In China, New York and elsewhere, there has been a substantial increase in filings and inquiries to attorneys from folks seeking divorce since the lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders. Being isolated in forced togetherness has a way of illuminating and amplifying marital discord. Another possible reason may be that declines in the stock market create a situation where wealthier spouses may consider this a better time to opt out while their net worth declines so as to avoid a larger settlement.

Currently, the courts in California are closed except for domestic violence filings so those who are ready to proceed have few options unless they opt for alternative process such as mediation. Working with a mediator, couples can manage the entire divorce process without ever having to step inside a court, and can typically resolve the issues far more quickly and at much less cost financially and emotionally.

Mother and Father had at least two kids before divorcing in 2011. A court awarded Father primary physical custody of the children and ordered that Wife get one weekend of visitation per month and some holidays. The court also ordered the parents to equally split reasonable and necessary health care costs.

Mother returned to court a year later, seeking child support, a custody modification, and broader visitation rights. Father resisted, arguing that Mother was understating her income in court filings by at least $1,000. As part of the discovery process, he asked Mother to turn over certain bank and employment statements. Father also sent subpoenas to two school districts where Mother had previously worked. Mother later told the trial court that she was refusing to provide the information because the requests were an invasion of privacy. Although Mother later dropped her requests for support and to modify custody, the trial judge ordered her to pay $2,000 in sanctions for refusing to comply with the discovery requests.

Affirming the decision on appeal, the Second District said there was plenty of support for the trial court’s finding that Mother’s refusal to engage in the discovery process frustrated the “policy of the law to promote settlement and reduce costs.” Although her gripe about documents dating back 17 years may have had merit, the Court said there was no reason for Mother to stonewall the process completely. “Absent unusual circumstances, the right to full and complete information outweighs privacy rights in financial documents, particularly when there are disputed questions involving financial condition and child support,” the Court explained.

As this case shows, divorce-related cases can raise a number of difficult legal issues. Fortunately, they can usually be resolved without the stress and animosity that often come with full-blown litigation in court. Mediation, collaborative divorce, and other alternatives give former spouses and parents an opportunity to reach solutions with efficiency and mutual respect.

With offices throughout the Bay Area, California divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes approaches a divorce case as a problem to be solved collaboratively, not a battle to be won. She handles each case personally, taking the time to understand each individual client’s needs and interests and explaining the various options for resolving these matters. Call us at (510) 795-6304 or contact us online to set up an appointment.

Related blog posts:

Child Support Obligations for “De Facto Parents” – In re Marriage of Abbate

California Court Says Child Entitled to Lawyer in Her Parents’ Custody Spat – In re Marriage of Metzger

Alameda County Divorce Court – Why Divorcing Couples Should Stay Out of Court

The case involved a husband and wife who separated in 2009 after 17 years of marriage. The couple’s divorce was finalized in the spring of 2010 and included a marital settlement agreement. Among other terms, the settlement agreement awarded to the wife the sum of $113,000 from the funds contained within a 401(k) retirement account.

Several years later, all of the money, including the wife’s $113,000, was still in the husband’s 401(k). The wife then went to court to ask that, in addition to the original $113,000, she receive whichever gains and losses had accumulated in the intervening time period. The husband opposed this request, arguing that the original order gave the wife no right to gains and losses, but only the exact lump sum stated. Giving gains to the wife would be an improper modification of the original order, he contended.

An example of a couple dealing with this issue was the recent case of Joseph and Cathye. Joseph was a 30-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department when his pension became effective in 2004. From 2004 forward, Joseph continued working for several years under a deferred retirement option plan. Eventually, in 2009, Joseph transferred all of his pension funds into an IRA. That sum was $700,000.

From 1984 to 2011, Joseph was married to Cathye. A key issue in the divorce was the division of Joseph’s pension funds. In this case, the wife’s portion was calculated using something called the time rule. The time rule meant that the court took the time that Joseph worked for the LAPD during his marriage and divided it by Joseph’s total time of service. The court then multiplied that fraction by the husband’s monthly pension amount. The amount yielded from that math equation was the community property portion of the pension, which meant that Cathye got one-half of that amount.

When Husband and Wife divorced in 2010, they agreed to share legal custody of their two children, with primary physical custody of the kids going to Wife. They also agreed to split their assets, including the net equity in the family home in Covina. The court entered a stipulated judgment covering the terms of the agreement. The judgment made clear that Wife would be able to stay in the home until the kids reached the age of 18 or otherwise were no longer living there. It also obligated the spouses to immediately sell the home and split the proceeds if Wife did anything to “transfer, encumber or convey their interest in the said real property” without an agreement with Husband or court approval. In the event that happened, the judgment also gave Wife the opportunity to buy Husband’s interest in the property.

Husband went back to court in 2014, asking a judge to force Wife to sell the property. He said he signed a quitclaim deed over to Wife after she said she wanted to buy him out, but he added that she never sent him the money and had stopped communicating with him altogether. Wife also refused several requests to have the property inspected and appraised to determine its value, according to Husband. Wife countered by alleging that Husband said shortly after he was injured in a car accident that he wanted to sign the property over to her in order to take care of the kids. He later told Wife – according to Wife – that he’d given her the property so that he could qualify financially for Medi-Cal benefits related to the accident. The judge eventually sided with Husband, ordering the spouses to sell the home and split the proceeds.

The Second District affirmed the decision on appeal. The Court noted that the trial judge’s move to hear testimony from the spouses without putting them under oath during a hearing on the matter was “irregular.” It further observed, however, that Wife never asked the judge to take testimony under oath and never sought to cross-examine Husband during the proceedings. The Court explained that it’s a “fundamental principle of appellate review that objections must be raised in the trial court to preserve questions for review.”

The Second District also said the trial judge didn’t abuse his discretion by refusing to consider as evidence a video taken by the former spouses’ son in which Husband allegedly explained that he was transferring the property as part of a Medi-Cal fraud scheme. The problem, the Court said, is that Wife never actually offered to introduce the video as evidence and never provided any way to authenticate it.

As a result, the Court affirmed the decision ordering the spouses to sell the home.

Divorcing spouses can often save a lot of time, money, and stress by taking advantage of litigation alternatives, such as collaborative divorce and mediation. With offices throughout the Bay Area, divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes provides innovative legal tools to resolve family law disputes without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process.

Related blog posts:

Why Divorcing Spouses Should Consider Avoiding the California Court System, an Example – In re Marriage of Ma

Why Must I File a Lawsuit to Obtain a Divorce in California

Bankruptcy, Divorce and Community Property – In re Marriage of Rynda

Husband and Wife were married for about 18 months before they divorced in the summer of 2004. The former spouses are both Serbian nationals, and they met at a state dinner in which Wife interviewed Husband for a story for the news service where she worked as a journalist. Husband was a successful engineer who held the patents for a number of services and products. The two began living together in Southern California in 2002 and married the following year.

The couple purchased a $2 million home together in Laguna Niguel just two weeks before they separated. A trial court found that the home was community property to be split evenly between the divorcing spouses. The court further concluded, however, that Husband was entitled to a credit for the $545,000 of his own separate money that he used for a down payment on the property. After allocating that amount to Husband, the court said the property was worth less than the outstanding balance on the home’s mortgage. As a result, the court awarded the property to Husband. It also declined Wife’s request to be compensated for Husband’s exclusive use of the home from the time the couple separated until they were actually divorced. It noted that Husband used his own money to cover all of the expenses related to the house.

Affirming the decision on appeal, the Fourth District said there was substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that Husband used his own separate money to pay for the home. “A spouse has a statutory right to reimbursement for contributions to the acquisition or improvement of a community property asset if the spouse traces the contributions to a separate property source,” the Court explained. “The reimbursement must be paid before the court divides any community property interest in the asset.” In this case, Husband showed that the money for the down payment on the house came from a separate retirement account that he cashed out, transferred to the couple’s joint checking account, and then put toward the house. As a result, the Court said he was entitled to be reimbursed for that payment.

Property division is just one of the complicated issues that often come up in California divorce cases. These issues – and much of the stress that often accompanies divorce cases – can be minimized through alternatives to litigation, such as collaborative divorce and mediation. With offices throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes provides innovative legal tools to resolve many family law disputes without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process.

Related blog posts:

Social Security and Retirement Benefits in California Divorce Cases – In re Marriage of Peterson

The Cost of Characterizing Assets in California Divorce Cases – In re Marriage of Ching

Big Question in California Divorce Cases: Who Gets the Dog?

Most sane folks would certainly agree with sociologist and sexologist Dr. Pepper Schwartz who says, “The whole thing has gotten way out of hand.” The whole thing being the never-ending list of high priced accouterments that now accompany a wedding.

Couples spend an average of $28,000 – $30,000 on the Big Day … but apparently, the more you spend, the shorter the marriage.

Wife went back to court in 2012 and asked a judge to set aside the judgment stating that she was under duress at the time that she agreed to the terms of the judgment. Wife also asserted that Husband failed to make certain legally required financial disclosures before the agreement was signed and the judgment was entered. The trial court held a hearing on the request and issued a decision denying the motion to set aside the previous judgment later the same day.

Affirming the decision on appeal, the Fourth District said Wife waited too long to ask the court to weigh in on the matter. State law requires a person appealing a decision in a divorce case to file the appeal within 60 days from being served with the judgment that the person wants the appeals court to consider. Although that deadline may be extended in cases involving post-trial motions, the Court said the “outside limit” of such an extension is 180 days. “If the appeal is untimely, this court has no jurisdiction to consider it, and it must be dismissed,” the Court said.

In this case, Wife filed her appeal some 10 months after the trial judge issued their ruling. As a result, the Court said the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.

If you’re considering a divorce in California or facing property division issues after a divorce, it is imperative that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced family law attorney. A seasoned attorney can help you weigh all of your options, including cost-effective alternatives to traditional litigation like mediation and collaborative divorce. With offices throughout the Bay Area, divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes provides innovative legal tools to resolve family law disputes without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process.

Related blog posts:

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

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

Bankruptcy, Divorce and Community Property – In re Marriage of Rynda

Husband appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court wrongly denied his motion for spousal support based on the domestic violence restraining order. The Second District disagreed. Instead, the Court said the trial judge’s decision was based on the finding that Husband could still support himself. The Court noted in particular that Husband was relatively young, had retired for reasons unrelated to his supposed disability, and could find other work without jeopardizing his pension. The Court also observed that Husband had been turned down for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, that he said he was actively looking for work, and that there was evidence showing that he was still physically capable of doing repairs on his home.

The Court further explained that Husband didn’t do much to help his own case. He did not, for instance, show that he had been repeatedly passed over for jobs, according to the Court. As a result, the Court said the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in declining to order Wife to pay Husband spousal support. “In short, the trial court—contrary to [Husband]’s core contention on appeal—denied the motion for spousal support for reasons unrelated to the restraining order and, in so doing, did not abuse its discretion,” the Court said.

Spousal support is a common issue in California divorce cases, but it isn’t nearly the only issue. The good news for people considering a divorce is that you can often avoid some of the pain and stress that often come with these situations by considering alternatives to traditional litigation, like mediation and collaborative divorce.

If you’re considering a divorce in California or facing spousal support issues after a divorce, it is imperative that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced family law attorney. With offices throughout the Bay Area, divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes provides innovative legal tools to resolve family law disputes without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process.

Related blog posts:

Why Divorcing Spouses Should Consider Avoiding the California Court System, an Example – In re Marriage of Ma

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

Why Must I File a Lawsuit to Obtain a Divorce in California

Husband’s relationship with his parents started to sour, however, after Daughter and he moved in with the grandparents. They said Father’s mood changed when he started taking certain medication. Father and Daughter eventually moved out of the house, supposedly after the grandparents asked him to leave. Father then told his parents that they would never see the child again. Their time with Daughter decreased over the following months, and the grandparents eventually asked a court to award them visitation time.

Both Father and Mother opposed the petition. Mother said that she wanted to respect Father’s wishes and that she was unhappy that the grandparents had eventually tried to see Daughter without her parents’ permission. The trial court nevertheless sided with the grandparents. It said the case was a “tragic” one, caused by Husband’s “bitterness at having been asked to depart the grandparents’ residence.”

Affirming the decision on appeal, the Third District explained that the California Family Code gives grandparents visitation rights in some circumstances. Section 3104 governs situations in which the parents are not married. It allows a court to order grandparent visitation if it finds that the grandparents have a pre-existing relationship with the child and that the visitation is in the child’s best interests. It also requires the court to balance those interests against the parents’ right to exercise parental authority.

The Court said the law “reflects a legitimate state interest in preserving an already existing grandparent-grandchild relationship that is threatened but in the best interest of the grandchild to safeguard.” That was exactly the case in this matter, according to the Court. “[T]he grandparent visitation order permissibly safeguards a strong bond between Riley and her paternal grandparents that [Husband] and [Wife] fostered over the years and Riley’s best interest in preserving her relationship with [the grandparents] after her parents’ relationship ended in divorce.”

Visitation is just one of the issues that can come up in California divorce and child custody cases. These issues typically boil down to the question of what’s in the child’s best interest. Fortunately, they can usually be resolved without the stress and animosity that often come with full-blown litigation in court. Mediation, collaborative divorce, and other alternatives give former spouses and parents an opportunity to reach solutions with efficiency and mutual respect.

With offices throughout the Bay Area, California divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes approaches a divorce case as a problem to be solved collaboratively, not a battle to be won. She handles each case personally, taking the time to understand each individual client’s needs and interests and explaining the various options for resolving these matters. Call us at (510) 795-6304 or contact us online to set up an appointment.

Related blog posts:

Child Support Obligations for “De Facto Parents” – In re Marriage of Abbate

California Court Says Child Entitled to Lawyer in Her Parents’ Custody Spat – In re Marriage of Metzger

Alameda County Divorce Court – Why Divorcing Couples Should Stay Out of Court