Recent Posts in Attorney Fees Category

"(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves either of the following:

* * *

(c) For the purposes of subdivision (a), it shall be deemed that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily unless the court finds in writing or on the record all of the following:

(1) The party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement or, after being advised to seek independent legal counsel, expressly waived, in a separate writing, representation by independent legal counsel.

(2) The party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time that party was first presented with the agreement and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the agreement was signed.

(3) The party against whom enforcement is sought, if unrepresented by legal counsel, was fully informed of the terms and basic effect of the agreement as well as the rights and obligations he or she was giving up by signing the agreement, and was proficient in the language in which the explanation of the party's rights was conducted and in which the agreement was written. The explanation of the rights and obligations relinquished shall be memorialized in writing and delivered to the party prior to signing the agreement. The unrepresented party shall, on or before the signing of the premarital agreement, execute a document declaring that he or she received the information required by this paragraph and indicating who provided that information...."

Notice how these provisions are almost shouting 'independent legal counsel.'  It is rare to see a phrase repeated so often within the same code section. 

So examine whether your agreement, and the required separate writing, seem to address these requirements.  Also, check to see whether the other conditions for enforceability are met.  There may be other reasons why your Prenup will not be enforced, as where undue influence was exerted to obtain your signature (notice the seven day waiting period, which is intended to overcome the social pressures where a wedding date is looming).  But you would be ill-advised to embark upon a challenge to the agreement without legal counsel this time around; don't compound the problem.

A final comment:  Setting aside the prenuptial agreement may only have a limited affect upon the status of the house.  For instance, the rules relating to transmutations and reimbursements still apply.  I have written about those elsewhere in this Blog, but if the house was acquired by your wife as her separate property independently of the Prenup it remains her separate property even if the agreement is voided.  However, if there was a mortgage and it was paid down with her earnings during marriage the cancelation of the Prenup may benefit you because the community will thereby gain a Moore Marsden reimbursement right in the principal pay down and appreciation.

Again, seek out an experienced family law attorney.  And, I always urge that people consider mediating these types of family law disputes.

T.W. Arnold
http://www.ThurmanArnold.com

Q.    What are the refund policies if I reconcile with my spouse or switch attorneys?

A.    Attorneys are required by California State Bar rules to refund all unused fees promptly, for whatever reason, when the relationship ends unless you have a Flat Fee arrangement where all the monies have been earned upon retention. 

Attorneys are required to provide your original file to you, after they copy it at their own expense. Attorneys cannot hold a file hostage for unpaid fees.  They must sign a Substitution of Attorney withdrawing from the case upon demand, regardless of whether or not they claim you owe them money.  They are required to give a full statement and explanation of your fees and charges upon request.  Refusal to do within 10 days or less may be a cause for State Bar Discipline. 

Q.    Where does the Retainer Deposit go?

A.    Lawyers are required to place all unearned fees into a State Bar approved Attorney Client Trust Account. This is because the deposit does not belong to the attorney, it belongs to the client. It is only after fees are earned or costs are expended that the attorney may remove that amount of money from their trust account.  Some lawyers do not maintain or use their trust accounts, and some will take the money upon retention as though they have earned it. This  can result in discipline against the lawyer. 

The importance of ensuring that you attorney follows State Bar practices cannot be overstated. Do not hire a lawyer that does not maintain a trust account. 

Q.    What is a Family Law Retainer Agreement?

A.    A Retainer Agreement is a written contract between you and your divorce lawyer. The California Bar requires that any agreement for services where fees are to be charged in excess of $1,000 must be memorialized by a written Agreement, and the Client must receive a copy. It describes what types of services the attorney agrees to perform, office practices, billing rates and practices, and how any fee disputes will be resolved between you.

For the agreement to be enforceable by the attorney, it must state whether or not they maintain legal malpractice insurance.

Q.  I remarried in August, 2009, and my new wife is a doctor.  She has one child from her prior marriage and I have two.  I am still paying my former wife alimony and child support even though the kids we have together live at our home 40% of the time.  I have been hit hard by the economy and we largely depend upon my wife's medical income to make ends meet.  Now my ex is threatening to take me back to court to increase my support based upon my new wife's income, while my own income is down from when the court last decided it.  My new wife is upset at the idea that my ex can learn anything about the medical practice or income.  What should I do?

A.  If there has been a material decrease in your income since the time of your last order, you may safely file a support modification motion to lower your child support and to lower or possibly terminate your spousal support.  Whether that is advisable based upon your numbers has nothing to do with your new mate's income, and should not cause you to hesitate - but again, it does depend on the actual respective numbers between you and Wife 1, which you did not provide me.  You also need not worry about W1 filing a motion to increase (you can't stop her, but she will not win based on W2's earnings).  Maybe you should give her this link so she will think twice.

California law is quite clear that new mate income cannot generally be considered against you in ordering or modifying child or spousal support.  The controlling California Family statute is section 4057.5.

In the normal situation, Family Code section 4057.5 leaves the Court no discretion to consider your new wife's earnings, period.  You do not need to report those earnings on your FL-150 (Income and Expense Declaration). This is a statement of California legislative policy effective in 1993 when this section was added to the Family Code.  This is true for both spousal and child support.

However, section 4057.5 does contain an exception for the "extraordinary case" which the statute makes clear is intended to address situations where "where excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child subject to the child support award" or where "a parent ... voluntarily or intentionally quits work or reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income."  Even if the court were to find a severe hardship on the children of marriage number one, it would be required not to impose a severe hardship on your wife's child by reallocating her income to you for purposes of supporting your two children. 

In practice, so far, Courts almost never find facts sufficient overcome this clear statutory prohibition.  So far there is no published California appellate decision defining these extraordinary circumstances.  No doubt one day someone will so abuse this protection and hide behind it that we will get a reported decision that fleshs out how bad someone needs to behave before the protection is lost.  But "extraordinary" means really extraordinary.  In the average case, your new Wife has nothing to be concerned about. 

With regard to attorneys fee awards, however, there is authority for an argument that new mate income may be considered in granting or denying an attorney fee request, but the odds are against a judge doing that.

Incidentally, this section also applies to income from nonmarital partners as well as new spouses.  In one reported case (IRMO Loh), a trial court was reversed for inceasing dad's child support obligation after the mother produced photos of the father's "lifetyle" to show imputed nontaxable income in the form of his new girlfriend's contributions to him, since she paid for all his toys. 

The new mate question is a subset of the "imputed income" situations where a father or mother may quit work or reduce hours because they are relying on their new mate to contribute the difference.  That is not likely going to be an extraordinary case, but  W1 can separately seek to impute income to you on the basis that you have a higher earning capacity than you are exercising.  Earning capacity and imputed income is a blog for another day.  Also, I will mention here that another argument exists in favor of W1 that has nothing to do with the right to obtain the records or income of W2:  Equalizing the lifestyle's of the two households where yours is rich and grandiose and W1 is impoverished (an extreme example) pursuant to FC section 4057(b)(4).

The tax returns are privileged as they relate to your new wife's medical practice.  For instance, if she is a medical corporation (which I recommend be set up), she will almost never be forced to divulge those records.  Even as to your joint returns, you may be entitled to redact the information concerning your new spouse or have the Court review them in camera (meaning they are not turned over to the other side).  Your former mate is entitled to see your side of the tax returns, however, and they are not insulated from scrutiny simply because you filed joint with the Doctor Wife.  If you don't file jointly, your former wife will almost certainly never get her hands on your new wife's Married Filing Separately (MFS) returns.  Structuring things this way may or may not be advisable and you should consult a tax accountant.

An interesting twist here is that because you marry a higher, wealthy earner, your taxes actually increase because under federal IRS (and the California FTB), you are responsible for one-half of your new mate's income - and this is true even if you don't file jointly.  One case (County of Tulare vs. Campbell) has held that this additional tax you become liable for can form the basis for a reduction in your support because you have less net income available for support after the tax hit is deducted.  Hence, based on these tax consequences you may have an additional argument for decreased support - although a Court may try to deny you some discretionary offset to even the score since this feels a bit unfair to the spouse who is  primarily supporting the children and so lessen the downward modification.

The take-away:  So long as you are not playing games, have not intentionally reduced your income by relying upon your new mate's income, and there is no really extraordinary difference in the two households, your new wife's income is just not relevant and so it is protected.

Q.     What should I ask a family law attorney to see if we are a good fit?

I am a mom in San Diego County.  There are court orders out of El Cajon for joint legal custody and sole physical to me.  The old orders said I could move anywhere within San Diego County.  I just changed our son's school to north county San Diego.  I want to remarry, and have been living with my fiance for 4 years.  I believe the schools are better here.  Now our son's father is trying to force me to keep our son in the old school south of here, or to take custody.  He says the school our son was in is better.  I would have to drive 70 miles for school drop off and pickup.

I have no money for attorney fees because my last lawyer had only a year's experience, and she upset the judge and now I am out $10,000.  We have a hearing in 3 days.  Please help.

Mellissa

Attorney Fees Question/Assuming There Are Any Further Hearings

You are requesting attorney's fees because the issues involved are some of the most complex in this area of the law (parent relocation), and you are entitled to be on a parity with Mr. Tr xxx, who has been able to retain competent counsel. 

Specifically, tell the Court your request is also made under authority of Alan T.S., Jr. (4/2/09) 172 Cal.App.4^th 238 and In re Marriage of Keech (1999) 75 Cal.App.4^th 860.  Tell the Court that you are in pro per but do not want to be, but that obligation of supporting the child from this marriage plus the financial burden of your other handicapped child, makes it impossible for you to obtain legal representation without an order that Mr. Txxxx pay these fees.

1)      Establish that the final, current order, is for joint legal and sole physical custody to you.  Mr. Txxxx  rights are for visitation only, but not custody, absent a modification of the current orders upon a showing by him of a material change of circumstances.  Your move and the child’s new school is not presumptively, without more, a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody even assuming he asked for it (I don’t know if he has).

2)      As the parent entitled to the day to day supervisory control of the child per FC section 3007 (defines sole custody), you had a presumptive right to relocate.  This is the same right codified in FC section 7501.  You have custody; dad has visitation rights.  (Btw, his visitation rights are not being negatively impacted by the move, by his own admission, since his objection only involves relative school ratings).

3)      As to the joint legal custody label, this only grants each of you the rights under FC section 3003 (decisions regarding health, education and welfare) during your respective custody and visitation times.  FC section 3083.  It is does not obligate you and he to agree on schooling absent a court order saying you had to first, per 3083, and it must be specific and mention “schooling” (I assume this is not the case).

4)      Even though you were not required to do it, you gave dad notice per FC section 3024 that you were moving north and changing the child’s schooling.  F’s atty intimidated you into filing a motion for permission to make the move, when they probably were the one’s obligated to file a motion to restrain the change, and so you have acted in good faith.  This is particularly true given the court order from (the ealier date) stating you can relocate anywhere within San Diego County.

5)      It is very important if their responsive declaration did not check the change of custody box, and if their paperwork only asks to restrict the change in schools – you need to be sure you are right about this before making the argument -- BUT if they are not seeking a modification of custody, then you have the right to move [7501] and change schools [3003/3083] and there should be no need for any further hearings and your application must be granted.

6)      Next, ONLY IF THEY’HE REQUESTED A CHANGE OF CUSTODY, then the next analysis is:  That this is not a de facto joint parenting agreement.  This not a Burgess footnote 12 case (which requires a “de novo” best interests of the child hearing only where there is true parenting agreement).  Here the timeshare numbers become important – you want him as low as reasonably possible without sounding incredible.  This is a straight Burgess situation, and therefore you have the presumptive right to move and you do not need to show that the your move was “necessary” or even in good faith, except with the added benefit to you that Burgess involved temporary orders and so the court had to do a best interest of the child analysis, while your case involves “permanent” orders and so that is not a ground for an evidentiary hearing (best interests was previously decided in your favor and the question will be not be reviewed again absent Dad showing a change of circumstances).

7)      Changing schools is not an adequate CoC as recently held by the California Supreme Court in Brown and Yana (2006) 37 Cal..4th 947.  There, like you, a parent with sole physical custody sought to move a much greater distance from the dad – Las Vegas.  Dad’s objection was that the schools in LV were inferior.  He wanted an evidentiary hearing before the move would be allowed, and he sought a change of custody to himself if Mom moved anyway.  The trial court correctly refused to allow an evidentiary hearing because the Father had failed to allege sufficient facts showing a detriment to the child by simply claiming the relative merits of schools.  Courts won’t step into that qualitative battle.  Instead, F needs to show that you are attempting to frustrate contact, which clearly is not the case, or some other “detriment” in his responsive declaration.  His failure to do so means he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

8)      Since he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, even though a mediation is appropriate in the next month, it would be improper for this court to issue any orders that restrain your son’s ability to start school on 8/20/09 as planned.

9)      Father has failed to meet his burden.  You need attorney fees to retain competent counsel for any further hearings.

10)    Finally, under FC section 3044 there is a rebuttable presumption that dad is not a fit person to be a joint custodial parent because of the DV orders.

Best of luck on this.  If you get a court order for attorney fees, hire someone!

Thurman Arnold