Divorce

Determining and Transmuting the Character of Property Under California Law

Published on: March 14, 2021 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

California is a community property state, which means that any property acquired by either spouse during a marriage is considered to be owned by each party equally. Either spouse can identify property as separate, though, and it will remain their sole property if they divorce. Certain actions can transmute or modify separate property into community property, though, and anyone with separate property must take care not to take actions that will impair their rights. In 2015, a California appellate court issued a ruling explaining how and when the character of a property is defined and how to determine if transmutation occurred. If you or your spouse own separate property and you are contemplating ending your marriage, it is prudent to speak to a seasoned California divorce attorney about your rights.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the husband purchased a home prior to his marriage. By the time the couple married in 1993, the husband had paid off the mortgage. He also had a retirement account that he contributed to prior to getting married, which he stopped paying into at the time of the marriage. The couple lived in the home but after a few years decided to move to a town called Westlake. The husband retained the separate home, however. He made the down payment for the Westlake home from the separate retirement account and took out a mortgage loan in his name only. The loan application stated that the title to the house would be in the husband’s name, and the deed stated it was granted to him and his sole and separate property.

It is alleged that the husband sold his separate home and used the mortgage proceeds to pay for the Westlake home. The wife filed for divorce twelve years later. A prime point of contention was whether the Westlake home was community or separate property or a combination of the two. The court ultimately ruled that it was community property, and the husband appealed. Continue Reading ›

California Court Issues Ruling Regarding Bitcoin Transactions in Divorce Cases

Published on: October 6, 2020 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

Recent changes in technology and currency have not only altered the global economy, but they have also modified settlements and property division in divorce cases. This was demonstrated in a recent California case in which the court found that the husband violated the fiduciary duty he owed his wife as well as her interest in the community estate by failing to disclose information regarding his cryptocurrency investments. If you are in the process of determining whether to end your marriage, it is important to understand how the investments you and your spouse own may be evaluated, and you should consult a knowledgeable California divorce attorney regarding your rights.

Facts of the case

It is reported that in January 2013, the wife filed a petition for divorce and, along with the petition, served her husband with a restraining order that prohibited him from transferring, concealing, or disposing of any property, whether community or separate. In April 2013, the husband made three bitcoin-related transactions. Ultimately, most of his $45,000 were tied up in a bankruptcy action. He eventually recovered a small amount, and in his financial disclosures in February 2014, disclosed ownership of 1,062 bitcoins.

Allegedly, the court found the bitcoins to be community property and divided them equally between the spouses. Only after the wife sought to collect her half of the bitcoins was it disclosed that the remaining coins were tied up in bankruptcy. The value of the bitcoins had increased greatly at that time, and the original investment of $45,000 was now worth $8 million. The wife filed a motion to have half of the value of the bitcoins transferred to her and to grant her attorneys’ fees. The court granted the motion, finding that the husband breached the fiduciary duty he owed his wife. The husband then appealed.

How California Courts Divide Businesses In A Divorce

Published on: December 12, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

California business owners face a unique set of challenges when they divorce. By law, a divorcing business owner may be required to hand over up to 50% of their interest in a business to their ex. Several factors determine the division of a business during divorce, even in a community property state like California. So to understand who gets what when it comes to business and divorce, here’s what you need to consider.

Is The Business Community or Separate Property?

In simple terms, the assets and property acquired during marriage are community property. While assets and property acquired before or after the marriage are separate property. So, when a spouse or couple acquires or starts a business during the marriage with community resources, courts will consider it to be community property and divide the asset equally between both ex-spouses.

California Court States What is Needed to Assess a Request to Change Support

Published on: December 6, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

In many cases in which a couple gets divorced if there is a disparity in income between the spouses, the court will grant spousal support to the lesser earning spouse. The intention of spousal support is to allow the spouse with a lower income to enjoy the same lifestyle he or she enjoyed during the marriage. Most spousal support obligations are not permanent, however, but can be modified upon a showing of a significant change in circumstances. Recently, a California appellate court analyzed what constitutes a sufficient showing to warrant a modification in a case in which the husband appealed the trial court’s denial of his request to terminate spousal support. If you wish to modify a spousal support obligation, it is in your best interest to consult a trusted California spousal support attorney regarding your burden of proof.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

Reportedly, the husband and the wife were married for over twenty years. They filed a stipulated agreement to dissolve their marriage in 2014, which included an obligation for the husband to pay spousal support to the wife in the amount of $2,500 each month. The support obligation was to be reviewed in two years. In 2017, the husband filed a request for an order terminating the support obligation due to the wife’s new job and increased monthly income. Additionally, the husband engaged an expert who stated that the wife would require $3,300 per month to maintain the marital standard of living.

It is alleged that the wife opposed the husband’s request, arguing there were numerous factors the court must consider prior to ruling on the request, and requested an evidentiary hearing on the matter. A settlement conference was unproductive, and the matter was scheduled for a two-day trial. Prior to the trial, the wife filed a brief arguing that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances and that she could not maintain her standard of living on her income alone. The court ruled in favor of the wife based solely on the wife’s brief. The husband then appealed. On review, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling.

Who Gets What When Accidents Occur During A Divorce?

Published on: December 4, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

Accidents can happen at any time—house fires, car accidents, worker’s compensation claims, and injuries to life and limb, to name a few. A civil lawsuit or claim may continue for years after the injury. Sometimes civil claims arise while a couple is in the middle of a divorce. Which raises the question: How do California courts handle personal injury claims and insurance proceeds during a divorce?

If an ex-spouse has to file an insurance claim or personal injury lawsuit because of the mishap, it’s not easy to determine which spouse is entitled to a payout or where to turn to figure it out. If you have questions about how the court will divide your accident proceeds, here’s what you need to know about accidents, insurance, and divorce. For purposes of this article, an “Injured Spouse” and a “Personal Injury Award” includes injuries to property, such as houses and vehicles, as well as injuries to life and limb.

Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders Ensure that Upon Service of a Divorce Case, Neither Spouse Is Permitted to Remove or Cancel Their Spouse’s Insurance Policies.

California Court Addresses Validity of Premarital Agreements

Published on: August 2, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

In many divorce cases, the parties’ rights and obligations are delineated by a premarital agreement. Premarital agreements are typically enforced unless either party can show just cause for setting aside the agreement. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of California discussed the issue of what constitutes sufficient grounds for rendering a premarital agreement unenforceable due to unconscionability. If you entered into a premarital agreement prior to your marriage and are contemplating a divorce it is essential to speak with a trusted California divorce attorney regarding how the agreement may affect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the husband and the wife, who are both architects, began corresponding in 1995, when the wife lived in Russia, and the husband lived in the United States. Later that year, the wife began working as an architect in Houston. She completed all of her architectural drafting in English. In the winter of 1995, the wife moved to California and became pregnant with the husband’s child. She gave birth to a daughter in September 1996. After the birth of her daughter, the wife wished to remain in the United States.

It is alleged that the couple decided to wed, but the husband stated he wished to enter into a premarital agreement prior to getting married. Specifically, the husband was concerned about having to pay spousal support if he and the wife divorced, and about the wife leaving the country and gaining rights to his property. The husband and the wife met with a paralegal and signed a boilerplate premarital agreement in October 1996. The paralegal advised the couple that the agreement had been drafted by an attorney and had them execute a document acknowledging that she was not giving them legal advice. In part, the agreement stated that in the event of a divorce, neither party would owe the other party spousal support. Continue Reading ›

California Child Custody and Child Visitation: Parent Relocation and Move Away Matters

Published on: April 15, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

A child custody move-away case occurs when one party makes the decision to relocate outside of the county in which he or she was residing. Usually, move-away cases involve the complex issues that arise when a parent moves beyond a distance that permits for the moving-parent to continue to take the minor child to his or her school. This means that move-away cases typically involve moving to a home beyond 10 miles from the party’s prior residence.

If you are involved in a California Custody Case, you should first be aware of the existence of the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders (ATROs) that go into effect automatically at the commencement of either a divorce (dissolution of marriage) case and at the outset of a Petition for Child Custody and Visitation Orders. These ATROs go into effect for the Petitioner upon the filing of the case and become effective upon the Respondent(s) following the personal service of the Petition upon the Respondent or upon the filing of a Response to the case by the Respondent. These Restraining Orders can be found on page 2 of the Summons.

The ATRO relating to the relocation of the minor child in a divorce case reads:

California Court Upholds Sanctions for Disclosing Information in a Custody Case

Published on: March 6, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

Custody cases often produce custody evaluations and other sources of sensitive information. As such, certain documents may be deemed confidential and both parties are prohibited from disclosing any information in the document. If a party, or his or her attorney, discloses information in a confidential document it can result in adverse consequences.

This was illustrated in a recent case decided by a California appellate court, in which the court imposed sanctions on a wife’s attorney for revealing information contained in a confidential custody evaluation. If you are involved in a custody dispute, it is important to retain an experienced California family law attorney who will act in the best interest of both you and your child.

Facts Regarding the Divorce Actions

The wife had a child with her first husband. They divorced but were engaged in an ongoing custody dispute. The court ordered a custody evaluation and a psychological evaluation. The wife then married her second husband and gave birth to a second child. The second marriage dissolved, but the custody issue was unresolved. The first husband filed an affidavit in support of the second husband in the second action, alleging that the wife engaged in substantial misconduct involving both children.

Divorce: Completing Your Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure

Published on: February 19, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

In a divorce proceeding, Family Code 2104 tells us what each party must disclose to the other party in order to advance the divorce case to a settlement conference or a trial:

(1) Each party shall serve on the other party a preliminary declaration of disclosure, executed under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the Judicial Council. The commission of perjury on the preliminary declaration of disclosure may be grounds for setting aside the judgment, or any part or parts thereof, pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2120 ), in addition to any and all other remedies, civil or criminal, that otherwise are available under law for the commission of perjury. The preliminary declaration of disclosure shall include all tax returns filed by the declarant within the two years prior to the date that the party served the declaration.

(2) The preliminary declaration of disclosure shall not be filed with the court, except on court order. However, the parties shall file proof of service of the preliminary declaration of disclosure with the court.

California Court Discusses Responses to Petitions Permitted in Divorce Cases

Published on: February 14, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Ethan M. Weisinger, Inc.

It is not uncommon for either party in a divorce or custody proceeding to seek a modification of a court order. The non-moving party is entitled to respond to any request for a modification and can request affirmative relief. The non-moving party is not permitted to request relief that is not an alternative to the relief requested by the moving party, or that does not arise out of the same issues, however, as recently explained in a case arising out of a California Court of Appeals. If you are in the process of deciding to end your marriage and you must determine a custody arrangement, it is important to retain an experienced California divorce attorney to assist you in protecting your rights.

Factual and Procedural Scenario

Husband and wife were married in November 2000. The wife knew the husband had been convicted of a sex crime, but she did not know the details of the crime, which was that he molested his stepdaughter from the time she was eight to twelve years old. The parties had a daughter in 2007 and separated in 2008. The wife filed for divorce in 2009 and sought custody of the daughter. The marriage was dissolved in 2010. The parties stipulated to share legal custody of the daughter, with the wife having primary physical custody. The father’s physical custody was limited to seven to twelve and a half hours weekly.

It is alleged that the husband filed a petition for modification, seeking a fifty-fifty split of physical custody. The wife filed three pleadings in response, in which she requested attorneys fees and costs associated with responding to the husband’s petition, and asked the court to require the husband’s custody time to be monitored, due to his prior criminal history. The court denied the husband’s request for a modification but granted the wife’s request for monitoring of the husband and for attorney’s fees. The husband appealed.