Recently in Divorce Category

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.
• 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

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, 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.

Court Looks at Wife's Job Prospects in Determining Spousal Support - In re Marriage of Baron

February 19, 2013, by

There is more than one way to split a pie. For couples considering a divorce in California, for example, a variety of issues can determine how the pie (money, property, etc.) is divided between spouses. In In re Marriage of Baron, California's Second District Court of Appeals takes a look at some of those issues, including a spouse's ability to work.

713391_plant.jpgRichard and Sandra Baron were married for nearly 30 years before divorcing in 2007. Shortly after they were married, the couple started a retail and commercial nursery in which Richard's brother also owned a 40 percent stake. Sandra worked for the company over three decades - as an office manager and in other clerical positions - until she was fired in 2010.

In a stipulated agreement, the Barons decided that Richard would buy out Sandra's interest in the business, paying her $1 million (plus interest) over the course of 15 years. Following a trial, a lower court also ordered him to pay spousal support in the amount of $5,500 per month until either person died or Sandra remarried. The court additionally required Richard to buy a $500,000 term life insurance policy as security for spousal support.

In reaching this decision, the trial court noted that Sandra was 62 years old and had recently been fired from the only job she'd ever had. "The court finds it is unrealistic to believe that [she] will find employment in the near future," the trial judge wrote.

The Second District upheld the order on appeal, rejecting Richard's argument that he couldn't afford to pay support because of the money he owed Sandra for her share of the business. The court explained that these were two separate issues. "Richard's analysis is based on the incorrect assumption that his property division obligation affects his ability to pay spousal support," the court said. Citing its 1991 decision in In re Marriage of Martin, the court further explained that "a spouse may not finance a 'buy-out' of community property and then successfully claim inability to pay spousal support."

Continue reading "Court Looks at Wife's Job Prospects in Determining Spousal Support - In re Marriage of Baron" »

Divorce Your Spouse, But For the Sake of Your Children, Create or Preserve a Positive Co-Parenting Relationship

February 16, 2013, by

A judge from the state of Minnesota, Michael Haas, said the following in 2001.

"Your children have come into this world because of the two of you. Perhaps you two made lousy choices as to whom you decided to be the other parent. If so, that is your problem and your fault.

No matter what you think of the other party - or whatever your family thinks of the other party- these children are one-half of each of you. Remember that, because every time you tell your child what an "idiot" his father is, or what a "fool" his mother is, or how bad the absent parent is, or what terrible things that person has done, you are telling the child half of him is bad.

That is an unforgivable thing to do to a child. That is not love. That is possession. If you do that to your children, you will destroy them as surely as if you had cut them into pieces, because that is what you are doing to their emotions.
I sincerely hope that you do not do that to your children. Think more about your children and less about yourselves, and make yours a selfless kind of love, not foolish or selfish, or your children will suffer."

Wise words from a judge, but the sad part is that by the time a judge makes comments of that nature, the damage has been done. Sadly, many parents do not understand long-term impacts their divorce has on children and they are so focused on themselves that only a very small percentage have constructive divorces such through mediation or Collaborative Divorce. The nature of the parents' relationship, pre and post-divorce, permanently impacts children.

See the work of Judith Wallerstein, a psychologist who triggered a national debate about the consequences of divorce by reporting that it hurt children more than previously thought. Much of the damage, however, can be mitigated by conscious parents who divorce with care and compassion.

A successful co-parenting arrangement depends on the child, the parents, and how the parents treat each other and their children. It matters whether the arrangements accurately reflect the needs and wishes of the child, but at the same time, the choices should not generally be left up to the children as that puts them in a very difficult place. It's a complex undertaking. What works for a child at one age may be harmful to the same child at another developmental stage. One size can never fit all children or families. Children who are required to traverse a battleground between warring parents show serious symptoms that affect their physical and mental health. The research findings on how seriously troubled these children are and how quickly their adjustment deteriorates are very powerful. The bottom line that our studies show is that the legal form of custody is not what matters in the child's welfare. Nor is there any study that shows the amount of time spent with a parent is relevant to psychological adjustment. 

Parents who spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight over the merits of joint or sole custody of their child are simply wasting their time and money. Litigation does not constructively address the emotions involved. Rather, it adds fuel to the fire. No model of custody or time-sharing determines how well children do after their parents' divorce. Joint custody can work very well or poorly for the child. The same is true of sole custody with visitation. What matters is the mental health of the parents, the quality of the parent-child relationships, the degree of anger versus cooperation between the parents, plus the age, temperament, and flexibility of the child.

Divorce education and appropriate dispute resolution such as Collaborative Divorce and mediation can help parents do less destructive things to their children during and after the divorce. With offices throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, California divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes provides innovative legal tools to resolve many family law disputes without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process.

This American Life on Divorce

February 16, 2013, by

A segment of This American Life with Ira Glass on NPR, entitled Breakup, addresses divorce from several different perspectives and is well worth a listen.

In Act Two, an eight-year-old girl embarks on a campaign to understand her parents' divorce, a campaign that takes her to school guidance counselors, children's book authors, and the mayor of New York City. The segment re-plays her 1986 interview on All Things Considered as a young child and how she struggled to understand why the divorce happened. In this interview 20 years later, she praises her mother for putting her daughter's interest first by encouraging and supporting her relationship with her father, never blaming her father, and never saying anything about her father's affair.

In Act Three, Ira speaks with a Collaborative Divorce attorney and Mediator about why it is so bad when the justice system gets involved in a divorce and the many benefits for families who can resolve the issues outside of court. The attorney speaks to the value of a process that focuses on listening to the other and seeking to understand.
Act Four looks at divorce from the dog's point of view.

All acts highlight the value to everyone involved of a divorce grounded in respect, compassion and love. And these are the values that ground and sustain Collaborative and mediated divorces. With either mediation or the Collaborative process you have control over the decisions that are made and will be firmly supported, legally and emotionally, in achieving a successful dissolution of your relationship. This not only allows, but also encourages you and your partner to create, or leave open, lines of communication that are of enormous benefit to the whole family.

Working as a team we can achieve a successful resolution of the issues in dispute without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process. The Law & Mediation Office of Lorna Jaynes is based in Alameda county and serves Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.

Spousal Support After Remarriage, Retirement - In re Marriage of Cesana

January 27, 2013, by

Spousal support is an important issue in many California divorce proceedings. As California's First District Court of Appeals' recent ruling in In re Marriage of Cesana shows, the issue can become tricky when one or both former spouses' situations change over the years.

869848_roads_sign.jpgNelly and Amedeo Cesana were married for 24 years before divorcing in 1985. Under the terms of a settlement agreement between the former husband and wife, Amedeo agreed to pay monthly spousal support to Nelly at a rate of 30 percent of Amedeo's income, capped at a maximum $9,000 per month. As the court explained, "Amedeo's financial circumstances varied greatly" in the years following the couple's divorce. As a result, the two agreed verbally that Amedeo would support Nelly to the best of his ability. He made varying payments until 2008.

Later, Amedeo experienced financial difficulty when the company that he founded went bankrupt shortly after the divorce. He subsequently started a second company with his new wife, Rhonda, and employed Nelly as an administrative assistant from 2004 to 2007. He did not pay marital support during this time, but began paying Nelly $1,500 a month after her employment with the company was terminated.

Amedeo (60 percent) and Rhonda (40 percent) owned the company jointly until 2007 when he transferred his ownership interest in the company to his wife, making Rhonda sole owner. A lawyer for Nelly contacted Amedeo by letter in January 2008, claiming that he owed Nelly a significant sum of money for missed spousal support payments over the years. Amedeo disputed the claim and shortly thereafter retired from the company, reducing his salary to $60,000 from $180,000. Rhonda, meanwhile, continued to work for the company at an annual salary of $140,000.

In the lawsuit that followed, a trial court ordered Amedeo to pay $1,500 per month in spousal support, as well as $15,000 for Nelly's attorney fees, but denied Nelly's request that he also be required to pay support arrears. In determining the monthly support sum, the court combined Amedeo and Rhonda's current salaries ($200,000) and divided the figure in half to calculate what it called Amedeo's annual income. The court explained that much of Rhonda's income was owed to Amedeo's efforts in starting and running the company. "[W]hile Rhonda has a significant management role in the company, and certainly performs more than just a clerical or administrative function,... it is inequitable and unreasonable to divide the collective income received by Amedeo and his wife in anything other than an equal manner," the trial court explained.

Continue reading "Spousal Support After Remarriage, Retirement - In re Marriage of Cesana" »

California Court Explains Retroactive Child Support Orders - In re Marriage of Barth

January 23, 2013, by

"If ever there was a case where the adage 'be careful what you wish for' applied, this is surely it," Judge P.J . Moore recently wrote, introducing the matter of In re Marriage of Barth. As Moore went on to explain, California law allows a court to order a parent to pay retroactive child support going back to an original petition for divorce, even if it was filed in the wrong state.

796465_sunset.jpgJeffrey Barth spent years trying to avoid the enforcement of an Ohio court's ruling granting wife Andrea Barth's petition for divorce, custody and child support, only to have a California court grant similar petitions and order a substantially larger child custody payment.

The couple were married in 1989 and had two children. Ms. Barth filed for divorce in October 2004 after her husband admitted to extramarital affairs, according to the court. Following protracted litigation on the matter, an Ohio court awarded the divorce, granted Ms. Barth custody of the children and ordered Mr. Barth to pay $1,600 per month in child support.

Mr. Barth ultimately had the order overturned after the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that the state courts did not have jurisdiction over the matter because Ms. Barth had not lived in Ohio long enough before filing suit. Prior to the divorce, she left the state with her kids to join Mr. Barth in California, but returned shortly thereafter upon learning of her husband's affair.

Litigation moved to California, where an Orange County court granted the divorce and ordered Mr. Barth to pay retroactive support of between $2,700 and $3,125 per month for 2004 to 2005, $7,645 per month for 2006 and between $1,000 and $3,050 per month for 2007.

Continue reading "California Court Explains Retroactive Child Support Orders - In re Marriage of Barth" »