Recent Posts in Abuse of Trial Court Discretion Category
| August 16, 2011 |
| Marriage of MARGULIS - Fiduciary Duties of MANAGING SPOUSES |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
 |
Marriage of Margulis, Part 2 - Duties of Managing Spouses
Please see Part I of my evaluation of
IRMO Margulis as the launching point for understanding the appellate court's outline of interspousal fiduciary duties.
The Margulis rule states that once a nonmanaging spouse makes a prima facie showing concerning the existence and value of community assets in the control of the other spouse postseparation, the burden of proof shifts to the managing spouse to rebut the showing or prove the proper disposition or lesser value of these assets.
The rule is justified by examining the scope of fiduciary duties imposed by the California Family Code. Interestingly, the trial court had found that the Husband (Alan) had breached his fiduciary duties to Wife (Elaine) "to maintain proper records of all community assets which he had exclusive control and management over...." Yet, other than imposing $20,000 in sanctions and assessing $30,000 in attorney fees against Alan, the trial court did not believe Elaine had produced sufficient evidence to explain what had really happened to the deposit accounts that were at issue beyond Exhibit 18, 'the smoking gun'. $50,000 in sanctions was a cheap price to pay relative to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was reversed for applying too narrow a breach of fiduciary duty and applying the wrong remedy.
Since Margulis contains a great explanation of how statutory fiduciary duties operate I quote the decision as follows:
"Family Code provisions detailing the fiduciary obligations between spouses provide strong support for shifting the burden of proof to the managing spouse when determining the value and disposition of missing assets. The starting point is section 721, which provides that accountability for the management of community assets is a fundamental aspect of the fiduciary duties owed between spouses.
Section 721, subdivision (b), states, in relevant part: between themselves, a husband and wife are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other. This confidential relationship imposes a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing on each spouse, and neither shall take any unfair advantage of the other. This confidential relationship is a fiduciary relationship subject to the same rights and duties of nonmarital business partners, as provided in Sections 16403, 16404, and 16503 of the Corporations Code, including, but not limited to, the following: ¶(1) Providing each spouse access at all times to any books kept regarding a transaction for the purposes of inspection and copying. ¶(2) Rendering upon request, true and full information of all things affecting any transaction which concerns the community property. Nothing in this section is intended to impose a duty for either spouse to keep detailed books and records of community property transactions. ¶(3) Accounting to the spouse, and holding as a trustee, any benefit or profit derived from any transaction by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse which concerns the community property.
Section 721's specific incorporation of the same rights and duties of nonmarital business partners, as provided in• section 16403 of the Corporations Code, makes clear that the duty to disclose relevant information concerning transactions affecting the community property is an affirmative and broad obligation. Corporations Code section 16403 requires each partner to furnish to a partner ... [¶] (1) Without demand, any information concerning the partnership's business and affairs reasonably required for the proper exercise of the partner's rights and duties under the partnership agreement or this chapter.... (Corp. Code, § 16403, subd. (c), italics added.)
Section 1100 further delineates the scope of a managing spouse's accountability. That statute not only prohibits a spouse from engaging in certain conduct, such as making a unilateral gift of community personal property or disposing of it for less than fair and reasonable value, without the written consent of the other spouse (§ 1100, subd. (b)), but it also requires each spouse to act as a fiduciary toward the other in the management of community assets in accordance with the general rules governing fiduciary relationships ... as specified in Section 721, until such time as the assets and liabilities have been divided by the parties or by a court. This duty includes the obligation to make full disclosure to the other spouse of all material facts and information regarding the existence, characterization, and valuation of all assets in which the community has or may have an interest.... (§ 1100, subd. (e).)
Importantly, section 1101 creates a right of action and specific remedies for the breach of fiduciary duty between spouses. Subdivision (a) of section 1101 gives each spouse a claim against the other spouse for any breach of the fiduciary duty that results in impairment to the claimant spouse's present undivided one-half interest in the community estate.... The statutory remedies for a breach of fiduciary duty, specifically including a breach of those [duties] set out in Sections 721 and 1100, include a mandatory award of 50 percent of any asset undisclosed or transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty plus attorney's fees and court costs.... (§ 1101, subd. (g).)
If the nondisclosure or wrongful disposition of community property falls within the ambit of Civil Code section 3294 (punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice), the court must award to injured spouse the entire value of
the asset (§ 1101, subd. (h)).
Finally, section 2100 makes clear that these fiduciary obligations of disclosure and accounting continue to bind spouses after separation until final distribution of assets. Section 2100 states: [A] full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities in which one or both parties have or may have an interest must be made in the early stages of a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties.... Moreover, each party has a continuing duty to immediately, fully, and accurately update and augment that disclosure to the extent there have been any material changes so that at the time the parties enter into an agreement for the resolution of any of these issues, or at the time of trial on these issues, each party will have a full and complete knowledge of the relevant underlying facts. (§ 2100, subd. (c), italics added; see also § 2102, subd. (a)(1) [from date of separation to date community assets are distributed, spouses are subject to § 721's fiduciary duty to disclose assets and update material changes].)
Taken together, these statutes impose on a managing spouse affirmative, wide-ranging duties to disclose and account for the existence, valuation, and disposition of all community assets from the date of separation through final property division. Simply put, these statutes require the spouse to account for his or her management of the property. The managing spouse must reveal if the community property changes value, ceases to exist, or is transferred for less than its worth, thereby depriving the nonmanaging spouse of his or her half-interest. Because of the fiduciary relationship between spouses, the managing spouse must reveal any self-dealing or other conduct that impaired the value of the property and entitles the other spouse to compensation.
Applying these statutes to the facts of this case, a trial court could conclude Alan breached his fiduciary duties of disclosure and accounting. A court could find he breached his duty to provide full and accurate disclosure of all community assets when in pretrial exchanges he failed to inform Elaine that $20,000 was in the Charles Schwab IRA's, asserting that the only existing community property was the Sycamore house. A trial court similarly could find Alan breached his duty to disclose immediately and fully any material changes in the community property (§ 2100, subd. (c)), by failing to tell Elaine until just before trial that all the community investment and checking accounts he had managed were virtually empty. Additionally, by refusing to provide Elaine with any documentary or other corroborating proof of what actually happened to the money that had once been in those accounts, Alan may have breached his duty to furnish to Elaine any information concerning the [community's] business and affairs reasonably required for the proper exercise of [her] rights (Corp. Code, § 16403, subd. (c)(1); § 721, subd. (b)), which included her right to pursue a claim against Alan for impairment to [her] ... one-half interest in the community estate (§ 1101, subds. (a), (g) & (h)).
The trial court, however, found a single, narrow breach of duty by Alan: a breach of the duty to keep and provide adequate records. In so ruling, the trial court impliedly found Alan did not owe broader fiduciary duties of disclosure and accounting. The trial court's erroneous finding on the scope of Alan's duties led it to apply the wrong remedy. Instead of awarding Elaine at least 50 percent of the value of undisclosed or wrongfully transferred assets (§ 1101, subds. (g) [50 percent], (h) [100 percent upon proof of oppression, fraud or malice]), the trial court ordered Alan to pay Elaine $20,000 as sanctions, plus attorney fees.
The trial court's failure to find Alan breached his broader fiduciary duties of disclosure and accounting stemmed from the court's denial of Elaine's request to charge Alan with the exhibit 18 asset values unless he disproved those values or proved he properly disposed of those assets. Although the trial court found that Elaine had satisfied the requisite foundation to admit the exhibit, it accorded the document little or no weight because Elaine had not prepared it and had no evidence to support it. Consequently, according to the trial court, Elaine failed to carry her burden of proving the accounts itemized in exhibit 18 ever had the values listed in that document, and Alan could not be charged with wrongfully disposing of assets he never possessed. But, as discussed above, the trial court misapplied the burden of proof.
Elaine's introduction of exhibit 18, which Alan conceded he prepared, satisfied her initial burden. The statutory fiduciary duties of disclosure and accounting then effectively shifted the burden to Alan to rebut the presumption he should be charged with the assets listed on exhibit 18, a document that was prima facie evidence of the account values it stated."
Based upon the foregoing the case was reversed and remanded to the trial court. The sanctions award of $20,000 plus $30,000 was also reversed "so that the court may revisit the question of the appropriate remedy should the evidence establish Alan's breach of fiduciary duty" - in other words, the appellate court is directing the trial court to hit Alan harder than was amounted to a slap on the wrist. As Justice Aronson wryly directs:
"Alan's cross-appeal merits little discussion. His challenge to the trial court's finding that he breached his fiduciary duties to Elaine is meritless. Likewise, his additional challenges to the award against him for sanctions and attorney fees fails, given the clear statutory authorization for both awards in light of Alan's breach of duty.... Nevertheless, we reverse the attorney fees and sanctions award so the court may revisit the question of the appropriate remedy should the evidence established Alan's breach of duty." Elaine is to be awarded her attorney fees and costs for this appeal.
Margulis also contains an excellent discussion regarding Epstein credits, debt payment in lieu of support, and tracing issues. I will endeavor to blog that portion of the decision in Part III.
Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S. |
|
| Continue reading "Marriage of MARGULIS - Fiduciary Duties of MANAGING SPOUSES" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0)  |
| |
| August 15, 2011 |
| IRMO MARGULIS - Managing Spouse Has BURDEN OF PROOF To Explain MISSING ASSETS |
| Posted By Thurman W. Arnold, C.F.L.S. |
|
Marriage of Margulis (8/11/2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 277
Part One
I am always pleased to report cutting edge rulings by our appellate courts, and this is one of the most important decisions in recent years affecting who has the burden of proof to explain what happens to assets that disappear after marriage partners separate, and what the consequences are for managing "in-spouses" who cannot explain what happened to liquid (or other assets) that existed at separation but seem to have evaporated in the meantime. While upon reflection it is hard to imagine how this decision could be news because it makes such perfect sense, the Fourth Appellate District's pronouncements (by the Honorable J. Aronson) are indeed a new extension of existing law - which is why the trial court in this case was reversed.
Special kudos to Attorneys Stephen Temko and Dawn Gray on behalf of the Association of Certified Law Specialists (an organization serving the public interest that I am proud to be a member of) for weighing in with amicus curiae briefs that probably helped to inform the appellate justices in positive ways.
Because this case is important I am going to help it be digested in two gulps - this is Part I.
The root holding of IRMO Margulis is this: Once a nonmanaging spouse makes a prima facie showing concerning the existence and value of community assets in the control of the other spouse postseparation, the burden of proof shifts to the managing spouse to rebut the showing or prove the proper disposition or lesser value of these assets. It is now clear that managing spouses have the burden of proof to account for missing assets that they controlled.
Family Code section 1100 states that "either spouse has the [right of] management and control of the community personal property, ..., as the spouse has of the separate estate of the spouse."
But when parties separate the more empowered partner often grabs or already manages all the marbles, and then enjoys the advantage of continuing to carry those marbles around and even spending them down until the community property pot is ultimately divided. Without accountability this frequently led to abuses and misappropriations that - in the absence of this new rule - favored that party and facilitates their practical ability to defraud the community property estate, notwithstanding a legal duty per Family Code section 721(b) to account for what went where. Until now. The
Margulis rule is necessary to protect the rights of an "out-spouse" as a matter of basic fiduciary protections.
The facts of the case as set forth in the appellate decision are these (and are reminiscent of the facts of the Davenport decision): Alan and Elaine separated after 33 years of marriage in August, 1996. Alan moved out of the parties' Irvine home and moved to Chicago to start a new job. Elaine remained in the family residence. They owned a home in Palm Desert, California.The marriage yielded two children who are now adults.
During the marriage Alan was the sole working spouse and exercised "complete control" of the couple's finances - sound familiar? This included retirement, bank, and investment account personal property assets. Although Alan moved out in 1996, Elaine did not file for divorce for another six years - in 2002. Five more years passed before Alan even filed a response in those proceedings. Throughout this period Alan paid Elaine just enough, evidently, for her to be satisfied with the financial status quo so that she undertook no steps to move the divorce towards a conclusion. I can only speculate what psychological and emotional dynamics were at play in these people's lives, but infer that Elaine trusted Alan enough that she did not perceive that she needed to take vigorous steps to protect herself. Which gave him free reign for a long, long time.
Once the case did begin to move forward, as often happens when there is a significant power imbalance in relationship, it began to move quickly and that pace certainly further advantaged the husband. Commonly it is the in-spouse who is rushing the case to trial while the out-spouse plays catch-up and the parties, or the in-spouse, play discovery games and hide and seek with assets, disclosures, and backup. Bank accounts are easily susceptible to this type of abuse because they are document intensive, and expensive to evaluate. In and out transactions (deposits in, transfers out) must each be traced in order for forensic experts and the court to know how to characterize and characterize transactions and the flow of cash. Here Alan filed his Response to Elaine's 2002 Petition on February 21, 2007, and the parties found themselves in a pre-trial Mandatory Settlement Conference only six months later. This means that Elaine's team had very little time to prepare since Alan knew where the marbles were but elected not to share their identity and location.
There was a single "smoking gun" in the case which consisted of what became at trial "Exhibit 18." This was a two-page document that was entitled "confidential personal financial statement" for "Alan/Elaine Margulis," dated February 1, 1999. It reflected total assets of $1,305,500. The liquid (i.e., cash) portion amounted to more than half of that number.
At trial Elaine testified that, as the nonmanaging spouse, she had no personal knowledge or records of the value of the accounts at any time. This was the sole extent of her evidence at trial about the status of the assets near the date of separation, and essentially Alan's attorneys argued that this proved nothing. Elaine's attorney responded insightfully that the effect of this document was to shift the burden of proof to Alan to explain and show that he had properly disposed of those assets, or that the stock holdings lost their value as a result of market conditions - as opposed to them having been withdrawn or mismanaged by him or for his sole benefit. But the trial judge disagreed, which set up this reversal in favor of Elaine.
The trial court explained "I don't believe it supports, standing alone [that] your assets listed did, in fact, exist." Wife had no other evidence to prove that they did - hence, without the rule established by Justice Aronson in this case, she would be out of luck. Her proof would have failed on the contested issues, and it did fail at the trial court level. Before this decision the trial court's perspective was a bit shallow but not surprising. It takes bold judges with considerable family law experience to read the sub-text.
Who has the burden of proof on a topic is often key to which party wins or loses on a given issue. This is why Marulis is important to control of asset cases.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
There are two common principles linked to the concept of the "burden of proof." One is the burden of persuasion and the other is the burden of producing evidence. Often if a party cannot produce evidence on a subject that the law imposes a burden upon them to produce in order to prevail, they lose. Irmo Margulis has implications beyond family law.
The Margulis decision observes: "the trial court concluded that Elaine, the nonmanaging spouse who lacked both personal knowledge and records concerning the assets listed on exhibit 18, failed to meet the difficult burden of proving these now missing assets had existed....
The trial court's failure to place the burden of the duty on Alan relieved him of the duty to account for his postseparation management of these assets. Thus, Alan did not have to prove the
amounts
that had been in these accounts or that he had properly disposed of those sums. This lack of accountability poses a risk of abuse and runs afoul of the statutory scheme imposing broad fiduciary duties of disclosure and accounting on a managing spouse." [Emphasis added].
It continued: "Given that 'bedrock concerns' of 'policy and fairness' drive the analysis [citation omitted]
, it is not surprising that a common trigger for burden-shifting is 'when the parties have unequal access to evidence necessary to prove a disputed issue. 'Where the evidence necessary to establish a fact essential to a claim lies peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of one of the parties, that party has the burden of going forward with the evidence on the issue although it is not the party asserting the claim.'....
Concerns over 'unequal access to evidence' [citations omitted]
are particularly pressing in the context of a marital dissolution where financial records can be crucial to ensuring the equal division of property required by Family Code section 2550.... Undoubtedly, in marriages and separations like the Margulis's where one spouse exercised exclusive control over community property, the parties will have vastly
unequal
access to evidence concerning the disposition of that property. When this occurs, fairness requires shifting to the managing spouse the burden of proof on missing assets. Moreover, ..., the statutory fiduciary duties of disclosure and accounting owed between spouses further justify that result."
The Appellate Court goes on to explain why this result is fair in light of the fiduciary obligations between spouses that I have written about so much over the past few years. I will separately blog that portion of the decision.
But as I have been trumpeting now for many months, the appellate courts are working overtime to save the existing California scheme of family law to ensure transparency - it is my opinion long overdue but much appreciated!
For those in-spouses who do act in good faith after separation and the pendency of the marital proceedings, Margulis is a cautionary tale - managing spouses had better keep records of transactions affecting the community property estate and make all required disclosures or find themselves assuming the risk of loss or diminution of the value of those assets.
Please note that the appellate Court's initial decision of August 11, 2011, was modified on August 26 and September 9, 2011. The citation to the modified opinion is Marriage of Prentis-Margulis v. Margulis (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1252. I have yet compare the differences in the two decisions.
|
|
| Continue reading "IRMO MARGULIS - Managing Spouse Has BURDEN OF PROOF To Explain MISSING ASSETS" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| May 03, 2011 |
| San Diego Trial Court REVERSED (Again) in MOVE-AWAY Case |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, C.F.L.S. |
|
Parental Relocations and Move-Away
In response to a recent article I posted about the case of F.T. vs. L.J., the mother of the Mother in
Mark T. vs. Jaime Z. submitted a comment about a new reversal of a case involving Judge Lisa C. Schall, in San Diego, on this Blog - for which I thanked her. I am grateful that family law litigants in these published appeals are increasingly airing their side of the experience here, and I invite you to as well!
The decision in her daughter's case was published on Friday, last week, so I now understand what the maternal grandmother, "Shelly," was referencing.
My sense is that appellate courts are expecting more out of trial judges, like never before, and lawyers too, to be sure, and therapists and court services personnel and litigants themselves! An interesting footnote is that the father's attorneys in this case were certified family law specialists, and (presumably) local San Diego heavyweights, and the mother represented herself and yet succeeded "against all odds." Is this an Elkins Aftermath, leveling the playing field for unrepresented parties against experienced adversaries?
Mark T. and Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115
In
Mark T. v. Jamie Z.
certified for publication on April 28, 2011 by the Fourth Appellate District, a San Diego trial court was again reversed in a move-away case where she effectively refused to permit a custodial parent to move out of state without addressing what custody orders should issue if the parent did move. In F.T. vs. L.J. it was the Father who wanted to relocate - here it was the Mother but in both cases it was the same judicial officer.
Judge Lisa C. Schall doesn't like move-aways, it appears. These applications challenge the non-moving parent and can negatively impact a child's access to that parent, and disrupt parent-child bonding, if a holistic parenting plan under the move-away regime is not developed.
Judge Schall bears the indignity of being reversed twice now in less than 30 days in a reported appellate decision - quite a scolding. Family law is damned tough for judicial officers, who are doing their best to protect children and weigh in consistently with the cutting edge policies of current mental health science as well as their in-house (FCS) advisors. The problem at present is that the opinions of MHP's (mental health providers), and the wisdom of the reviewing courts, are in conflict. The science of move-away as it affects families from the MHP perspective is still developing, and it collides with certain cherished assumptions the law makes about the rights of Americans, and specifically parents in California under our current statutory scheme (
see Family Code section 7501 and the
Burgess case) to move freely.
In both cases Judge Schall accepted (mostly) the independent opinions of outside, court-appointed, mental health forensics and ignored the opinions of the Family Court Services mediator - here the very same Lynne Waldman who made recommendations in the F.T. case. FCS mediator Waldman's belief was that Jamie's move away request should be granted, noting that Jamie had been L.'s primary caretaker since his birth, that Jamie had been unable to find a job in San Diego and was "living in poverty," and that Jamie appeared "to have a clear plan for the move."
Judge Schall now has two strikes against her for using judicial body language to create a result that she felt was fair and appropriate, and her findings on the record illustrate her dilemma. I'm reminded of my early youth playing pool (not so much) and hoping if I twisted my body hard enough, the ball would fall in the pocket. Most of us are doing the best we can. Trial judges, however, have a script they must follow.
In effect, Judge Schall's mistake was to refuse to permit a move-away by a Mom with a 22 month old child who had indeed been the child's "primary caretaker since birth." By effectively coercing Mom not to move by denying her move-away request, and by ignoring the question of "in whose custody" the child's best interests were served" or what arrangement should be imposed were Mom to move, Judge Schall committed reversible error. The justices ruled:
"The court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests,
assuming that the requesting parent will relocate
." Therapist Dr. Lori Love (we can't invent this name stuff) was appointed to evaluate the family for the Court and opined that "[t]his examiner understands the importance of having extended family around for support however this cannot be justified as being in [L.'s] best interest[s] when it means removing him from a loving and capable father. Jamie stated that she did not have an active father in her life and very much wants that to happen for [L.] It would be virtually impossible for Mark to be an active father from across the country." Dr. Love urged the child was too young for the move and went on to recommend that Mom not "be permitted to move out of the County of San Diego. At the same time, this forensic therapist was unwilling to recommend a primary change in custody and assumed that the mother would in fact remain the primary caretaker in San Diego county. She made no recommendations about what custodial arrangement should become effective when or if the Mother moved.
The appellate justices ruled: "Where, as here, a parent who shares joint custody of a minor makes a request to relocate the child in the context of an initial custody determination, the trial court must decide de novo what physical custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests. In making its custody determination,
the court must proceed on the assumption that the parent who is making the request will relocate his or her own residence,
regardless of whether the court grants or denies the request. In this case, the court erroneously failed to conduct its best interests analysis based on the presumption that Jamie would be relocating to Minnesota."
The trial court adopted the recommendations of Dr. Love, even though Dr. Love failed to address what should happen if and when Jamie relocates out of state. "The very issue that Dr. Love was supposed to address is what parenting plan would be in L.'s best interests,
given that Jamie intended to move to Minnesota
....
The court misapplied the law in adopting Dr. Love's recommendations, because in making those recommendations, Dr. Love incorrectly assumed that preserving the status quo parenting arrangement was an option, even in the face of Jamie's expressed intent to move...."
At trial the Father's attorney asked Mother whether she would move if the court were to deny her request to relocate, and Mom's response showed she was tortured by the question. The appellate court ruled that this question by counsel was improper - courts cannot consider whether the primary parent might alter their plan of relocate depending upon how the court rules. As a trial lawyer this is interesting to me, because this question is often used to telegraph a message to the Court that implies it can deny the move because the moving parent evidently doesn't want to move 'badly enough.'
Apparently the trial court suspected Mother's motives for moving might include frustrating Father's access, but the court did not actually make such findings. "The court's comments regarding Jamie's reasons for moving to Minnesota appear to constitute second-guessing as to the wisdom of Jamie's decision to move (i.e., questioning the "necessity" of the relocation), as opposed to a finding that her decision to move was made 'simply to frustrate the noncustodial parent's contact with the minor child.'" There is no requirement that a parent who has the right to custody of a child establish the necessity of a proposed move. "[E]ven where the court finds that a move away request is being made in bad faith, the court must view this finding as only one potential factor in deciding whether to allow the child's residence to be moved; it does not permit the court to deny the move away request on the presumption that in denying the request, the court can assure that the requesting parent will not in fact move, and that the court can thereby maintain the status quo parenting arrangement. That one parent may have been motivated, in part, to relocate the child's residence by a desire to lessen the child's contact with the other parent does not mean that the court should apply any standard other than what would be in the best interests of the child."
The Bottom Line
If a parent with the right of custody seeks to relocate with a child and there is no final custody decree then in existence, the trial court must determine what the new custodial arrangement should be based upon the child's best interests under these new circumstances. The court cannot substitute its wisdom for that of the moving parent, or refuse a move simply because it disagrees with the parent's reasoning for leaving. Even if it finds the moving parent is moving to frustrate visitation with the other parent, that is but one factor among several affecting the child's best interest and it is not itself sufficient, without more, to change custody.
Judges cannot refuse to permit the child to move in the hopes of coercing the parent into staying locally instead. It is improper for judges and lawyers to ask moving parents whether they would still move if they lost custody, or to even consider this question. This means that it is similarly improper for outside evaluators to ask or consider the question either, or to report any such answer (or an opinion about what the answer might be) to the Court.
Most important, recommending therapists and family court services personnel must evaluate and render an opinion about what is in the child's best interest, and specifically what a parenting plan should look like, by taking it as granted that the parent who wants to move really will move. Otherwise, they've wasted everybody's time and money no matter how good their intentions or how firmly they feel about the current mental health literature, or their own clinical experience, concerning the negative effects of move-away.
The issue to be decided in move-aways is not whether a parent can move, but what the custody and visitation arrangement should be assuming the move will occur, once they announce that they intend to relocate.
There is something implicit here that suggests that once everybody agrees that the moving parent is the better prime time parent, the move must be approved (again, the real question is "who should have custody" not whether the move is to be "allowed") and the inquiry then shifts to what the remaining parent's visitation shall be.
Thurman W. Arnold, C.F.L.S.
|
|
| Continue reading "San Diego Trial Court REVERSED (Again) in MOVE-AWAY Case" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| May 02, 2011 |
| I Have DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Restraining Orders Against My Child's Mother: The Family Court Services Mediator Recommended a Week Off/Week On VISITATION Schedule. Is This Right? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
|
Q. I obtained DV orders against my child's mother because of her abusive behavior. Since custody was an issue too, the judge ordered us to mediate with Family Court Services. The FCS mediator has recommended week off, week on visitation to her of our 9 year old, but sole legal custody and sole physical custody to me. We have a hearing next week. I am having a hard time understanding how this much visitation time (50%) makes sense. Any thoughts?
Jorge
Jorge:
I think that the family court services mediator doesn't understand the law, but on a level I understand why he/she wants to encourage frequent contact with the child's mom. In this case it appears that by giving you sole legal and sole physical custody titles, that they can recommend any timeshare in terms of visitation that feels appropriate. They can't. The recommendation that you mention is clearly an attempt to end-run the limitations imposed by Family Code section 3044.
Family Code section 3044 creates a rebuttable presumption against joint legal and joint physical custody where there is independent evidence of domestic violence (as in
permanent restraining orders for up to five years, as opposed to temporary orders obtained
ex parte that are not upheld at the DV hearing). In order for a judge to issue orders for joint physical custody, they must find that the other side has rebutted this presumption. Failure to do so is reversible error. Check FC section 3044(b)(1) - (7) which lists some of the possible evidence that a court might properly consider in finding that the presumption against sole legal and physical custody has been rebutted.
Family Code section 3004 defines joint physical custody as follows:
"Joint physical custody" means that each of the parents shall have significant periods of physical custody...."
A 50-50 timeshare is de facto joint physical custody, no matter how the mediator or the court labels it. In my opinion courts are not free call something sole physical custody and then grant such a significant timeshare to the mother in your case without making the required 3044 findings.
Make this point to the judge at your upcoming hearing. Make sure he or she states their findings regarding the rebuttal factors on the record, and if any of the subparts to subsection (b) apply in your favor, point this out. For instance, has Mom completed a batterer's treatment program? [3044(b)(2)]. Has she complied with the court's orders [3044(b)(6)], meaning she has not re-violated the restraining orders? Has there been any further acts of domestic violence [3044(b)(7)]?
Moreover, subsection (e) states: "
When a court makes a finding that a party has perpetrated domestic violence, the court may not base its findings solely on conclusions reached by a child custody evaluator or on the recommendation of the Family Court Services staff, but shall consider any relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties." Hence, more is needed that a family court services' recommend to overcome the presumption.
Judges sometimes feel - in marginal DV cases in particular - that FC section 3044(1)'s reference to "frequent and continuing contact with both parents" is more important than the DV history and the risks that such orders imply. Mediators sometimes feel badly that 3044 is too strict. Some think that the label is what matters, but many cases (especially in the move-away arena) establish that such labels (i.e., joint custody or sole custody) do not control. We look instead to the actual timeshare.
The law is clear that documented histories of domestic violence cannot be ignored where children are concerned. On the other hand, if the Court makes findings that are substantially supported by the record in your case in Mom's, this is likely within its "sound discretion" to find that the 3044 presumption has been rebutted if there is any evidence to support the trial court decision.
BTW, I recommend you always argue the alternative that best supports your children together with your (and their) personal safety. In other words, just because you can cut off the other parent, don't do it unless it serves your children's interests.
Good luck!
Thurman Arnold, C.F.L.S.
|
|
| Continue reading "I Have DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Restraining Orders Against My Child's Mother: The Family Court Services Mediator Recommended a Week Off/Week On VISITATION Schedule. Is This Right?" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| April 11, 2011 |
| San Diego Trial Court REVERSED for Failing to Exercise An "INFORMED DISCRETION" in Refusing to Permit Sole Legal Custody Father Who Had PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY to MOVE OUT OF STATE |
| Posted By Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S. |
|
F.T. vs. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1
On April 6, 2011, the California Fourth Appellate District, Division One, in a strongly (and painfully) worded opinion reversed a San Diego trial judge's refusal to permit a father to relocate with the parties' four-year old son to the State of Washington to join his new wife and her family. While recognizing that the standard of appellate review of trial court custody and visitation orders is the "deferential abuse of discretion test," the appellate justices found that Superior Court Judge Lisa C. Schall's decision was influenced by her misunderstanding of the law applicable to several subjects, including move-away, and accordingly that "a discretionary order based on the application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is
not an exercised of
informed discretion and is subject to reversal even though there may be substantial evidence to [otherwise] support that order." Traditionally most judges have lived and ruled under the assumption that if it a decision is "discretionary" their orders are impervious to reversal unless they almost shock the conscience of the reviewing court. This is a big flag waving otherwise.
Following on the heels ofIrmo ["In Re the Marriage of"] Duris & Urbany,
Irmo Tharp, and
Irmo Fong all within the past six months, it is clear that a movement is afoot among the State's appellate courts to force family court trial judges to expand their knowledge of family law beyond 'seat of the pants' decisions. However, for the lawyers, therapists, psychologists, and family court services folks who may read this Blog - beware: What is being demanded from all of the [us] professionals is an entirely new level of knowledge and expertise that is long overdue. In my opinion the appellate judges are undertaking an admirable effort to triage and correct the very mistakes that historically made family law - the one area that most law-abiding citizens ever personally experience within our government sponsored legal system - the under-appreciated step-child of the courts. Such a transformation is vitally important to the rule of law, due process, the public's perception of government and fairness, and the functioning of our ever-increasingly complicated society and personal relationships.
It is time that judges, lawyers like me, mental health professionals, and everybody else involved in the family law justice system increase our commitment and expertise to serving the people - possibly such as yourself - who are and will remain not only our reason for being, but the source of our livelihoods.
F.T. v. L.J. is an important opinion for move-away applicants and their attorneys not just because it clarifies existing law and provides guidance on a host of issues commonly encountered in litigation over these arguably unfortunate situations, but it is going to be widely talked about by the mental health community and will influence how
Evidence Code 730 and
Family Code section 3111evaluators report to the courts because of this appellate court's attention to the details for what various FCS ("family court service" employees) and MHP's ("mental health professionals") opined. It appears that some of them, including the court mediators, took their eye off the ball as established by earlier legal precedent on this topic and the information presented to them.
The parties in this case dated for five or six months and this brief time together produced a bouncing baby boy in January, 2006. For the first thirteen months of his life, the child lived with Mom. On February 17, 2007, however, Mother burned her baby's arm with a hot curling iron "apparently to each him a lesson by showing him how hot it was." Father picked the boy up that evening, saw the injury, and took him to the hospital. Hospital staff called CPS and the police. Criminal charges were filed against the mother.
The child was placed with Dad and Mother's visitations were ordered supervised. Two weeks later he filed a petition to establish paternity and an OSC requesting orders for sole legal and physical custody. The parties were directed to attend custody mediation through Family Court Services but were unable to reach agreement, and so the mediator recommended that the child's primary residence be with Father and that Mother have supervised visits. In April, 2007, the parents stipulated to the recommended order "without prejudice to either party."
Five months later Father filed an OSC request seeking an order allowing him to move with the child to Texas. The parties were ordered back into mediation. At that time following a custody review hearing, the trial court removed the supervision requirement for Mom's visitation. Once again (surprise!) the parties could not agree in mediation, and the mediator recommended that Father have primary physical custody and that he be allowed to move, noting that in November, 2007, Mother had pleaded guilty to one count of simple battery on the child and was given four years' probation, and that she had an eleven year old child from a previous relationship who lived with the paternal grandparents.
For unknown reasons Father's request went off calendar at the time of the scheduled December, 2007, move-away hearing. In February, 2008, he refiled his application and psychologist Yanon Volcani, Ph.D., was appointed to conduct a psych evaluation of the parents and child. He issued a report in September, 2008.
Volcani recommended against the Father's proposed move to Texas, believing that it would interfere with this 2 1/2 year old's bonding with Mother because of the distance (based upon current best mental health opinions on the developmental stages of children). Volcani concluded that telephone, webcam, and other means of contact would not be well suited for a child this age, and had concerns whether Father would "enthusiastically" support the child's relationship with his mother. He also felt that mother had learned from her experience of burning the child, and while her action was 'rash, impulsive, and insensitive' the data did not suggest a "broader abusive intent." He recommended that Mother's timeshare be incrementally expanded.
On September 18, 2008, the trial court adopted Volcani's proposed parenting plan as a temporary order pending an evidentiary hearing, without prejudice, based upon findings that this was in the best interests of the minor. The matter was then lost in the limbo of hearing continuances and further court services mediations ultimately until March 5, 2010.
By now Father was requesting permission to move to Washington instead of Texas, and was intending on marrying a woman living there. Mother had married. Lynn Waldman, a Family Court services counselor, reported to the Court that she had learned that the minor child in 2009 began exhibiting rage, temper tantrums, and other behavioral issues at school and that this three year old was seeing a counselor who couldn't explain "where [Child's] anger is coming from. She interviewed Dr. Volcani but developed incorrect impressions about whether he'd last met with the parents over the two ensuing years after his initial report, and other misconceptions. She recommended against the move to Washington, but stated that Father should remain in his role as the primary caregiver.
In February, 2010, Volcani issued a report supplementing his opinions from September, 2008. Father by then had married his fiance, who herself had two teenagers. Volcani had re-interviewed the parents, the new spouses, and the minor's preschool teacher and therapist. He noted that since the initial evaluation that the parents had been co-parenting in a "relatively cooperative and stable manner." The minor was continuing to have rage issues (e.g., throwing a chair and punching another student) but these were improving. Still, because of the child's age it was difficult to know what was causing it.
On March 5, 2010, the trial court held a hearing but did not permit live testimony and denied the Father's request to move. The court made a number of findings which were not supported by the record. Chief among them was the conclusion that the parents "are not communicating" - when in fact Dr. Volcani actually stated otherwise and that their communications had vastly improved over the two years that had passed. Moreover, without any rational MHP support, the trial court concluded that the evidence proved the child's rage, speaking out in his sleep, and bed wetting all had to do with the parents' lack of a meaningful dialog. The court stated it "feels that the anger is coming from the tension between the two parties."
Maybe, but the court didn't pull this conclusion from any evidence before it in terms of an expert assessment and conclusion that this was the case (the child's own therapist couldn't explain the child's behaviors). Some conclusions apparently exceed what common sense would otherwise suggest.
By the way, what is a three year old doing with a therapist?
Anyway, the Court adopted Volcani's conclusion that the child's healthy development was being impeded, although on different grounds than Volcani had expressed. The court concluded "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...."
Huh?
Moreover, the Court implied that if Father decided to move anyway that the Court would take custody away from dad and give it to mother, a really bad idea under existing caselaw because of its coercive overtones.
Enter the Established Law of Move-Away
This is what makes this case important - a judge that was justifiably bothered by the impact that the relocation would have on the relationship between a parent (mother) and child understandably struggled not to permit the move. But she was wrong and the appellate court scolds her harshly for it. Her decision was not an exercise of informed discretion.
At the same time, some of the Father's arguments were off-track as well. For instance, he argued that he had a presumptive right to move under authority of Family Code section 7501 which states: "
A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." The Fourth Appellate District ruled that 7501 only applies to "final" custody determinations, and not those that are "temporary," following the case of Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249. Here the parties had lived under a "stipulation" for two years, but had never reduced it to a final agreement and no court had ever ruled as to any contested matter within the context of an evidentiary hearing. This is a rule that most family law attorneys already know well (which is why the smart ones write their orders to declare the custody agreements favoring their clients as "final" orders). The practical effect of this fact in this case was that "Mother did not have an initial burden to show [that] Child would suffer detriment were he to move with Father to Washington."
Father also argued that because Mother had been convicted of battering her son, a presumption arose under Family Code section 3044 that she should not have custody of the boy that was possibly "conclusive" if not merely rebuttable. While the idea that the presumption might be conclusive based evidently upon the appalling seriousness of intentionally burning a child is ... creative ... it doesn't track in the slightest what California law says on the subject, and was quickly disposed of by the appellate judges. The justices ruled that "[a] section 3044 finding of domestic violence 'in a family law case changes the burden of persuasion as to the best interests test, but it does not limit the evidence cognizable by the court, and it does not eliminate the best interest requirement." "Nor does the statute establish a presumption for or against joint custody; again, the paramount factor is the child's health, safety and welfare. And where the section 3044 presumption has been rebutted, there is no statutory bar against an award of joint or sole custody to a parent who was the subject of the order. This is particularly important in move-away cases." In this case the trial court had not made any express findings under section 3044 anyway, so on remand that is a subject the court is directed to pick up.
However, what the trial court did wrong is this:
The father had no burden to prove his move was "necessary". When the trial court opined that "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...." it supplanted the rule of law with an understandable discomfort with the effects the move would have on Mom's relationship with her son. The issue instead was the best interests of the child, and that decision must be considered in light of the established rule that "the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements - and the harm that may result from established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker [father here] - weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements."
Hence, Judge Schall's "order denying Father's motion reveals a misunderstanding of the determination a trial court must make in deciding a move-away motion by a custodial parent. In this case, the trial court, in effect, avoided the ultimate question whether a change in custody would be in Child's best interests were the custodial parent (Father) to move to Washington.... The question ... is not whether the parent may be permitted to move; the question is what arrangement for custody should be made [if and when the custodial parent moves]." A custodial parent is
not required to show a planned relocation is necessary.
In other words, the trial court has to assume the plan for the proposed move is a serious one, and has to address the issue of custody as though the move will occur. Moreover, and this is the heart of the decision and the basis for reversal, "[t]o the extent the trial court denied Father's move-away motion with the goal of maintaining the status quo and/or coercing Father to abandon his plan to move to Washington, it erred." [Italics added].
Finally, while the effect of a move will naturally be detrimental to the child's relationship with the remaining parent, this is but one factor for the court to consider and cannot be the sole basis for denying a move. The case of Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 (hand's down the most important move-away case to know), establishes a litany of factors for trial courts to consider in their totality - which is the subject for another Blog.
This case is reversed and remanded to the trial court to evaluate all the LaMusga factors and so exercise an informed discretion before summarily denying Father's request to move.
Okay, sorry, I'm tired now - I'll be back to add some more thoughts! |
|
| Continue reading "San Diego Trial Court REVERSED for Failing to Exercise An "INFORMED DISCRETION" in Refusing to Permit Sole Legal Custody Father Who Had PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY to MOVE OUT OF STATE" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(2) |
| |
| March 14, 2011 |
| FAMILY LAW SANCTIONS and DUE PROCESS: Santa Barbara Trial Court Reversed in IRMO DURIS |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
|
Visitors to my websites know that I am biased in favor of mediation, believing that parties to litigation involving their family should opt to resolve their disputes themselves rather than undertake the perils of having a judge, or anyone else, decide their matters for them. This includes mediators (whose role is not to decide your issues for you but to facilitate you finding solutions). However, I admit that sometimes this doesn't seem possible. Too often one or both parties are reacting so deeply to their hurt or resentment and spinning with angry, busy minds that they perceive family court as the killing field for their unresolved conflict - a public forum for the spectacle of flogging the other side.
A recent reported decision illustrates the financial waste that occurs in high conflict family court battles, where there are no winners and only losers. My remarks are not intended to convince you to hire me, or to impugn judges whom I contend are struggling valiantly to protect children and mete out justice as best they can within a system that is not equipped to cope with the multi-dimensional challenges of emotional divorce and its aftermath: The trial judges are not broken, but the framework for government sponsored attempts to regulate the processes of divorce and domestic partnership dissolution is. Nor should it be read as an indictment of divorce lawyers or any particular barrister. An adversary model for resolving family disputes guarantees that the experience of everyone connected with these cases will be ... adversarial. Surprise!
In the meantime appellate justices are stepping forth to triage for the litigants, their attorneys, and the lower courts. But is it realistic to expect lawyers (in that small relative percentage of domestic cases where people can afford them) or judges to not be swept into the reactive thinking that the parties' disputes are personifying? I say "no". Our brains are hard-wired to respond to conflict in predictable ways. While we all ought to conduct our affairs in increasingly enlightened and ethical ways, and lawyers and judges surely benefit by incorporating the wisdom of the mental health sciences, a legal and cultural framework grounded in adversarial processes can never escape them. How could it be otherwise?
Marriage of Duris & Urbany
On March 14, 2011, the Second Appellate District (Division Six) reversed Santa Barbara trial judge Colleen K. Sterne's decision to discipline a self-represented litigant (an unemployed attorney) for, among other things, her earlier attorney's tactics in filing a motion to compel document production evidently without first attempting to resolve the disagreement informally. Discovery motions generate large fees and consume valuable judicial resources.
At the end of the hearing on Wife's original requests (the custody and support modification request she'd filed eight months earlier), the trial court imposed $10,000 in attorney fee sanctions against the Wife. Husband's attorney had evidently suggested that the Court do this somewhere in his Reply paperwork, and reiterated the request in his closing argument. The trial court took the bait. Its ruling was found to be an abuse of discretion.
According to the Husband, by the time of the hearing on original OSC to modify custody and support he had spent $25,000 for fees. Wife probably spent a similar but slightly lesser amount since she was in pro per for many months. Their fees and costs for the appeal probably were $20,000 more apiece (but Mr. Urbany handled his own appeal). Husband will get none of his money back, and Wife will recover only a portion of hers. Neither will achieve an emotionally satisfying resolution and their matter likely obsessed their lives over the year and a half. This case is "a pox on both your houses."
Wife's former attorney, Jacqueline Misho, was hired some six months into the proceedings, initiated when the Wife filed a motion for "100% physical and legal custody" of the parties' two children, plus more child support. Attorney Misho took an aggressive stance in advancing her client's claims and filed a discovery motion to compel production of documents. This was unsuccessful. The attorney was then let go. A week later the Wife's custody motion was heard. Although sanctions against her had not been requested by way of a noticed motion (possibly because there was little time in which to file one), Husband urged that she should pay his attorney fees. At hearing end when Judge Sterne announced her intent to hit Wife with $10,000 in sanctions as a share of the Husband's costs in part based upon the prior discovery motion filed by Misho, Wife complained "How am I being penalized for hiring [Misho]? How was I supposed to know? I thought she was the best there was." In my experience, "the best there [is]" often means the meanest and toughest. Many family law attorneys advertise themselves in such a fashion.
I have no personal knowledge about either party's attorney beyond what Google searches of their names retrieve and what a review of the California State Bar website discloses. Both are reputed to be tenacious divorce litigators. The problem with vociferous advocacy, irrespective whether it occurred in this case or not, is that it tends to generate a story of its own and so to increase the conflict noise volume - I confess I know this from my own past personal experiences. It can infect the process - there is something of a reciprocal feedback loop that occurs between high conflict litigants and their attorneys that is difficult to resist. Sometimes it seems to be the only choice, but usually that justification is borne of the tensions within the conflict itself and is not necessarily true.
Family law litigation becomes particularly nasty when attorneys for each side compete to inflame the trial judge with sound bite characterizations about the other. Some clients demand this from their counsel or become quite perturbed if their advocate doesn't respond in kind to these sorts of attacks. Lawyers who are being paid large sums are pressured to speak their client's minds (read: resentments) or risk a loss of confidence by their client. Of greater concern to the integrity of the legal professional generally, there are many family law attorneys whose entire strategy is geared around slandering the other litigant (or their attorney), often by exaggerating or misrepresenting the facts or history of the case solely as a means of confusing the judge or just plain pissing the court off in the hope of creating a favorable bias. Tit for tat then threatens to overwhelm the process. This sort of behavior can include ignoring the procedural rules for raising the issues to be decided, which is a form of ambush that can be effective exactly because the answering party is unable respond to an oncoming train if there is no forewarning.
I am not saying that this was either attorney's conduct in Duris as I lack sufficient details to make a full assessment; instead I am pointing out that adversary litigation programs lawyers and unrepresented parties to use whatever tactics that might work, and sometimes to try them all. This seems to be viewed as not only within the standard of care for zealous advocacy but to be required by that standard. I can comment that one irony of this case is that while the Wife's attorney allegedly failed to act in a cooperative manner in choosing to file a motion to compel without first attempting to solve the argument informally, Husband's attorney seized upon that misstep to buttress a request for sanctions that was never properly placed before the court. Sometimes these sound bites do stick; they did here, at least with Judge Sterne. Unfortunately, under these rules of engagement lawyers are thus encouraged to act as badly as the talking heads we see arguing on many 'news' programs, something that the American public views as a form of 'entertainment.'
This is one of the many dangers of adversarial litigation. Both sides feel righteously indignant, and attorneys tend to internalize their client's upset so that the boundaries between the client's experience and the attorney's own blurs. It is a recipe for disaster, but understandable given that emotional and angry ex-spouse pressure-cookers are letting out steam on both sides of the table all at once.
The appellate court's decision doesn't give us sufficient facts to discern whether the mother's initial application was well-merited, but Judge Sterne's decision suggests she did not view mom's motives (or her attorney's decision-making) to be in good faith. Wife's request for 100% custody looks to be retaliatory and frankly when this is true - and too often it is, even if not here (Judge Sterne referred to Wife's prior discovery motion as a "fee sink") - trial courts need to discourage such conduct in strong ways, especially when it generates unnecessary fees for the other party or damages children. Some people only respond to monetary slaps. I can merely speculate about these proceedings without reviewing the trial briefs and reporter's transcripts, and emphasize that reading 'between the lines' cannot give the whole picture.
Still this is a published decision of the 2nd Appellate District. Following on the heals of Marriage of Fong released for publication on March 3, 2011, these decisions, along with
Marriage of Tharp, should be read together to glean the larger message. Reviewing courts are holding everyone accountable - litigants, attorneys, and bench officers. Due process and fundamental fairness require every side to cross their own t's and dot their own i's. This is welcome instruction to the entire spectrum of family court members and participants.
Be Careful What You Ask For,
and Consider Asking for Something Different
However inappropriate Ms. Duris' conduct may have been (if at all), the appellate justices ruled that due process required that she be informed in advance that the court was considering sanctions in order to have an opportunity to muster and present evidence in opposition. Husband's request for relief should have been properly placed before the Court and not have been based upon offhand arguments buried somewhere in his reply pleadings or first presented in closing argument. This is a good thing. Last year's Elkins legislation spotlights the public policy goal of ensuring transparency for self-represented and represented family law contestants alike.
Now, eighteen months later the odyssey is not yet ended - the Sterne decision is sent back to the trial court (not likely to be Judge Sterne, who can be disqualified as the judge on the next go-round) "with instructions to conduct a new hearing with proper notice." In other words, to relitigate whether sanctions should be assessed against the Wife.
In the meantime, she is awarded her costs on appeal. No appellate case costs only $10,000, the amount in controversy that led to this appeal. Hence, Husband - who won a short-lived victory at the trial court level - will now likely end up footing not only the bill for his trial attorney, but the Wife's attorney fees on appeal as well (be careful what your attorney asks for!) The saga can be now rebooted. Might it end differently this go-around? I'd wager (and I hope) the parties have had enough and that will agree that Wife will forego her appellate costs while Husband will waive a second sanction's motion. But divorce trance is stubborn stuff.
There are only losers in Marriage of Duris. The children of these two warring parents seem utterly forgotten. The take away is that using California court judges to beat up the person you now find despicable (who then smacks back) may blow up in the face of each contestant; given that people often view justice from the lens of their own desires it is a small wonder that government regulated divorce hasn't found a way to respond to such expectations, and possibly never will until the entire system is jettisoned and recreated.
In the meantime try a different tact, if you wish it and if you can. Work together to resolve your disputes collaboratively or through mediation. Even if the other side seems incorrigible, you determine how you respond. Remember, litigation induces trance - seek equanimity and send your kids to college instead!
Here is a link to Marriage of Duris & Urbany.
Thurman W. Arnold, III, CFLS
|
|
| Continue reading "FAMILY LAW SANCTIONS and DUE PROCESS: Santa Barbara Trial Court Reversed in IRMO DURIS" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| March 08, 2011 |
| More on Marriage of FONG: Obtaining SANCTIONS for UNCOOPERATIVE CONDUCT IN DIVORCE LITIGATION |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
|
The March 3, 2011 Second Appellate Court decision of Marriage of Fong is so far the most important fiduciary duty case of 2011.
See my other blog on this site as it pertains to Final Declarations of Disclosure, and here is a link to an article I've written concerning its impact on Family Code section 271 sanctions.
Here is the appellate court's decision in Marriage of Fong. |
|
| Continue reading "More on Marriage of FONG: Obtaining SANCTIONS for UNCOOPERATIVE CONDUCT IN DIVORCE LITIGATION" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| March 07, 2011 |
| Making DIVORCE JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE - What Is A STATEMENT OF DECISION? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
|
Given the 2011 changes to the California Family Code brought about by the recommendations of the Elkins Task Force, you need to know about something called a "statement of decision". This is because many family law cases involving temporary or interim orders now require an evidentiary hearing - or a trial or 'mini-trial' - on matters that used to be decided as motions based only upon declarations and argument of the parties or counsel. California Code of Civil Procedure §632 governs this device, and it is not available in straight law and motion proceedings. It is available only on matters where there has been a trial of factual issues.
Newly enacted Family Code §217 directs family court judges and commissioners to hold hearings with live testimony unless the parties stipulate otherwise, or unless the trial court finds good cause to dispense with such hearings. I've written about the Elkins changes extensively elsewhere on this Blog, so please try the search engine at the top of each page for more information about them.
A statement of decision requires the family law trial court to state, on the record, or in a subsequent written opinion, why it ruled the way it did on any questioned fact. It is essentially the same thing as a statement of the court's findings and its conclusions on any controverted issue. Judge's don't necessarily appreciate such requests, however, because they force the bench officer to expend additional time to explain at least some of the aspects of their reasoning, and some feel that it is provocative to ask them to explain their reasoning; the conventional wisdom for lawyers therefore is "don't ask unless you fear you are going to lose."
Statements of decision in family law cases, as with hearings on OSC requests and certainly bifurcated or full on trials, are most important as a tool for a potential appeal. Without them the record on appeal may be quite unclear since the appellate court will have a difficult time determining the fact basis for the trial court's reasoning. Effectively, absent a SOD, this means that the appellate court will only reverse the trial court ruling for errors at law - the reviewing court will presume that the trial court made every factual finding necessary to support its decision. This is one of the problems of asking for them - you are saying to the judge "I think you may rule against me and so I am doing this to protect the record on appeal."
There are important rules about when to request a statement of decision. Where a trial is completed in one calendar day or less (or less than eight total hours over several days), a request for a statement of decision must be made before the court issues its ruling (i.e., before the matter is submitted for decision). This means, before you hear the judge's ruling, not after! There are technical rules about how to add up these hours. This will be the typical family law OSC or Notice of Motion situation where testimony may last from 30 minutes to several hours under FC section 217. Until January 1, 2011, these situations typically included only domestic violence hearings since evidentiary hearings were already required in those cases.
The procedures for statements of decision are to be contrasted with certain statutory requirements that courts make and express their findings on the record in certain statutorily enumerated situations, whether or not these are specifically requested. I will identify those sections in the future.
Check back for further Blogs and pointers on these subjects. If you have a contested hearing with testimony, and you get the sense the judge views things differently then you do, ask for a statement of decision before you hear the decision!
Thurman W. Arnold, III
Certified Family Law Specialist
|
|
| Continue reading "Making DIVORCE JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE - What Is A STATEMENT OF DECISION?" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(1) |
| |
| March 05, 2011 |
| SANCTIONS For Failure to Complete the FINAL DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURE |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
|
The Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure
I've recently blogged the importance of complying with Family Code section 2103 and
section 2104, which obligate both parties to a pending dissolution, legal separation, or annulment proceeding to exchange a preliminary declaration of disclosure using Judicial Council Forms FL-140, FL-141 and FL-142 (please see our Form Library for the PDF's]. Its purpose is to ensure a "full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities in which one or both parties may have an interest" and it is a prerequisite to successfully performing one's fiduciary obligations in the course of such proceedings. The exchange is supposed to occur "early on" in the proceedings, whatever that means.
No case can be settled and a marital termination agreement or stipulated judgment cannot be accepted by the court clerk for filing or transmittal to a judge for signature unless both parties have exchanged their PDD's. There is a single exception where the other party does not appear in the action (i.e., file a Response and pay the fees) and so the case is resolved by way of a "default judgment." Moreover, where both litigants have formally appeared and either wants to move the case to a trial status so that it can finally be resolved (where for instance agreement is not occurring), a settlement conference or trial date will not be set by the court unless both parties have each complied with the preliminary declaration exchange and have first filed proof of that with the court.
However, beyond simply concluding your case, there are other extremely important consequences for failing to do your half of the heavy lifting in terms of identifying and attempting to value all community and separate property assets by way of PDD. In my practice I find that many client's resent the work that completing these documents entails, and yet there is no way around it. Inadequate or inaccurate disclosure declarations can create grounds for the other party to attempt months or even years later to set aside a judgment or settlement agreement. They can form the basis for breach of fiduciary duty claims. They must be dealt with in good faith. They are critical documents that must not be treated casually.
The Final Declaration of Disclosure
However, there is an arguably greater obligation that is addressed by what is called the Final Declaration of Disclosure. This is a second and final disclosure that is required in all dissolution or similar proceedings, assuming it is not waived by both parties by agreement (not a good idea for reasons I will separately blog). Where the case winds its way to trial on any aspect of it, the Final Declaration cannot be waived and it must be served prior to trial. Family Code section 2105 governs what it must contain and when it can be avoided. It is even more burdensome to fill out and comply with because supporting documents must be attached and it has to bring current all of the information regarding community and separate property not just as of the date of separation or at the time the PDD was filed, but also up to the date that it is prepared.
Based upon an Second District appellate decision issued March 3, 2011 entitled Marriage of Fong, other consequences for disclosure noncompliance are now apparent. The Fongs are one of those unfortunate couples where one or both parties seem conflicted enough that they will litigate on for years that exceed the entire length of their marriage.
Family Code section 2107 authorizes courts to award monetary sanctions for failing to comply with the disclosure obligations. It is often used in conjunction with a request for attorney fee sanctions under
Family Code section 271.
In the Fong case the trial court hit the husband with $200,000 in non attorney fee sanctions under section 2107(c) for "breach of fiduciary duties" relating to nondisclosures in the property declarations, among other things, and heaped on an additional $100,000 in fees and costs per section 271 because it concluded that his side engaged in discovery gamesmanship. Wife had contended that Husband had failed to comply with his statutory disclosure obligations regarding his assets, that he failed to respond to formal discovery, and that at trial he surprised her with documents he'd failed to earlier provide despite requests for them. Husband's alleged behavior is not unusual in high conflict divorce litigation, and so it is important that an aggrieved party, possibly like the Wife in this case, have a meaningful remedy.
Unfortunately, Wife had waited three years from the date the action was filed to serve her Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure, and at the time of the trial that led to these sanctions against the Husband (seven years after the case began) she still had not prepared and served her Final Declaration of Disclosure. Lawyers for "out-spouses" sometimes delay completing the FDD because they fear that they lack sufficient information to do them properly and so are reluctant to have those documents completed and so held against their clients as "judicial admissions" (statements under oath in the pleading files) until later in the proceedings - after they've first gotten the disclosures from the "in-spouse" who probably controls all the information.
In the first reported California appellate decision squarely construing compliance with FC section 2105 together with 2107 sanction's requests, the Second District reversed the trial court's award under section 2107. I can only guess that Wife's efforts cost she and her attorneys between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in attorney fees.
The appellate court did uphold the sanctions award per Family Code section 271 for the $100,000. That part of the ruling is also important, but this blog will be way too long if I cover it here so I will write about it separately.
The Court determined that Wife's failure to have first served her Final Declaration of Disclosure before seeking sanctions by way of motion against the Husband, on the theory that he was himself out of compliance, deprived her of the right to complain. It interpreted section 2107(a) as permitting only a "complying party" to seek the sanction remedies. By the time of a trial on a motion for a sanctions for alleged disclosure misconduct, a party is not in compliance IF she has only served their PDD and therefore not entitled to maintain a sanctions' request.
This case reminds lawyers and parties that the California disclosure statutes mean what they say. It provides useful guidance to attorneys representing the disadvantaged spouse in terms of what they must do in getting their ducks in a row before going off half-cocked. IMHO. Both sides in a California family law case have equal burdens to meet their fiduciary duties. Please take them seriously.
Here is a link to Marriage of Fong.
Thurman W. Arnold, III, CFLS
www.PeacemakingDivorce.com
|
|
| Continue reading "SANCTIONS For Failure to Complete the FINAL DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURE" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(2) |
| |
|