Recently in Divorce Category

Jersey Boy Awarded Half of His Own Life Insurance Policy by California Supreme Court - In re Marriage of Valli

July 2, 2014, by

Celebrities: they're just like us, well sort of anyway. Among other things, that means that they often encounter the same types of issues as regular folks in divorce cases.

microphone-1382165-m.jpgCalifornia is a community property state, in which property acquired by a spouse during the marriage, except for gifts or inheritance, is shared equally between the spouses in the event of divorce. That might seem like a pretty clear-cut rule, but divorcing spouses often resort to the courts to decide disputes over how certain property should be characterized or divided. The California Supreme Court recently took on the issue as it applies to a life insurance policy taken out by one spouse - legendary singer Frankie Valli - for the benefits of the other.

Husband and Wife separated in September 2004 after 20 years of marriage. More than a year before, Husband used money from a joint bank account to purchase a $3.75 million life insurance policy. He named Wife as the sole owner and beneficiary of the policy and paid premiums with funds from the joint bank account.

Continue reading "Jersey Boy Awarded Half of His Own Life Insurance Policy by California Supreme Court - In re Marriage of Valli" »

Untangling Shared Business Interests in California Divorce Cases - In re Marriage of Greaux and Mermin

June 24, 2014, by

Anyone who has been through a divorce probably already knows that it can be a stressful, complicated, and emotionally and financially draining experience. The legal issues involved may be even more complex in situations where the couple work together running a business. In In re Marriage of Greaux and Mermin, California's First District Court of Appeals explains that the spouse who is ultimately awarded the business has the right to protect it from being devalued by the other spouse. In some cases, that may include seeking a court order to stop the spouse from starting a competing business.

stapling-machine-1440644-m.jpgIn this case Wife filed for divorce in 2009. During the six-day trial that occurred two years later, one of the few remaining disputed and unresolved issues was what to do with the beverage company they owned and jointly operated during the marriage. The company distributed and sold a type of rum.

The business was community property and the judge determined that both spouses brought "unique talents to it." Husband had little education, training, or experience running a business, but the judge said his considerable effort and determination were "crucial" to the business' success. Husband also developed relationships with others in the industry whose experience and personal relationships were very helpful to the business. Wife, on the other hand, had marketing and sales skills also crucial to the business, and her family history in the Caribbean served as the "brand story." The trial judge also noted that Wife had a deep understanding of the rum, its ingredients, and the process for making it, and had qualified as an official industry "taster." She was designated in company investment materials as the "face of the brand."

Continue reading "Untangling Shared Business Interests in California Divorce Cases - In re Marriage of Greaux and Mermin" »

Sanctions, Fees Ordered for Spouse who Concealed Income in Divorce Case - In re Marriage of Vazquez

May 12, 2014, by

Trust is the cornerstone of any marriage, and the lack of it permeates a great many divorces. In In re Marriage of Vazquez, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal explains that lying about income and other information in a divorce proceeding can be very costly.

the-truth-shall-make-you-free-1437041-m.jpgHusband and Wife divorced in 2008 and the court ordered Husband to pay Wife an unidentified amount of monthly child support. Wife returned to court four years later, however, arguing that Husband committed perjury by purposely misstating his monthly income.

During the 2008 proceedings, Husband asserted that he earned about $9,550 a month. Three years later, however, Wife obtained his 2008 income tax return while seeking an order to force him to contribute to their child's orthodontic expenses. The trial court granted Wife's motion to compel Husband to respond to a demand for inspection of documents relating to his finances, including the tax returns, which showed that Husband made nearly $21,000 a month in income during the time of the divorce. The trial court set aside its previous child support order and entered a new order requiring Husband to pay more in current child support as well as $25,000 in sanctions and more than $36,000 in attorney fees.

Continue reading "Sanctions, Fees Ordered for Spouse who Concealed Income in Divorce Case - In re Marriage of Vazquez" »

Divorce Lawyer Karma

April 21, 2014, by

San Ramon family law attorney, Mary Nolan, was recently sentenced to two years in federal prison for unlawful interception of telephone communications and tax evasion. Ms. Nolan illegally intercepted telephone conversations by accessing a listening device that now-imprisoned private investigator Christopher Butler had installed in a victim's vehicle. Butler hired women to approach men at bars, drink with them and set them up for drunken-driving arrests that their wives could use against them in divorce cases. Two of the men whose wives were represented by Nolan have sued her, Butler and others for damages. Nolan also hid $1.8 million in income from the Internal Revenue Service to avoid paying $400,000 in taxes between 2005 and 2009, and admitted to obstructing justice by submitting false contracts to the IRS during an audit.

Mary Nolan was my opposing counsel, my client's wife's attorney, in my first divorce litigation. At the time I had no idea about her ethical challenges but I did know that she was not very nice. (That is very polite understatement.) So not surprisingly, given her apparent challenges with ethical behavior, the matter was a nightmare for my client and me. Rather than trying to help the clients work out reasonable solutions for a negotiated settlement, she engaged in abusive discovery and trumped up domestic violence allegations in order to reduce my client's time with his children and more child support for her client. Essentially, she did everything she could to destroy, rather than helping to restructure the family. After several months of this nightmare I told my client that if he was going to survive with this ogre on the other side he needed to fire me and retain a seasoned and aggressive litigator. And I told myself that if I was going to survive in this business that I needed to find another way to practice law.

And that is exactly what I did. I found Collaborative law and mediation and learned that there is another way, a far superior way, and never looked back. Now I offer divorcing couples alternatives to the court system, Collaborative Law and Mediation, to help them create positive, mutual agreements and divorce without the emotional and financial costs of litigation.

It is nowhere near as lucrative as Ms. Nolan's nefarious law practice, but it feels good to help people solve their problems, rather than helping to destroy their families.

Divorce, Spousal Support and Cohabitation - In re Marriage of Woillard

March 30, 2014, by

In most divorce cases, the terms of any spousal or child support obligation are set forth in either a court order or an agreement between the parties. Often, that includes a stipulation that spousal support payments will stop when the person receiving them remarries or otherwise "cohabitates" with another person. In In re Marriage of Woillard, California's Second District Court of Appeals makes clear that the term "cohabitation" is interpreted fairly broadly.

holding-hands-207150-m.jpgHusband and Wife divorced in 1990 after what the Court called a "lengthy" marriage. Under the terms of the divorce judgment, Husband was required to pay wife $4,000 a month in spousal support until Husband or Wife died or until she was remarried or began cohabitating with an "unrelated male." In 2011, Husband filed an action seeking to terminate the spousal support payment, arguing that Wife had been cohabitating with her boyfriend, Keith, for the last six years. A trial court agreed, concluding that the spousal support agreement expired in 2005 and ordering Wife to pay Husband back $256,000 in support payments that she shouldn't have received.

The Court noted that Wife and Keith were engaged in 2004, vacationed and attended family events together and "shared significant resources" through the course of their relationship, which began three years earlier. Wife loaned Keith $30,000 - an amount he later paid back - and he often stayed at her home, where he kept clothes and other personal belongings and received his mail. The couple kept a joint checking account related to expenses and rental income for two condominiums that Wife owned. They also jointly purchased a boat in 2005, securing a loan for it by using Wife's home as collateral. Keith slept on the boat when he didn't stay at Wife's house.

Continue reading "Divorce, Spousal Support and Cohabitation - In re Marriage of Woillard" »

The Role of Retirement Benefits in California Divorce Cases - In re Marriage of Green

March 6, 2014, by

Retirement benefits are an important piece of the puzzle in transitioning comfortably to life after work. And often, they are the subject of intense debate in divorce proceedings. In In re Marriage of Green, California's Supreme Court considered what to do with retirement benefit credits made available based on service before the marriage, but paid for with community money.

fire-extinguisher-483491-m.jpgMr. Green began working as a firefighter in 1989 and married his wife, Ms. Green, roughly two years later. He continued to work for the Alameda County Fire Department over the course of the marriage and earned retirement benefits through the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Mr. Green also exercised his option to purchase four additional years of service credit for retirement purposes based on his stint in the U.S. Air Force before joining the Department. Under this option, Mr. Green agreed to pay bi-monthly installments of $92 for 15 years.

The Greens separated in October 2007. At that point, Mr. Green had paid more than $11,400 in payroll deductions toward the additional retirement credit. The payments were scheduled to be completed in July 2017.

Continue reading "The Role of Retirement Benefits in California Divorce Cases - In re Marriage of Green" »

Court: Client List, Bonus Money is Community Property - In re Marriage of Finby

February 20, 2014, by

Bonuses are a common and often significant form of compensation for a number of people who live and work in California, particularly those in certain professional fields. In In re Marriage of Finby, the state's Fourth District Court of Appeals explains that all or some of the money is likely to be deemed community property to be divided among spouses in the event of divorce.

untitled-1237498-m.jpgHusband and Wife married in 1985 and separated 15 years later in February 2010. Wife worked as a financial advisor during the course of the marriage and was employed by UBS before signing a contract with Wachovia in 2009. The company was later purchased by Wells Fargo.

Wife's contract with Wells Fargo provided for a variety of bonuses, including a "transitional bonus" of more than $2.8 million. The bonus was premised on the fact that she had developed a list of clients - referred to as her "book of business" - whose investments were worth more than $192 million at the time and whose accounts were expected to go with her to the new job. Under the terms of the contract, the bonus was conditioned on Wife's staying at Wells Fargo for more than 9 years and maintaining a gross production level of over $1.12 million, as determined on an annual basis. Wife opted to obtain the complete amount of the bonus immediately, however, and signed a loan agreement with her employer under which it agreed to forgive $27,700 each month over the course of 112 months. If Wife stopped working at any time during the period, the company had the right to demand the entire amount remaining on the bonus/loan.

Continue reading "Court: Client List, Bonus Money is Community Property - In re Marriage of Finby" »

Spouses in Two States: Which One Should Hear Their Divorce Case? In re Marriage of Malcolm

January 31, 2014, by

We live in a highly mobile society. That means it's no longer out of the ordinary for spouses who are married in one state to be living in another when they later separate and divorce. Nor is it unlikely for spouses to be living in two separate states when one or both files for divorce.

usamap-jpg-1417432-m.jpgForum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows courts to dismiss a case where another court, or forum, is substantially better suited to hear the case. In In re Marriage of Malcolm, the state's Sixth District Court of Appeals explains how the legal doctrine applies in California divorce cases in which the spouses are located in different states.

Mr. and Ms. Malcolm married in Carmel, California in 1999. They later had three children, with whom they primarily resided in Aspen, Colorado. They paid state income taxes in Colorado, held driver's licenses issued by the state and were also registered to vote there. They also kept ties in California, however. The Malcolms founded a company in Sunnyvale, where Mr. Malcolm worked five days a week. Ms. Malcolm served as the company's general counsel, but worked primarily from Aspen. The family also owned two homes in California, in Los Altos and Carmel. Mr. Malcolm, a licensed pilot, maintained a hangar and apartment at the Monterey Airport, where the couple kept their four planes.

Continue reading "Spouses in Two States: Which One Should Hear Their Divorce Case? In re Marriage of Malcolm" »

Want To Save on Attorney's Fees? Try Unbundled Legal Services

January 28, 2014, by


For those who must litigate and who cannot afford to hire an attorney to represent them or who want to be in control of their own case, unbundled services can be a great solution.
Unbundled legal services, also known as limited-scope services, are legal services that are broken down and offered as individualized legal services, instead of "bundled" legal services--which generally means full legal representation. An attorney offering unbundled legal services makes it possible (and financially feasible) for someone to receive vital legal assistance without incurring great financial detriment.

In limited scope or unbundled representation, an attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the attorney's involvement in a lawsuit or other legal action to specific items, leaving responsibility for other aspects of the case to the client in order to save the client money.
There are pros and cons to this approach. The pros for the client are saving money on attorney's fees and possibly getting the case/issue resolved at a faster pace. The cons are that there are oflten pitfalls for those untrained in the law, so if a matter is complicated or if you feel it is too complicated for you, then perhaps full representation is warranted.
TYPES OF UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES
• Consultations
• Legal and Court Coaching
• Document Review
• Preparation of Documents

For example, if you are getting a divorce and you only want an attorney to help prepare the documents that you will need to file, the document preparation is an unbundled service.

Quite often, folks do their own divorce but find that the paperwork, particularly at the end of the process, is more burdensome than they had anticipated and find unbundled services to complete the process to be very helpful.

In another situation, one may derive great benefit from having an attorney draft a declaration as part of a Request for an Order or a Response to a Request for an Order. It is very important that these declarations be as clear and concise and as well written as possible while also conveying the relevant information that is important for the judge's decision. Relevance is key, the only information a judge wants to see is information that is relevant to the issue to be decided and it is common for non-lawyers to add information that may be very important to them, but is not relevant in terms of the legal issue to be decided. Judge's have volumes of material to read before hearing a matter and don't like to have to read material that is not relevant and/or not well written. It is to a litigant's benefit to provide written material that will not irritate the judge.

The Law & Mediation Office of Lorna Jaynes offers unbundled services to suit your needs and will help you evaluate whether using an unbundled service will work for you. Our compassionate services will provide you with the information you need to move on with your life, so contact us to learn more about these services.

Covering Children's College Costs in California Divorce Proceedings - In re Marriage of Humphries

December 2, 2013, by

In California divorce cases, spouses often want to determine not only basic child support issues, but also how to cover future expenses related to their children's higher education. In In re Marriage of Humphries, the Fourth District Court of Appeals addresses a dispute about college expenses.

graduation-cap-993663-m.jpgThe Humphries married in 1990 and had three children before separating 16 years later. Ms. Humphries obtained an emergency protective order against her husband under the Domestic Violence Protection Act in 2006. The couple later entered into an agreement in which Ms. Humphries agreed to drop the protective order and provide Mr. Humphries with child visitation rights. In turn, Mr. Humphries agreed that his wife and children would remain in the family's residence and that he would pay various forms of support, as well as paying for the children's private school education. Mr. Humphries further agreed for each child to "pay for four years of undergraduate education at a certified university of the child's choice, at the rate of a school in the UC system in California" plus related expenses, provided that the child was a full-time student and maintained at least a 2.5 grade point average.

Ms. Humphries subsequently filed for divorce from her husband in 2008 and also sought an order requiring him to pay spousal and child support. The parties later entered a stipulated agreement providing that Mr. Humphries would "continue to support [Ms. Humphries] and the children." Following additional litigation, they entered another agreement, this one stating that Ms. Humphries would be named joint custodian on three separate bank accounts - one for each child - and that the funds would be used to cover the children's college tuition and expenses.

Continue reading "Covering Children's College Costs in California Divorce Proceedings - In re Marriage of Humphries" »

Time to Consider Giving Up on the Family Court System and Use a Private Judge

August 16, 2013, by

My practice has been limited primarily to Collaborative Practice and Mediation for many years, since I learned long ago that divorce is a problem to be solved not a battle to be won, and the court system only exacerbates the problem and most often leaves couples worse off, financially and emotionally. Collaborative Practice and Mediation allow a couple to divorce in a structured and facilitated process that enables them to stay out of court, gather and review all of their financial information together, brainstorm options for property division, co-parenting and support, and craft an agreement that works for all. This process reduces the fear and anxiety because every step in the process is taken together and both understand that nothing will happen and no agreements will be signed or filed until both agree.

These processes are not without difficulty and conflict. The couples are divorcing after all so there is most always conflict. But unlike the court system with uncaring judges and litigious attorneys, Collaborative Divorce and mediation endeavor to help parties communicate more effectively, understand each other's needs and interests, and help them find common ground and shared goals. This most always leads to agreement.

Another reason I value out of court processes is that I believe in personal empowerment and the right and ability of most everyone to make their own decisions in such matters. With very rare exceptions, I can't think of any good reasons divorcing spouses would want a judge (ie government official) to make decisions about how they divide marital property or co-parent and support their children and each other. In most all cases, the best people to make these important and personal decisions, are the parties themselves.

Once a couple agrees on the terms of their settlement agreement, the agreement and judgment forms are submitted to the court for processing. Sadly, the court processing can be unduly lengthy, often as long as three or four months, but until recently, most judges would approve judgments provided the parties completed the requisite paperwork and filed documents signed under penalty of perjury stating that they had each completed and exchanged the requisite financial disclosures. Parties working together can make any agreements they want, but the agreements must be based on full knowledge and understanding of all separate and community income, assets and debts.

Recently, however, many judges have begun asking mediating or Collaborative parties who have submitted their judgments to court for processing to attend uncontested hearings to explain and justify the terms of their agreement to the judge. These are folks who have chosen mediation or Collaborative divorce precisely because they wish to stay out of court. Often the first question people will ask is , "We won't have to go to court, will we?" I used to be able to answer no to this question, but no longer. This unwarranted interference by the courts is, in my opinion, intrusive and overbearing and deprives the couples of their autonomy, dignity and right to make their own decisions.

So, for those who really wish to stay out of court, it appears that a good option is to stipulate to a private judge, which usually costs around $500 - $550. An extra fee, but well worth it for many. The other benefit of a private judge is that they are much faster than the courts - a private judge will review and sign off on a judgment in probably two to three weeks, rather than the three to four months taken by the court coupled with their burdensome requests to come to court to justify decisions and agreements. Plus there is the added psychological benefit that the entire divorce, not just the process of reaching an agreement, is outside of the dreaded court system.

With more than 13 years of experience working with clients in divorce and other family law matters, attorney and mediator Lorna Jaynes utilizes innovative legal tools to resolve these and other family law disputes for clients in the San Francisco Bay Area.


California Court Says Child's Best Interests Served by Equal Co-Parenting Plan - In re Marriage of Erb

June 4, 2013, by

The ultimate goal in resolving child custody and co-parenting issues is to reach a resolution that is in the best interests of the child. In In re Marriage of Erb, California's Fourth District Court of Appeals explained that sometimes that means limiting the amount of contact former spouses have with each other.

1162764_daddy.jpgMother and Father were divorced in February 2004. The parties agreed that they would share legal custody of their then two-year old daughter (Daughter) and that Mother would have primary physical custody over the child, while Father would keep visitation rights.

Four years later, Father asked that the arrangement be changed so that Daughter would spend Wednesday nights with him and that his time with her be increased gradually until both parents shared equal time. A trial court agreed to increase Father's time with Daughter to a more limited extent. Mother retained primary physical custody.

Following further litigation, however, the trial court agreed to a co-parenting plan submitted by Daughter's independent counsel in June 2011. The plan provided for equal sharing of time with Daughter by Mother and Father under a "2-2-5-5" arrangement. Mother got two days with Daughter, Father got the next two days, then Mother got five days with Daughter and Father got the next five days.

Based largely on input from Daughter's attorney - who interviewed Mother, Father, Daughter, her step-parents and a number of other family members - the trial court ruled that it was in Daughter's best interests to put an end to the contentious litigation between her parents that had then been going on for seven years. "[W]e can't go on like this," the court said simply. It noted that the 2-2-5-5 plan would both add stability to Daughter's everyday life and limit the number of exchanges between Mother and Father in an effort to avoid further disputes.

Continue reading "California Court Says Child's Best Interests Served by Equal Co-Parenting Plan - In re Marriage of Erb" »

California court Refuses to Annul Internet Couple's Marriage on Fraud Grounds - In re Marriage of Snowden

April 10, 2013, by

In California, a court can annul a marriage that it determines is not legally valid based on a number of reasons, including a finding that one spouse is already married, not mentally capable of entering marriage or has committed fraud in inducing the other spouse to marry. Once a marriage is annulled, the law operates as though it never existed. In In re Marriage of Snowden, the Sixth District Court of Appeals explains that annulments don't often come easy, even for the shortest of marriages.

1260785_laptop_work.jpgSan Jose resident Norris Snowden and Simona Campeanu, a Romanian citizen, struck up a relationship online in 2006 and married three years later. Campeanu moved to the U.S. to live with her husband permanently in 2010, after obtaining a visa. The couple lived together for less than two months before separating.

Snowden later filed a petition seeking to annul the marriage, citing fraud. "Snowden maintained that Campeanu' s true motive for marrying him was to obtain a green card, allowing her to reside in the United States," according to the court. He also alleged that she refused to have sex with him and did not tell Snowden prior to the marriage that she is unable to have children. Denying these allegations, Campeanu sought a dissolution of marriage, rather than annulment. A trial court found that Snowden failed to prove fraud and denied his petition.

The Sixth District affirmed the decision on appeal. "Historically, annulments based on fraud have only been granted in cases where the fraud relates in some way to the sexual, procreative or child-rearing aspects of marriage," the court explained. For example, annulments have been granted where one spouse did not intend from the beginning of the marriage not to engage in sexual relations with the other spouse or where a spouse was pregnant with another man's child at the time of the marriage. Even in cases of potential immigration fraud, the court said, an annulment will not be granted unless the offending spouse never intended to carry out his or her "essential duties."

Here, Snowden acknowledged in testimony that he continued to engage in "flirtatious emails" with other women after becoming engaged to Campeanu, who became angry when she learned of the emails shortly before the couple was married. They decided to marry anyway. Campeanu returned to Romania after her fiancée visa expired and Snowden did not respond to her persistent emails for several weeks, later explaining that he was angry that she had looked at his private emails.

Continue reading "California court Refuses to Annul Internet Couple's Marriage on Fraud Grounds - In re Marriage of Snowden" »

Court Says Wife Can't Get Spousal Support Because of Domestic Violence Conviction - In re Marriage of Priem

April 3, 2013, by

A criminal conviction is a serious matter that may not only come with significant fines and even jail time, but also have other far reaching effects. For example, as California's First District Court of Appeals explains in In re Marriage of Priem, a person convicted of domestic violence may be barred from obtaining spousal support in the event of a later divorce.

624824_restrained.jpgThe couple was married in 1999 and had two children before divorcing more than 10 years later. A trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife more than $14,000 per month in child support as well as a portion of her attorney's fees. The court declined Wife's request of spousal support, however, finding that she was not entitled to such support as a result of a history of domestic violence toward Husband. Specifically, the court noted that Wife plead no contest to a misdemeanor for battery committed against a spouse in May 2008.

On appeal, the First District explained that California law "creates a rebuttable presumption that spousal support requests are not to be granted to spouses who have been convicted of domestic violence during the five years preceding the filing of a petition for dissolution." Essentially, according to the court, the law is designed to ensure that "victims of domestic violence not be required to finance their own abuse." A reviewing court may consider the other spouse's domestic violence history as well as any other factors that may weigh against the presumption in contemplating a specific spousal support request.

The Court rejected Wife's argument that the trial court wrongly denied her support request based on the 2008 battery because she pleaded no contest to this crime.

Under Penal Code section 1016, a no contest plea cannot be considered an admission of the crime in a civil suit stemming from the act on which the plea was based. Criminal defendants plead no contest for a wide variety of reasons, including bargaining with prosecutors, and the law is designed so as to limit any disincentives to making the plea. Here, the Court found that the spousal support proceeding was not based on nor did it "grow out of" the alleged battery in 2008. As a result, the lower court did not err in denying Wife's support request.

Continue reading "Court Says Wife Can't Get Spousal Support Because of Domestic Violence Conviction - In re Marriage of Priem" »

Ethically challenged client and California divorce attorney trick ex-husband into drunk-driving after setting him up with hot-tub blonde on Match.com

March 4, 2013, by

As a new family law attorney my very first litigation matter involved a client whose spouse's attorney was the (now disgraced) Mary Nolan. It was a horrific experience for me and I ultimately told my client that he needed to retain a different kind of attorney - the quintessential 'shark' litigator, if he was going to survive this divorce with Ms. Nolan on the other side. The great benefit that I derived from this experience is that I learned very early how ugly divorce could be, that the traditional process did not work for me or for the clients. I knew there had to be a better way.

A six-count indictment on September 18, 2012 charged Mary Nolan with tax evasion and unlawfully intercepting communications. Recently, Ms. Nolan pled not guilty to charges that she hired a private investigator, who was a central character in Contra Costa County's "dirty DUI" scandal, to illegally install listening devices inside the car of a client's ex-husband.

Mr. David Dutcher, from Contra Costa County, challenged a custody ruling he claims was based on a DUI charge that occurred after his ex-wife paid a blonde woman to trick into drunk driving. Mr. Dutcher said he was arrested and pulled over for drunken driving in 2008 shortly after he was propositioned by two young women to come home with them and 'continue things in the hot tub'.

Mr Dutcher was on a second date with a woman he had met on Match.com, when she started chugging shots of hard alcohol and kissing him on the lips.
A second blonde showed up and they both flashed their breasts, before asking him to join them at home in the hot tub.

But just after leaving the restaurant, Mr Dutcher was pulled over for drunken driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.12 per cent, above the legal limit of 0.08 percent. Shortly after his conviction, his ex-wife's lawyer, Ms. Nolan, filed a motion in court seeking to reduce his time with the children (and increase his ex-wife's child support). Ms. Nolan claimed to have inadvertently learned of Dutcher's drunken-driving episode and wanted to make the court aware of his run-in with the law. A judge then reduced the amount of time he could spend with his children because of his arrest. Mr. Dutcher has argued that his ex-wife orchestrated his arrest to gain advantage in the divorce case.

In another complaint filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Declan Woods of Clayton alleges that Mary Nolan was looking for an advantage for her client, Woods' estranged wife. and hired Butler to set up Woods to be arrested for drunken driving.

Not surprisingly, in my case with Ms. Nolan, her trumped up allegations of domestic violence were very detrimental to my client and their five children who were only permitted to see each other through supervised visitation. This was a family of relatively modest means whose assets were quickly depleted by Ms. Nolan's fee churning antics. And although the wife surely did not recognize it at the time and maybe still doesn't, Ms. Nolan's conduct was also detrimental to her since it resulted in an unnecessarily emotionally and financially burdensome process. And nor did her attorney encourage a positive and supportive co-parenting relationship, the touchstone of a good divorce.

But I was inspired to find a new and better way to help couples divorce and and trained in Collaborative Law and Mediation so that I could escape "the machine" and help couples divorce with their personal and economic dignity intact. To learn more about how to end your marriage with your personal and economic dignity intact, contact the Law and Mediation Office of Lorna Jaynes.