circumstances of the case and that the judge or jury find that which is just under the circumstances of the particular case. James apparently thinks that Nichole is a "gold digger" however the judge or jury may not agree. Possible James should seek a woman for marriage who has a job, and an income, and doesn't need James' money as in the video below of a five year old girl who charming millions on the Internet.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: When Is A Gift Not A Gift?" »

A commonly asked question in California is "how much does a California divorce cost"? Many times in answering this question one must consider "who has the burden of proof"? Wikipedia defines legal burden of proof through different examples and Latin phrases and also states that the person who does not have the burden of proof is assumed, by law, to have the winning side of the case. In other words, the person who does not have the burden of proof does not have to say or do anything in court unless the other party meets his or her burden of proof. These rules applies to property division and other family law issues.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist lawyer, my research came across a case that addresses the question of burden of proof; and that case is Marriage of Margulis. You may read the case decision here. Inspired by the facts of the Margulis case, consider this example in order to see the role of burden of proof in a San Diego family court trial: Husband and Wife were married for 10 years. At the date of separation Husband disclosed that he had stock and financial accounts, under his name, with a value of $900,000. For many reasons, the case does not go to trial for two more years. At trial Husband claim that the $900,000 is now down to $150,000.

He says that $750,000 is gone by virtue of the downturn in the market, and money he gave to Wife for support as well as paying off marital debts; but Husband fails to bring documents to court to prove all of this. Wife's attorney at trial simply shows the evidence of the $900,000 in stock and financial accounts as they existed at the date of separation and states that Wife requests that Husband pay her $450,000. The attorney cites the presumption that funds acquired during the marriage are presumed to be community property. The attorney shows that Husband was the spouse managing these accounts and argues that the Husband has failed to show any evidence accounting for the loss of these funds. (Divorce evidence takes many forms. See video below.)

Continue reading "San Diego Divorce Evidence: Burden of Proof" »

Despite the economy, which has particularly hurt California, there are many married couples who enjoy a high income and/or are wealthy with respect to the value of their marital estate. Frequently, when these couples divorce they keep their emotions in check and work intelligently to preserve their income and assets for their mutual enjoyment after divorce. On July 8, 2011, the Huffington Post reported that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver are working productively in reaching a settlement in their case. This, if true, is significant as Maria has significant reason to become emotional and to strike back in anger based on the reports of her Husband's extra marital activities which led to their separation and divorce.

With a La Jolla divorce office, my office frequently works with couples who have a high income (more than one million dollars per year) or a high asset case (marital estate worth tens of millions). We appreciate the Schwarzenegger-Shriver story as it confirms our practices in these cases; for example, our recommendation to keep the case private to work cooperatively in accounting for income and assets; and to work in the private judging system so that no one sees your case in a public courthouse. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney I must keep informed as to what forensic experts are out there and what skills they have to bring to assist in the resolution of a high income/asset case.

The issues in these cases involve all of the same issues involved in any family law case; however especially issues involving property division, community property laws and laws involving reimbursement of separate property contributions to community property. Spousal support rights in high income cases. The use of forensic witnesses to assist determining the income available for support. Even custody is affected in a high income case due to a nuance in the law in support of a child living in similar circumstances in the homes of both parents.

Continue reading "California High Income and Asset Divorce" »

UPI.com and many other news agencies report that the former wife of Tiger Woods, Elin Nordegren, has purchased a mansion in Palm Beach for $12 million. Reportedly, the home is 17,000 square feet and built in 1932. You can see a photo of the mansion here. It is a part of the divorce settlement that Ms. Nordegren received which has been estimated to be in the range of $100 million to $200 million. The settlement is private and confidential however the estimates are fairly accurate as Mr. Wood's marital estate was fairly well known. This blog posted many articles as to the Woods' divorce; correctly assessing how much Ms. Nordegren would receive by way of child support, spousal support and/or property division.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney my office in La Jolla (UTC area) handles many child custody cases and, related to the Woods' divorce, child custody move away cases. A move away, or child custody relocation case, is defined and connected to a significant amount of California law including the reported decisions of two California Supreme Court cases. The law defines whether a parent has the right to relocate to another geographic area with a child or children or the marriage. Further, the law defines whether the other parent has the rights to keep the child or children from relocating with the moving parent. This blog posted an article as to the Woods' divorce predicting that Ms. Nordegren would be successful in asserting her right to relocate with the children back to her home country Sweden.

Evidently, Mr. Woods and his attorney came to the same conclusion that I did as to the move away issue. The following is my educated guess as to how Mr. Woods resolved the case: He assertively moved forward with a generous monetary settlement. His wealth was identifiable so he openly offered a quick and substantial settlement to his wife with (likely) a provision as to his visitation. Reportedly, this settlement included the Palm Beach mansion which is geographically located near to Mr. Woods' residence.

Continue reading "Child Custody, Support, Mansions" »

Daryl Huff, a KITV 4 News Reporter recently published an article as to what has been called Hawaii's most famous divorce case. The divorce case involved actor Brenda Dickson and attorney Jan Weinberg. Dickson is a well known television star and Weinberg is an experienced personal injury lawyer. For additional background on Brenda Dickson I went to Wikipedia.

Reportedly, this historically long and dramatic divorce case has gone on for years with allegations of one spouse taking marital property and hiding the assets in another state or country. Further the case involved contempt of court orders issued by the judge. These types of orders are made in rare cases when a party violates a court order in such a way that the judge fines and/or jails the party who violated the court order. Reportedly, Dickson was jailed for more than two weeks; released, then, later, jailed again for more than three months. (Reportedly, she later won an appeal that cleared her from the contempt counts which had placed her in jail.)

Later in the case, the divorce went to trial and reportedly Mr. Weinberg was not present. Ms. Dickson had a very difficult time proving anything with Mr. Weinberg not present. If he were present, he could have been called to the stand for examination and cross examination. It is unknown what divorce issues Ms. Dickson needed to address through Mr. Weinberg's testimony. Possibly his income and the identity and location of assests. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney, it has been my experience that the absence of a party from a trial is usually not a stumbling block as evidence is offered to the court as to the identity, value of assets as well as the income of the missing party. The missing party then hurts his/her own case by not being present to offer testimony or help his/her attorney with the points raised in court.

Continue reading "A Case of Divorce, Trial and Jail" »

A "fiduciary duty" is a duty to act in the best interest of a person to whom a duty is owed under the law. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist my office has followed the developments of California Family Law regarding the definition and expanding obligations of fiduciary duties owed by a spouse to the other spouse. With a family law office located in La Jolla California, I am in a community where fiduciary duties are often associated with corporations and estate planning. However, fiduciary duty is a lawful concept and significant obligation under California Family Law.

For example, is a fiduciary duty may be violated when, during the marriage, the Husband has the Wife sign over (quitclaim) joint tenancy deeds to the Husband so that the properties are owned solely under the Husband's name? (Changing community property to Husband's separate property.) Has a Wife violated a fiduciary duty when, during the marriage, the Wife has the Husband transfer real estate under his name (owned prior to the marriage) to Husband and Wife as "joint tenants"? Does it matter that the marriage is a short term marriage as opposed to a long term marriage? Does a parent violate a fiduciary duty when the parent seeks to turn a child against the other parent, immediately prior to separation, thus seeking to affect the child custody orders?

Surprises can be nice during a marriage. For example, consider a spouse who secretly buys a diamond ring to give to the marital partner on Valentine's Day. Such a gift may involve a unilateral act, by a spouse, without the knowledge or consent of the other spouse. Does this violate a fiduciary duty? What if the spouse gives the ring to a woman friend, not his Wife? Without the Wife's knowledge or consent, a gift of significant expense to a woman friend hardly seems to be an action in the best interest of the Wife. And when fiduciary duties are violated, what action will the San Diego Superior Court take? Consider the case of Fossum (IRMO Fossum) now certified for publication by the California Appellate Court.

Continue reading "California Divorce Update Regarding Spousal Duties" »

Reporter Jill Serjeant reports in this published article that Kelsey Grammer's request to be single by the end of this month is opposed. This article raises the question as to how can you get a divorce when you are only in the middle of your divorce proceeding.

The legal procedure is called Bifurcation. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist (Board of Legal Specialization, State Bar of California), I have filed bifurcation motions and opposed bifurcation motions. I think that Camille Grammer has a chance to block Kelsey's attempt to be single by the end of January. But let's go back to the basics:

"Bifurcation" means to divide. In California Family Law it is a court procedure in a family law case whereby the judge separates out one issue from all of the rest and the court generally approves a bifurcation request for two typical reasons. First, that a party to the divorce is getting remarried. And, second, that there is one issue in the case that, if separated from the remainder of the case, and resolved, would assist in the resolution of the remainder of the issues. All bifurcation requests require that the divorce case has satisfied the six month waiting period that is mandated by California law.

In Mr. Grammer's case, Mr. Grammer filed a motion for bifurcation requesting that the court separate out the issue of terminating the marriage so that he will be single and free to marry his woman friend, Kayte Walsh. The Grammers were married for thirteen years however the divorce was filed and served more than six months ago and Kelsey argues that he is entitled under California law to the bifurcation of the marital status. Nearly 100 times out of 100 such requests would be granted in a California divorce court. However Camille Grammer has filed a response in opposition to this motion. I've read the response (you can see it here), and it appears to me that she has done an excellent job in raising significant reasons why the bifurcation should not be granted at this time. Why do I say this?

Continue reading "California Divorce and Bifurcation" »