When a couple divorces in California, their marital assets are subject to equal division. If the court finds that the distribution of property renders one spouse without adequate means for their support, they may award alimony as well. Additionally, California law permits the courts to grant temporary spousal support while a divorce is pending if they feel such support is warranted. Such awards will generally not be disturbed unless the objecting party shows the court committed an abuse of discretion, as demonstrated in a recent California ruling. If you want to end your marriage and have questions about your obligations or rights with regard to spousal support, it is smart to talk to a Bay Area divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Background of the Case

It is reported that the parties married in 1984; they had two children during their marriage that are now adults. They separated in the spring of 2010, and the husband filed a petition for dissolution later that year. The wife moved to Texas to live with her parents shortly thereafter. In 2021, the wife filed a request for temporary spousal support and attorneys’ fees. In support of her request, she filed documentation demonstrating that she earned approximately $1,400 per month while her husband earned over $12,000 per month.

Allegedly, the husband opposed the request and disputed the amount of his income. The court held a hearing after which it determined the husband’s monthly income to be approximately $9,800 per month. It granted the wife’s request, ordering the husband to pay the wife about $1,400 per month in temporary spousal support. The husband appealed. Continue Reading ›

Under California law, any property obtained during the course of a marriage is recognized as community property, which means that it belongs to both spouses equally and is subject to division in divorce proceedings. The presumption may be overturned, though, if a party can show that an asset was obtained via separate property and did not change from its original characterization, as shown in a recent opinion delivered by a California court in a divorce action. If you intend to file a petition for dissolution and you have concerns about how it may affect your property rights, it is in your best interest to confer with a Bay Area divorce attorney to discuss your options.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the parties married in December 2013 and bought a home the following year. The deed for the home was in the husband’s name, and the down payment was made using the husband’s separate property. Additionally, the wife signed a quitclaim deed. The wife filed a divorce action in 2018, and the marriage was terminated the following year. During a trial on reserved issues in 2021, the court addressed the issue of the characterization of the marital home.

It is reported that during the trial, the wife testified that the husband told her that she could not be on the deed, as she did not have a social security number, and asked her to sign a document at a title company, which was most likely the quitclaim deed. Based on the wife’s testimony and when the home was purchased, the court deemed it to be community property and divided the equity in the home between the parties after reimbursing the husband for the down payment. The husband appealed. Continue Reading ›

Typically, when evaluating requests for spousal support or modifications of existing obligations, the courts will look at each party’s income and needs and the costs of maintaining the child’s standard of living. They are not limited to these factors, though, but may consider other relevant issues as well. For example, as demonstrated in a recent California ruling, they may assess whether either party has engaged in domestic violence. If you have questions about how domestic violence allegations may impact your rights with regard to divorce or spousal support, it is wise to meet with a Bay Area family law attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married for 23 years before the husband filed a petition for dissolution in 2016. The husband was the main income earner during the marriage, and the parties accumulated substantial wealth, including an eight-figure estate. They had four daughters during their marriage. In April 2017, when two of the daughters were still minors, the parties entered into a stipulation in which the husband agreed to pay the wife $45,000 in spousal support and $5,000 in child support each month. At that time, the husband earned over $2.25 million per year.

Reportedly, in February 2018, the husband sought a modification of his support obligation after his bonuses, which made up the majority of his income, were suspended. The court granted the motion and reduced his support obligation to approximately $5,000 per month. In May 2020, the wife moved for an increase in her spousal support to $54,000 per month. The husband opposed the motion and, in doing so, asked the court to consider the wife’s history of domestic violence. In support of his assertions, he submitted declarations from three of his daughters recounting repeated acts of abuse. The court ultimately found that the wife committed numerous severe acts of domestic violence and that it was equitable that she receive no more than necessary to maintain home and hearth. As such, it ordered the husband to pay approximately $4,000 per month. The wife appealed. Continue Reading ›

Many California couples earn disparate incomes. As such, if they decide to divorce, one spouse may seek support from the other. The courts typically consider numerous factors in determining whether the grant alimony and, if so, how much, including the standard of living the parties enjoyed as a couple. If a court fails to weigh an important factor when making its decision, though, there may be grounds for reversing its ruling. Recently, a California court discussed what issues the courts weigh in spousal support disputes in a case in which it ultimately denied the wife’s request for increased alimony. If you want to learn more about spousal support under California law, it is wise to confer with a trusted Bay Area spousal support lawyer.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and wife separated in 2013 after 26 years of marriage. They had five children during their marriage. They divorced in 2015 when two of their children were still minors. The court ordered the husband, who worked as an airline pilot, to pay child support and spousal support to the wife, who did not work. In 2016, one of the minor children reached the age of majority, and the wife moved for additional spousal support. The court granted her motion.

Reportedly, in 2020, the second child reached the age of majority, and the wife again sought an increase in spousal support, arguing, among other things, that the amount she received was inadequate to allow her to uphold the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. The husband opposed her motion, asserting that the standard of living was the product of unreasonable spending. The court denied the wife’s motion, and she appealed. Continue Reading ›

Under California law, parents must support their minor children financially. In the context of child custody cases, this often means that the courts will order one parent to pay the other child support. While child support obligations are typically calculated based on each parent’s actual income, in some cases, they will be determined based on a parent’s earning potential. For example, in a recent California child support case, the court imputed income to the father in the amount he earned prior to quitting his job.  If you have questions about your rights and potential obligations with regard to child support, it is smart to confer with a California child support lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that in December 2019, the mother and the father stipulated to a status-only judgment of dissolution. At the same time, they filed a settlement agreement in which the father agreed to pay the mother $2,500 per month for childcare and child support. The agreement included a report that reflected the monthly wages and salary of the father and the mother as $9,974 and $12,253, respectively. About one month after filing the agreement, the father quit his job. He paid the mother partial child support for two months, then stopped payments entirely.

Allegedly, in June, the father filed an RFO (request for order) in which he claimed he had no income and asked the court to modify his child support obligation. The mother opposed the RFO and requested that the court either continue the current obligation or, alternatively, increase the amount. The court ruled in favor of the mother, ordering the father to pay $2,351 each month in child support plus half of the mother’s childcare expenses. In doing so, it imputed income to the father in the amount he earned prior to leaving his job. The father appealed. Continue Reading ›

Family law cases can be extremely contentious, and it is not uncommon for parties to go to great lengths to persuade the courts to rule in their favor. While it is permissible for people to engage in any lawful tactic to convince the courts to see things in their light, if they set forth false allegations or lie to the courts in custody cases, it will generally negatively impact their case. If false allegations were levied against you in a custody dispute and you have questions regarding your rights, it is critical to speak to a trusted California child custody attorney as soon as possible.

False Allegations in California Child Custody Cases

The California courts take allegations of abuse, neglect, or any other behavior that may place a child at risk very seriously. As such, if a party makes such claims in a child custody case, they will thoroughly investigate their veracity. Regardless of the severity of the allegations, it is important that anyone wrongfully accused of inappropriate or harmful behavior dispute the allegations. If they do not, it may impair their parental rights and open the gate for additional inaccurate assertions. Additionally, if false allegations are not promptly refuted, it may be difficult to prove they are untrue at a later date.

Penalties for Making False Allegations

Family Code 3027.1 sets forth the penalties for making false allegations. Specifically, section 3027.1 provides that if a court finds, based on an investigation or other evidence offered to it, that a person involved in a child custody case made false accusations of child neglect or abuse and that they knew the allegations were untrue at the time they made them, the court may impose monetary sanctions on the party. The amount of the sanctions cannot exceed the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the accused party in defending the allegations. Notably, sanctions may be levied against any individual that makes false allegations, including a party, the party’s attorney, or a witness in the case. Continue Reading ›

Many married couples grapple with debt, and disagreements over money are one of the primary reasons marriages end. In some instances, one party will lack the ability or desire to pay down debts, and the other party will use their separate property to pay community debts while a divorce is pending. In such cases, a court may choose to grant reimbursements or credits via what is referred to as Epstein & Jeffries credits and Watts charges, but they are not required to do so. If you have questions regarding your rights and obligations with regard to the payment of joint debts, it is smart to meet with a California divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Epstein & Jeffries Credits and Their Use in California Divorces

The term Watts Eppstein & Jeffries credits come from a 1979 California case, Marriage of Epstein. In that case, the court ruled that a spouse who pays community debts or expenses using their separate funds after they separate from their spouse is entitled to receive reimbursement for the other party’s share of the debt. For example, if a couple has a mortgage on the marital home, but only one spouse contributed towards the payment of the mortgage after the couple separated, the courts may order reimbursement to the paying spouse.

The California Family Code was later modified to reflect the court’s authority to order such payments. Notably, however, the courts are not required to issue Epstein and Jeffries credits in all cases; for example, they may reject a reimbursement request if the payments in question were made in replacement of support or other court-ordered obligations. Parties seeking such reimbursement must present their claim through a declaration setting forth the balance of the debt on the date of separation, the amount and dates of post-separation payments, the source of such payments, and any documentation supporting the claim. Continue Reading ›

Trusts are an important part of estate planning and typically allow parties to protect their property and provide for their loved ones while also avoiding the significant tax penalties associated with other means of passing on assets. There are certain measures people should take to safeguard their trusts, like obtaining a medallion signature guarantee. If you have questions regarding trusts and other estate planning tools that could help you protect your interests, it is advisable to contact a California estate planning attorney to evaluate your options.

The Need for Medallion Signature Guarantees in Trust Accounts

A medallion signature guarantee is a type of certification used to protect certain assets and accounts from fraudulent transactions. Generally, it combines the signature of a bank officer with a unique stamp and barcode and a compound with invisible ink to ensure that the transfer of securities, like bonds and stocks, is valid. While many financial institutions offer other types of certifications, a medallion signature guarantee offers a higher level of protection.

Medallion signature guarantees provide peace of mind that a person’s identity is confirmed, their signature is valid, and they are the legal owner of the property they are trying to transfer. When a transaction occurs with a medallion signature guarantee, the institution will assume liability if it is revealed that forgery has occurred. Medallion signature guarantees focus on the financial institution allowing the transaction, rather than the party making the transfer, and essentially provides a promise that the financial institution will reimburse any victims of fraudulent transfers. Continue Reading ›

Family law cases typically involve an intersection of legal issues and emotional concerns. As such, it is not uncommon for family law disputes to become contentious. In some instances, parties in family law cases will go so far as to attempt to frustrate the resolution of their cases by refusing to comply with procedural rules. To address such behavior, the California legislature enacted a statute that permits the courts to impose sanctions on non-compliant parties in family law cases, as discussed in In Re Marriage of Feldman. If you intend to end your marriage, it is essential to understand your rights and obligations, and you should speak to a California divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual Background of the Case

It is reported that the husband and the wife married in 1969. They separated after thirty-four years of marriage, and in 2003, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Pursuant to California law, the parties were required to disclose their financial information. The husband, who created numerous highly valuable privately held companies during the marriage, responded to discovery requests regarding his finances and provided a schedule of assets and debts.

The wife alleged, however, that the husband failed to fully disclose his financial information. Specifically, he neglected to provide information regarding several entities, a retirement account, and the purchase of a bond and a private home. The wife filed an application for an order imposing sanctions against the husband and requiring him to pay her attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Family Code sections 1101 and 2107. The trial court granted the application and sanctioned the husband. The husband appealed. Continue Reading ›

In California, the main concern of the courts in any child custody proceeding is what is in the child’s best interest. This means, among other things, that the court will assess whether one or both parents have a history of engaging in domestic violence. If they do, the court will assume that it will not benefit the child to live with the parent. The presumption is rebuttable, though, as discussed in a ruling recently issued by a California court. If you are faced with a custody dispute and have concerns about domestic violence, it is prudent to meet with a California child custody lawyer to discuss your options.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the wife and the husband married and then had two minor children together. The wife subsequently filed a lawsuit requesting a divorce. Concurrently, she filed a petition for a DVRO (domestic violence restraining order) against the husband in a separate case. The DVRO petition was dismissed, however, due to her failure to serve the petition on the husband. The trial court then granted a divorce by default and awarded the wife sole custody of the minor children.

It is reported that the wife then moved to Utah with the children, after which the husband filed a motion to set aside the default on the grounds that he was unaware of the divorce action. The wife then filed a request for a DVRO in a court in Utah and offered evidence that the husband engaged in years of abuse against her. The Utah court granted the wife’s request and issued a temporary DVRO, while at the same time, the California court granted the husband’s motion to set aside the default and granted him joint custody. As such, the wife appealed. Continue Reading ›

yelp
Justia Lawyer Rating
State Bar of California
Super Lawyers
Expertise
BBB
Avo Rating
lawyer.com
2021 Family Law Badge
2020 Family Law Badge
Top 10 Best of the Best Attorneys