San Diego Divorce Attorney Blog

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" »

Divorces in the State of California consist of many different types: Short Term Marriages (marriages of less than ten years); Long Term Marriages (marriages of ten years or more); high income marriages; marriages with a significant community property estate; as well as marriages with or without children; and this is only a short list to describe how individual marital circumstances can be.

The Huffington Post recently published an article written by journalist and tax attorney Julian Block describing the use of a powerful tool to look for income and assets--the tax return. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist I work with tax returns and, in more involved cases, forensic witnesses, expert witnesses, CPAs and private investigators. It has been my experience that there are spouses who don't want any such help by virtue of a firm belief that both spouses have been completely honest about the disclosure of all marital income and property. However, the reasons that have led a spouse to a divorce often involve beliefs of betrayal and dishonesty. The investigation for hidden assets and income may or may not be successful. Dishonest people are either good or bad at dishonesty.

"Discovery" in a legal proceeding is a significantly large and complex legal topic describing how a spouse may demand and access information, data and documents pertaining to the case. Simply put, this process involves Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Inspection Demands, Depositions and Subpoenas. Mr. Block's article informs that the simple tax return may be the best starting point for the discovery effort. Schedule B contains information as to mutual funds, dividends, interests and financial institutions. Schedule D contains information as to the sale of certain types of assets and this information may lead to additional information as to income or hidden assets.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Discovery of Income and Assets" »

The purpose of a prenuptial (premarital, ante nuptial) agreement is to change the nature of the divorce laws of the state of California. California is a community property state. Generally this means that one-half of all income and property earned or acquired in a marriage belongs equally to each spouse. So, when the spouses divorce, each gets one-half of the property.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney with a family law office in La Jolla, I am frequently asked to prepare a premarital agreement. Typically, a person is to marry in the next two to four months and they do not want the marriage to operate under the community property system. They may also want to include provisions as to spousal support. This takes us back to the recent news article regarding actor Sean Penn.

According to the article, (Mail Online) Mr. Penn told a reporter, "'I had just got taken for one half of everything I had in the divorce..." Mr. Penn was referring to his 2010 divorce from actor Robin Wright. Another article states that the community property estate was worth $123 million and that Sean "got taken" for $61 million. Possibly if your ex-wife just left the marriage with $61 million of money that you had earned during the marriage, you too would be bitter. However, this was so foreseeable; so predictable; so preventable.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Sean Penn "Lost Half"" »

December 20, 2010: Year 2010 is almost over. What will be improved about the San Diego family law system in 2011? Here is the news at this time. The court budget will be limited; likely the court calendar will be overloaded and this means that hearing times in court may be delayed and limited. Nevertheless, approximately 50% of the parties to a family law case will leave the courtroom encouraged and approximately 50% leave discouraged.

San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorneys are analyzing The Elkins Family Law Task Force Final Report and this report will bring about many changes as to how cases are heard in court. Essentially, requests that present a legitimate reason for oral testimony will likely be granted. This will add to the case time estimates and the level of expertise required to handle a contested case in court. La Jolla divorce attorneys are pouring over the new laws set to take effect on January 1, 2011. So exactly how will changes in the family court system affect you?

After many years of working as an AV rated attorney, I have come to the conclusion that it is the job of my office, the lawyers in the office and the staff to know and understand the changes in the law so that we may cause these changes to benefit our clients. We are not advocates of any particular legal philosophy; we don't lobby for changes in the law; it is simply our job to understand how to best operate under a system with changing policies and laws that we cannot control. So what can you control that will benefit you and/or your legal matter in 2011?

Continue reading "San Diego Divorce: Family Law Changes for 2011" »

My Family Law office is located in La Jolla California which is a beautiful community continuously connected to Wall Street by high speed Internet connections. Just up the road from my office an epic divorce court battle is taking shape and we will closely follow this case.

This blog posted an article recently regarding Diandra Douglas' attempt to obtain a payment from the profits to Michael Douglas recent release (and success) of the movie Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. When Diandra lost her motion which she filed in New York City, news releases claimed that she had lost in her attempt to obtain her claimed share of the payments to Michael. However, as posted by this blog, she didn't lose a motion. She simply failed to file the motion in the correct court house. The article posted by this blog explained the legal concept of "jurisdiction" which explains which court has the authority and power to issue orders regarding legal claims between litigating parties.

By way of background, Diandra and Michael were married, then divorced in a California family law court. They separated and signed a settlement agreement in the 1990s. Diandra received 50% of the community property in the divorce settlement. When Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was released in 2010, Diandra claimed that this movie was so related to the 1987 original that she was entitled to 50% of the funds received by Michael from the 2010 movie. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney I work with concepts of community property, separate property, and jurisdiction on a daily basis. The news reports were wrong. Diandra didn't lose her motion; her motion was dismissed in New York as the court in which she filed the motion, didn't have jurisdiction to resolve this issue.

Just this week, the news reports stated that Diandra is looking for lawyers to re-file this motion in a California court. This blog predicts that she will file. Her decision to file in New York was unsuccessful; however it showed her determination regarding this issue. While research does not disclose the amount of the income to Michael from Money Never Sleeps, all sources agree that it is significant amount.

Continue reading "California Divorce--Where Do You File The Motion?" »

In a Los Angeles Times article, written by journalist Bill Shaikin on 12/7/2010, we learn that a California divorce court invalidated a post marital agreement whereby Frank McCourt claimed that his wife, Jamie McCourt, agreed that the Los Angeles Dodger baseball team was Frank's separate property. As a result of this decision, the Dodgers are the community property of both Frank and Jamie and must be equally divided as a result of the pending McCourt divorce. This is a significant blow to Frank and likely means that the team must be sold.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney I have closely followed this case. This blog posted articles on this case in August and September 2010. We predicted the outcome that was reached by the court just in the last several days. After the first day of trial on the post marital contract issue, this blog directed a comment at Frank telling him that he had swung at the ball and missed and that "I just don't know if that was strike one, two or three." We stated that the trial was not going well for Frank after one day in court.

Later, the attorney who drafted the post marital contract appeared in this trial to testify as a witness. This blog posted an article regarding his testimony. The article stated that my professional opinion regarding the contract issue was now even stronger in favor of Jamie McCourt's position--that the contract was invalid therefore the team was the community property of the McCourt's. Typically, a post marital agreement seeks to change the characterization of property from community property to separate property (or visa versa).

Continue reading "California Divorce Determines Property Ownership" »

On November 17, 2010, Eva Jacqueline Longoria Parker filed a petition for divorce (see it here) against William Anthony Parker II in a California Superior Court. According to the petition, there are no children. Eva Longoria does not specify any community property or separate property. She does request spousal support however she also references a Marital Agreement signed in June 2007 and amended on June 10, 2009. Eva Longoria filed her petition for divorce in California; reportedly, Tony Parker subsequently filed a petition for divorce in Texas thereby raising the Jurisdiction issue.

"Jurisdiction" is a legal concept that resolves the question of which court has the exclusive authority and power to proceed in a legal case when the same parties have filed the same lawsuit in two or more courts. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney, my office is trained to implement the concepts of Jurisdiction and Venue into our cases. There just is not enough factual information disclosed in the reports as to this case whether the case will proceed in California or Texas. My educated guess is that California will prevail as to the jurisdiction issue and the case will proceed to a conclusion in California. From the news reports it appears that Parker's filing in Texas was a reactionary move to force Longoria into settlement negotiations. Texas is known to complete divorce cases faster than California and to have a more conservative perspective on issues such as Marital Agreements that limit support as well as the spousal support issue.

If settlement negotiations or divorce mediation does not result in a settlement of the divorce cases, look for Longoria to aggressively seek her share of Tony's multi-million dollar basketball money. Look for Tony Parker to move forward with hearings in Texas to rule that Texas holds the exclusive jurisdiction for this case. Look for the Marital Agreement to be entered into one of the courts as evidence either in support or against the spousal support claim.

Continue reading "California Divorce Report: Jurisdiction Part II" »