San Diego Divorce Attorney Blog

The California Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled earlier this month that a parent or spouse's obligation under the Family Code to disclose changes in financial status to the other party does not extend past the date a court enters a final judgment. The court reversed the trial court's order imposing sanctions against an obligor ex-husband and father, which were based in part on a failure to disclose certain financial changes after a divorce decree was granted.

This case could have a significant impact on how California parents handle child support issues after entry of a decree, and it will be important for parents who have child support orders, both as obligor and obligee. An obligee, who receives payments from the other parent, has an interest in knowing if that parent is not paying the full amount of which they are capable.

The parties in this case have three children. All of the children were minors when the mother filed for divorce from the father in Wyoming in 2003. A Wyoming court granted the divorce in 2003. The wife and children relocated to San Diego, and a California court confirmed the decree in 2005. At the time of the divorce, the father declared an annual income of $800,000 and agreed to pay $8,500 per month in child support. The child support amount would reduce to $4,000 per month when only one child remained a minor. The father also agreed to pay monthly spousal maintenance of $12,000 for a ten-year period.

The mother brought an action in San Diego in 2007 to modify and enforce support. She requested an increase in the child support amount, enforcement of arrears on spousal maintenance, and court costs. Her financial declaration to the court indicated that she had a net worth at the time of $14 million and monthly expenses of over $40,000. The father's financial declaration showed significant changes from the time of the divorce. He had sold his business, his monthly income was less than $11,000, and he claimed to have $60,000 per month in expenses. He had earned $3 million from his business in 2006, which he had not disclosed to the mother. He had also brought in over $100 million in 2007 from the sale of the business, but later ventures had not been successful.

The mother asked for sanctions against the father for failing to disclose these sources of income. The trial court agreed, finding that he had "unnecessarily prolonged litigation" and breached his fiduciary duty. It increased his child support to $18,000 per month and ordered him to pay attorney fees and sanctions. The father appealed some of the trial court's holdings.

Continue reading "San Diego Court Places Limits on Parents' Duty to Disclose Financial Changes" »

A San Diego area woman was ordered by a family court judge to pay $1,000 per month in spousal support to her ex-husband, who is currently serving a six-year prison sentence for abusing her. While this may seem contradictory, both the criminal conviction and the award of spousal support follow the letter of two separate areas of the law. Whether they follow the spirit of the law may be another question entirely. The woman appealed the order, arguing in part that her ex-husband has no expenses while incarcerated. The judge agreed and reversed the order, but the ex-husband will be within his legal rights to ask for spousal support again upon his release.

The divorce of Crystal Harris and Shawn Harris, filed in 2007, became final in 2010 after twelve years of marriage. That same year, Shawn Harris went on trial for an alleged incident of sexual assault in 2008, part of a years-long pattern of abuse. Crystal Harris had used a hidden recorder to obtain evidence of abuse. A jury convicted Shawn Harris of forced oral copulation, but additional charges of spousal rape by force and sodomy resulted in a hung jury. He received a sentence of six years' imprisonment and will be eligible for release in 2014.

Crystal Harris works as a financial analyst, earning around $110,000 per year. Shawn Harris worked as a car salesman, but Crystal Harris had supported him since the birth of their first child in 2002. Under those circumstances, California law permits a judge to award spousal support to the spouse earning less money. The judge awarded him $1,000 per month in spousal support and ordered Crystal Harris to pay $47,000 towards his legal fees.

The statute allows an award of up to $3,000 per month in the Harris' circumstances, but it also gives a judge discretion to reduce or eliminate the amount of the award when the receiving spouse has been convicted of domestic violence. The only time a judge is prohibited from awarding spousal support at all is when the spouse has been convicted of the attempted murder of the other spouse. The judge lowered the support amount to $1,000 because of the conviction, which Crystal Harris called the "rape discount."

Continue reading "California Woman Ordered to Pay Spousal Support to Abusive Ex" »

A recent court ruling reviewing the divorce settlement of billionaire investor Charles Brandes and his ex-wife Linda includes a hefty monthly spousal support payment. The ruling, issued by San Diego Superior Court Judge Jeffrey S. Bostwick, comes after a dispute arose over the division of property in the couple's 2005 divorce settlement. The original settlement agreement gave Mrs. Brandes five residences, including a penthouse and two condominiums in New York City and a house on the beach in Del Mar. She also received, in addition to other property, $18.7 million dollars from their savings and investments. The investments she received in the divorce reportedly generated around $154,881 per month, the sufficiency of which was one of the issues addressed by the court this year.

Charles Brandes is a San Diego money manager and owner of Brandes Investment Partners. He has an estimated net worth of $1.3 billion. Forbes Magazine listed him 331st on its list of the 400 richest Americans for 2011. In 2010 it listed him at #655 among the world's billionaires. Mr. Brandes' monthly income when the he and Mrs. Brandes first met was allegedly around $12,500, and is now reported to be upwards of $16 million. He and Mrs. Brandes married in 1986 and separated in 2004.

The court reviewed the question of whether the original division of property was fair under California law and whether the amount of spousal support was sufficient to meet her needs. Mrs. Brandes requested spousal support of $735,000 per month, citing expenses such as a wardrobe budget of $70,000 a year and substantial expenditure on art collecting. She also requested modification of the property division based on a valuation of her share of the marital estate at $453 million to $597 million. The court awarded her an additional $10,052,042 "to equalize the division of community property," as well as spousal support of $485,000 per month, far less than her request but hardly a small amount.

As large as the award to Mrs. Brandes may seem, it might be considerably less than what California law could allow. California follows community property rules, meaning that all property acquired during the marriage, with a few exceptions, belongs to the marital estate. Each spouse is entitled to half of the community estate in a divorce, with adjustments made based on a number of factors. For example, a court may award more than 50% to one spouse of it finds the other spouse to be at fault for the marriage's breakup. Out of an alleged total net worth of over $1 billion, Mrs. Brandes seems to have gotten a rather small percentage.

Continue reading "Big Spousal Support Bill for the Richest Man in San Diego County" »

In a recent Los Angeles Times article journalist and sports writer Bill Shaikin discloses that Jamie McCourt might petition the divorce court to ask for the sale of the LA Dodgers baseball team. If you have not been following this case, the McCourts, Jamie and Frank, are involved in what might be the most expensive divorce in California history. They own the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team as well as numerous properties in California. This blog has posted several articles regarding this case. We correctly predicted that Jamie would be successful in her motion for spousal support and we predicted that Jamie would be successful in her motion to set aside the pre marital agreement.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney it is my field to follow legal trends in divorce law and family law in general. In recent months reports have described this case as financially destructive. The Australian just reported that this case could cost $35 million in legal fees. My office recently represented a spouse in a high income case. This couple had successfully sold businesses for millions and in one case for over a hundred million dollars. The case quickly was analyzed and successfully resolved. One of the spouses stated that one should never become emotional about business or financial issues.

So, where did this all go wrong for the McCourts? Both Frank and Jamie McCourt have expert, top rated, legal teams. I especially like the way that they have associated attorneys into the case to pull legal talent into their side of the case. Association of counsel is a practice that I use in some of my cases. However a quick scan of news articles* on this case show that the case is continuing to generate pre trial motions rather than to wrap this case up with a trial, or better, end this case with a successful mediation or negotiation. (*LA Times reports that Frank may request the court to lower Jamie's spousal support order; and, myfoxLA.com reports that the McCourts are heading for a mini trial as to the characterization of marital property.)

Continue reading "What Is The cost Of A California Divorce?" »

Journalist Megan Johnson of the Boston Herald reports that Arnold Schwarzenegger filed an amended divorce petition on or about July 25, 2011 under which places the issue of his Wife's spousal support before the California divorce court. Previously, his petition stated that Maria Shriver should be denied any right to spousal support. There can be no question that this was a significant change as every news reporting agency picked up this story. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney I want to raise the question of why Arnold Schwarzenegger changed his pleadings.

With a La Jolla divorce office, we handle spousal support issues in ordinary cases as well as high income cases. As to why Arnold Schwarzenegger would change his petition lets first consider whether he initially committed a mistake in the typing of his divorce petition. Divorce litigants, especially self represented litigants, commonly make mistakes in their divorce pleadings. My office took over a case last week from a self represented litigant (formerly known as a "pro per" litigant) and found a significant mistake on the petition that would have resulted in a significant waiver of legal rights. However, it is unlikely that Arnold Schwarzenegger's high priced and highly specialized divorce attorney made a mistake.

So next we turn to the reason of strategy (or, political correctness) as the explanation. Do you remember just a few weeks ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger's Wife, Maria Shriver, was found walking on the Santa Monica beach by the paparazzi? And similarly, when Sandra Bullock was found by the paparazzi walking alone in the mountains? Walking alone in an area of great natural beauty signifies humility and one reflecting on his/her life and the eternal lessons to be learned in going forward. It shows great inner strength and morality; even a spiritual side to the person. The opposite of this would be a celebrity who surrounds oneself in gaudy selfish displays such as riding in a chauffeured limousine to a ridiculously expensive bar or night club while in the midst of a divorce. These cases do get publicity as seen by the video below.

Continue reading "California Divorce News: Schwarzenegger Spousal Support Strategy" »

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" »

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"" »

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" »

After reportedly stating that he would be with Jennifer Jason Leigh for the rest of his life, Noah Baumbach received a Petition for divorce from Leigh. Leigh and Baumbach met in 2001 and started their relationship. They married in 2005. Then in March, 2010, fully in line with Baumbach's prediction, this couple gave birth to a son, Rohmer Emmanuel. Then just several months after the birth of their son, Leigh files for divorce in a California Superior Court based upon the grounds of Irreconcilable Differences.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney this case appears unusual. A five year marriage resulting in the birth of a child five months ago; and overall, this couple has been together for nine years. They have intersecting careers, so it appeared that they had a strong commitment to their marital union, which was underscored by the commitment to have a child born five months ago. Then, in November 2010 filing for a divorce, based on the grounds of differences which could not be reconciled.

China Daily reports of a increase in the divorce rate in China calling the trend "impulsive divorce". This news source reported that Tina Wang married her boyfriend in 2008 and divorced him in 2009 stating that she wanted to meet someone who would be a better match for her. A program in the United States, known as Controlled Separation, helps to prevent impulsive decisions to divorce.

Continue reading "Surprising California Divorce News: Leigh/Baumbach" »

Is it true that La Jolla divorces are more civilized? As a Certified Family Law Specialist attorney with a law office is La Jolla I have found that some couples work very hard to control the emotions that may lead to a very time consuming divorce.

Isn't divorce in California no-fault based? What difference does it make that Charlie Sheen did the numerous things that are now appearing on Internet news stories? Probably not much in his California divorce case; however, he allegedly committed the biggest mistake--he didn't discuss the highly public divorce with his wife prior to filing.

We've all heard of the notification that the "marriage is off" by voice mail or by text message. What's now? Notice by Facebook? Twitter? My Space? According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Charlie Sheen's wife, Brooke Mueller, alleges that she was not consulted (notified) by Charlie that he was filing for a divorce, which the actor Sheen did in the last few days. Never mind that Charlie reportedly pleaded guilty to a criminal assault last summer. Or that just recently he reportedly trashed a New York City hotel room in an event that did not include his family. Afterwards, Charlie files for the divorce against Ms. Mueller. This is the ultimate proof that California is a no-fault divorce law state.

Continue reading "California Divorce News: Charlie Sheen's Wife is Angry" »

This blog reported previously on the ongoing criminal trial in Vista California. Actor Shelley Malil is the defendant charged with attempted murder and other felony charges for the knife stabbing of Kendra Beebe. The prior blog dealt with the fact that the defense attorney caused victim Beebe to admit that she had previously lied in court in her family law case. This was done in an attempt to cause the jury to have less regard for the victim and to allow the defense to argue, in closing, that the victim's testimony in the criminal trial may not have been truthful. As a La Jolla divorce attorney, this blog posts articles on actors and family law issues; however this case is different.

However, last Thursday, actor Shelley Malil, the defendant, took the stand and testified according to a Fox News article published on 9/10/10. Defendant Malil has pleaded Not Guilty to the attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and other charges. He testified that he never intended to hurt Beebe. He was shown pictures of the knife wounds that Beebe suffered and testified that he had "no idea" that the knife he was holding caused those injuries. Really? He testified that he came to Beebe's home the night of the attack and found her drinking wine with another male. Why did he come to the home with a knife? Why did he not leave when he saw Beebe with someone else? Did he just drop in? Uninvited? With a knife? What was his intent? (The prosecutor claims Kalil used two knives.) Beebe was stabbed over 20 times, suffered a punctured lung but survived the attack.

Family law domestic violence cases often result in criminal prosecutions. Divorce court Domestic Violence Restraining Orders are treated seriously and can result in the loss of child custody rights, an order for attorney's fees, a higher spousal support order and other consequences. Criminal defendants have a right to remain silent. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant Kalil may have decided that the prosecution is proving its case and that he has no choice but to testify.

Continue reading "San Diego Domestic Violence Felony Trial--Who's Lying Now?" »

This blog has posted several articles on the Jamie and Frank McCourt divorce and specifically the legal issue as to the validity of a post marital agreement signed by Mr. and Mrs. McCourt by which Frank McCourt claims sole ownership to the LA Dodgers baseball team. The trial is ongoing at this time as to this issue in a California divorce court. A LA Times article describes the second day in trial. To the surprise of many, Jamie McCourt had a great second day in this trial.
Meaning of post nuptial agreement: A "premarital" or "prenuptial" or "ante nuptial" agreement all mean the same thing--an agreement before the marriage. A "post marital" or "post nuptial" agreement is an agreement finalized after the marriage. These agreements are permitted under California law; however California limits what they can do. They can change the ownership of property; change property characterization; for example, community property to separate property or separate property to community property. They can provide for the amount and duration of spousal support. They cannot dictate child support or child custody. San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorneys frequently create and review premarital and post marital agreements.

The post marital agreement in the McCourt case transferred all ownership of the LA Dodgers to Frank and transferred the real estate to Jamie. Or did it? Frank has entered into evidence a signed post marital agreement that transfers the team to him. However, Jamie has now entered a signed agreement into evidence showing that Frank transferred all of the homes to Jamie and it does not mention the Dodgers. So, we have two signed agreements. Further, bank and loan documents indicate that the parties were acting co-owners to the team. Further, loan documents, signed by the parties showed that a loan was made to both of them as co-owners. Under California law, a loan creates funding and the money is either community property or separate property in character depending on how the loan was arranged.

Continue reading "California Post Marital Agreement--Or Not?" »

As a La Jolla divorce attorney, I have seen many Petitions for divorce (dissolution of marriage) in the San Diego Superior Court. Many simply glance at the petition document assuming that the document only contains superficial information. I don't agree. This blog will examine the petition for divorce by Patricia Arquette wherein Patricia Arquette is the Petitioner and Thomas Jane is the Respondent.

Brief background: Patricia Arquette was born in 1968 and is 42 years old. She was raised in an actor centric family; commenced her acting career in 1986 and has appeared in many Hollywood movies. She was married to Nicolas Cage for 6 years and has been married to Thomas Jane since 2006.

On August 13, 2010 Patricia Arquette filed for divorce in the Central District Los Angeles Court. She lists one child, age 7. (This blog does not provide names of children.) The child was born three years prior to the marriage. Therefore there is a potential "Marvin" case which the attorneys will consider. (Michelle Marvin sued actor Lee Marvin to establish her common law marital rights as she and Lee were never married.)

She lists some separate property (for example, "jewelry") but states that there are other items which are "not presently known". As to community property Patricia Arquette states that there are such items however they are also "unknown". Some attorneys seek to extensively list all separate property and all community property however I don't see the value of doing this in the Petition. Possibly the "unknown" statement could be attacked as disingenuous. I like to simply state that the items will be listed in the mandatory Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure. The Declaration of Disclosure is mandatory in divorce cases and lists property, debt, income and expenses.

Continue reading "Arquette California Divorce Petition Analysis" »

In the last blog I described the California divorce issues in the McCourt divorce of business valuation (how much are the LA Dodgers worth?), Post Marital agreements, and spousal support. For a short recap--Jamie and Frank McCourt own the Dodgers (only Frank owns according to him), they've been married for 30 years and are now going through a divorce (most expensive in California divorce history, according to some). Much of the information gained for this blog was from an article in Business Week written by Richard Siklos.

San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorneys use forensic witnesses to help determine the value and cash flow of a business. The bigger the business, the more income generated by a business, the more variables that will exist. However the principals are the same whether the business is a ML baseball team or a mom and pop grocery store. There are just going to be more zeros in the Dodger evaluation. Reportedly, the McCourts have withdrawn $100 million from the Dodgers since 2004. Since 2004 the McCourts bought homes for $20 million, $27 million, $6.5 million and $19 million. Land for 4.6 million. And the list of personal expenses goes on and on. (For example, a hair stylist in Beverly Hills was reportedly paid $150,000 a year to be available to come to the McCourt home per their hair styling needs.)

Frank will argue that the extravagant spending indicates that the parties were living over their means. This is California divorce talk for "I can't continue to pay Jamie over $600,000 a month in spousal support. She should realistically receive $200,000 per month." Jamie will argue that the spending illustrates their extreme wealth standard of living. This is California divorce talk for "Frank should be paying me $1 million a month in spousal support."

Continue reading ""Most Expensive" California Divorce -- Part 2" »

As a Certified Family Law Specialist attorney working in La Jolla California I've seen some high income and asset cases. However the California divorce between Jamie and Frank McCourt, owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, is reportedly one of the most expensive divorces in California history. There is an excellent article in Bloomberg Business Week magazine, author Richard Siklos, August 12, 2010 providing in depth coverage of this case. This blog will reference some of the comments from the article and add information from a Family Law Specialist's viewpoint.

The McCourts, Frank and Jamie, came from a humble starting point. Pooling together money to buy a parking lot on the East Coast, they became rich over many years of marriage and hard work. They failed in an attempt to buy the Boston Red Sox, but bounced back when they were able to buy the LA Dodgers from Fox. However, their current, ongoing divorce has been called the most expensive California divorce ever. An estimated expense of $19 million and the case has not yet been through trial. If they go through a full trial (for example, on the value of the baseball team), and then the losing side appeals the decision, the current cost of the divorce is probably less than one-half of what they will end up spending.

Under California divorce law, the court can bifurcate, or separate out, a key issue to the divorce case, and have a trial on that issue first. This is likely what the McCourts are doing as they have a trial scheduled to start on August 30, 2010 as to the value of the Dodgers. Frank says the Dodgers are worth approximately $800 million today. Jamie estimates the value is at least $1.5 billion. Frank claims to have a Post Marital Agreement (or Marital Agreement) signed by Jamie where she has signed over the team to Frank. If this agreement holds up, Jamie receives nothing regardless of how much the Dodgers are worth.

Continue reading ""Most Expensive" California Divorce Case" »