Free Divorce Calculators for
Property Division, Support, and Taxes

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Donna Smalldon, who is a collaborative law financial neutral and co-mediator based out of Portland, Oregon. Donna regularly trains legal professionals in beginning and advanced conflict resolution techniques as applied to divorce and family law matters and proceedings. She serves as a collaborative law neutral and divorce mediator both in Oregon and in Palm Springs, California. You can learn more about her at Applied Divorce Solutions.

Donna introduced me to something that I want to share with you: Family Law Software by Dan Caine. Dan has developed programs for use in determining income and tax calculators, property division calculators, alimony "buy-out" calculators, sale of home calculators, and much more. Some of these can be used for free to test different scenarios as you begin to evaluate and plan for your life during and after divorce. These invaluable tools can be accessed at FamilyLawSoftware.com.

The property division calculator is a must-use for those who are evaluating an equitable division of property within the economic divorce. For those who are considering a spousal support buy-out, Family Law Software provides a solid foundation for figuring out a current value for a lump sum payment instead of payments over time.

Understandably, the price for using the free program materials that Family Law Software provides is that they will email you your answer - you are exchanging your contact information for some free help, probably a fair trade.

I hope you find this useful!

Loans From Family and Friends to Pay
Attorney Fees For Your Divorce

• Have your helpers pay the attorney directly - whether by credit card or check. Whenever someone loans or gives you money to help with fees or living expenses, if you deposit those monies directly into your bank account even if you next write a check to your lawyer, the other party will argue that you have undisclosed income or resources and may wave your bank statements in front of the court. This forces you to explain the transactions and the source of these funds. You always want to be in a position of needing to explain as little as possible.

• Ask them to keep a record of those payments -- in the form of canceled checks or the credit card statement. You may want to introduce these as evidence later. Take control of evidence you might need now.

• Sign a promissory note at the time you receive the money -- and keep a copy; better yet, have it sent to the other party's attorney as a "sua sponte" (spontaneous) augmentation of your Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure - no one will later challenge it, and you've just proven you take your fiduciary duties to update your circumstances to the other party seriously. Frequently parents of children in divorce are pre-distributing your inheritance to you in the sense that if they never ask for the money back, they nonetheless are poorer for what they gave you. There is always a suspicion that these "loans" are disguised gifts. If a Court believes that your parents are funding your side of the litigation, it may affect the Court's willingness to order the other party to contribute. The attitude of most lawyers and judges is that a loan is not a loan unless some written agreement memorializes it as such.

• Make repayment on these loans -- even if it is interest-only or small amounts. Not only do most people fail to sign a promissory note, they rarely think to create a record that these funds were being repaid. Obviously you cannot repay it all until you receive an attorney fee award or your case resolves - but demonstrating some effort to treat the insider loan as you would any other creditor is persuasive evidence that the monies you received were in fact loans and not gifts. Regular gifts begin to smell like income. 

For more information about how to pay your attorney for services they render in your divorce, please visit us here!

Q.  My Wife is a personal injury lawyer with a good practice which she started six years before we married. We have been separated for nine months, after nine years together. She just sent me a settlement agreement. It says the law practice is ordered to her, but it says nothing about me receiving any money for that. She says that since I am not a lawyer and can't practice law, and I get no share of its value. Is she right?

A.  No, assuming it has a value that is greater than its value on the date you married!

The fact that you are not a lawyer has nothing to do with whether the "community estate" (the two of you as an economic unit) has an interest in the business that must be reimbursed. This would be true if she or you were a doctor, married to a person who isn't, and so who must have a license to practice their trade.  Obviously the law practice must be awarded to her in your dissolution, but that doesn't mean she won't be forced to buy you out as though you were a licensed "silent partner."

When people marry or become domestic partners, they commonly already own assets like businesses or professional practices. This is especially likely for those who've been previously married. 

During marriage a professional-trade spouse may increase the worth of a business they manage, whether as a sole proprietorship or as a shareholder of a professional corporation. Per Family Code section 760, all economic value that is created during marriage is presumed to belong to both parties. Value in this sense is measured by a benchmark date, and these dates vary according to circumstances and scenarios. This is called the "date of valuation", but there may be more than one. What gives rise to the community property interest is either spouse's contribution of time, skill, and efforts (TS&E) to - pretty much whatever - from the period from the DOM (date of marriage) to DOS (date of separation). 

By the way, a prenuptial (or post-nuptial) agreement may waive a legal interest derived from these TS&E increases, meaning that the community estate acquires no interest in the separate property of the business-owner spouse. I assume you didn't sign one. 

Unless you've waived the community property interest in your wife's separate property, it is a breach of interspousal fiduciary duties to deprive the community estate - of which you own one-half - of increases to a party's separate property resulting from TS&E. This means that the community (and separate) interests must be priced in terms of recent or present values. Always a controversial area. Once  you physically separate, all your wife's TS&E belongs once again to her alone.

After separation a business or professional practice may likewise increase in value through continuing TS&E type contributions. These may be reimbursable to the separate property estate of the managing spouse and so backed out of the community interest, because it is likewise unfair that the community should benefit from separate property efforts. 

There are three time periods relating to the value of your wife's practice that matter here: (1) the value of the law practice as of the date you married, (2) the increase in value (if any) that occurred during marriage that existed as of the date of separation, and (3) at the time of trial. Indeed, California law presumes that the property date for valuing an asset is at trial. Family Code section 2552.

Legal professionals refer to this manner of calculating the community property interest as an "apportionment" or "equitable apportionment."

There are two basic apportionment "formulas" that California judges are trained to apply in these situations: 

• Fair return on investment . This is called the Pereira approach to apportionment, after Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1, 103 P. 488, which involved a husband saloon owner. It apportions a "fair return" on the owning spouse's separate property investment in the business as separate property, then apportions any excess to the community property as arising from that spouse's efforts during marriage. 

• Reasonable compensation . This is the Van Camp apportionment method, which derives from Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17, 199 P. 885 (yes, seafood in Long Beach), which apportions the reasonable value of the spouse's services during marriage as community property, then treats the balance as separate property attributable to the normal earnings of the separate estate. Reasonable compensation is typically the analysis used in small business valuation cases, and is often found by looking at what other people in the same field performing the same functions tend to earn.

Either analysis (and there are hybrids and others) may be performed to determine the value of the premarital interest in separate property and in deriving the community interest in what began as separate property. 

These methods deal with the first half of your question - valuing the law practice as of the date of separation. They may have to be applied in reverse to back out the separate property contributions after the date of separation when a business is valued at time of trial.

Trial courts can pick the approach that they reasonably conclude makes the best sense given the facts of each case. In achieving the apportionment between separate and community property the Court has discretion to decide which formula will achieve 'substantial justice' between the parties.

The Pereira formula is commonly used when business profits are principally attributed to the community efforts (i.e., during marriage).  Van Camp is applied when the community efforts are more than minimally involved in a separate business, but the business profits that accrued are attributed to the character of the separate asset (Mr. Van Camp was turning out cans of tuna before marriage).

I'll write more on this fascinating subject.

In Re Marriage of Hill and Dittmer (1/18/12), B226017

Parties' Circumstancs

How the Court Ruled

"The contention that the Agreement is tainted by fraudulent and inadequate disclosures is refuted by evidence that Hill, both in the Agreement itself and in her conduct during the three-month period of negotiation, waived this claim. The Agreement states in part: 'Each party waives the provisions of California Probate Code Section 143 and California Family Code Section 1615 relating to financial disclosures. . . . The absence of disclosures shall not create any legal right in favor of either party, nor any legal remedy by either party against the other including, but not limited to, challenging the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. Based upon each party's knowledge of the other's income and assets and their access to same, and in consideration of the prospective marriage, each party acknowledges that this Agreement is fair and equitable at the time of its execution. The foregoing waivers of disclosure are voluntary and express and shall be deemed conclusive for the purposes of Section 1615 (a)(2)(8) of the California Family Code and for all other purposes.'

The circumstances surrounding the execution of the premarital Agreement provide substantial evidence that Hill entered into the Agreement voluntarily. She had the advice of two attorneys specializing in family law and estate planning during the nine months the Agreement was being discussed and negotiated. Hill's lawyer drafted the Agreement and revised drafts of the Agreement in consultation with Dittmer and his attorney. These facts, coupled with Hill's professional background and evident skills are strong evidence that she entered into the Agreement voluntarily.

There is no evidence that Hill took any steps to obtain financial disclosures from Dittmer during the negotiation period, although she was invited to do so by Dittmer's attorney. Dittmer's attorney sent a memorandum to Rainey in this regard as follows: 'Article IV (perhaps in Section 4.4) should acknowledge that the financial information provided by Tom includes his Trust and that 'Tom has provided Sandy's legal counsel and representatives with full and complete access to the books and records of Tom and his Trust, with the opportunity to consult with him, and any of his accountants, agents and representatives as to the nature, value and cash flow from any of his assets and the nature and extent of his liabilities.' This provision was contained, in substance, in the Agreement.

Hill's additional argument, that she did not see the final draft of the Agreement until the date of the wedding and that the agreement she signed was incomplete, is not persuasive. As the trial court found, the record shows that the provisions upon which Hill bases her claims of invalidity had been in prior drafts of the Agreement. Hill's assertions that she was too busy with wedding preparations to read or understand the Agreement ring hollow in light of her education and her extensive business experience. In this regard, the trial court said: 'The Court further finds that the prenuptial agreement signed by [Hill] was full and complete and contained page 14. Even if the version that [Hill] signed was missing that page, the Court finds that the failure to include it was a clerical error by [Hill's] attorney and not a surprise to [Hill] and was included in prior drafts of the prenuptial agreement provided to [Hill]. It was a provision that had been agreed to by the parties prior to the execution of the agreement.' Moreover, any failure on her part in this regard is not a sufficient basis for invalidating a contract. (See, e.g., Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 605, 615 ['[f]ailure to make reasonable inquiry to ascertain or effort to understand the meaning and content of the contract . . . constitutes neglect of a legal duty such as will preclude recovery for unilateral mistake of fact'].)

The trial court found as a fact that Hill had adequate opportunity to review the various drafts of the agreement and that she was aware of and understood its contents. Substantial evidence supports this finding. Furthermore, even if it were true that she was unaware of portions of the final Agreement, her failure to take reasonable steps to become aware of the contents of the Agreement, particularly given her business background, her awareness of earlier drafts, and her access to counsel, precludes a finding of that she entered into the Agreement involuntarily. (See, e.g., Bauer v. Jackson (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 358, 370 ['[o]rdinarily, when a person with capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he may not, in the absence of fraud, imposition, or excusable neglect, avoid its terms on the ground he failed to read it before signing it'].)"

Hill also contended that the changes to Family Code section 1615 that became effective a year later, in 2002, should be retroactively applied to the question of the agreement's validity and that if they were a different result would have occurred. Specifically, current section 1615(c)(2) creates a presumption that a prenup is not executed voluntarily unless the court makes a finding that the party against whom enforcement is sought had at least seven calendar days between the date he or she was "first presented" with the agreement and advised to seek independent counsel, and the time he or she signed the agreement.

Hence, the amended provisions that are no effective presumes a premarital agreement is unenforceable when the party who is challenging it did not receive it at least seven days before it was signed - Hill argued that the final version was only given her the day of the wedding. The decision ignores the question whether the "final, final" draft needs to be presented more than seven days before, because the Court (and an earlier decision) have found that the 2002 revisions to the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act are not to be applied retroactively to agreements entered into prior to January 1, 2002.

The language that Dittmer's attorney requested will likely become the standard for future agreements like this one, and will create a method of by which actual disclosure of assets and debts in the prenup can be avoided - which, the standard of professional care now suggests based on this decision should become the rule and not the exception. Why now ever give a detailed financial disclosure, whether by way of exhibits or statements made in the agreement itself, when that can be waived? Giving detailed facts in an agreement would appear to be unwise, since the party who is attacking enforceability then has something specific to challenge. A 'multitude of sins' can be shielded if the opportunity to investigate is extended, but not undertaken.

It bears repeating that the provisions attached in the Appendix, including a form of spousal support waiver, are a very good starting point for drafting the language for your own agreements.

Marital Privileges Not To Testify Against Spouse or Domestic Partner

Sometimes married persons who are in litigation with third parties (i.e., former spouses and co-parents) are asked to reveal communications in deposition, through written discovery, or at trial between them that are protected from disclosure. It may help you to know when to assert an objection to such inquiries, and how to avoid answering such questions altogether.

California recognizes both a "testimonial privilege" and a privilege protecting "confidential marital communications". These privileges are codified in Evidence Code section 970, Evidence Code section 971 and Evidence Code section 980. They are distinct privileges, and the one that most often applies to family law are sections 970 and 980, where one's current spouse is embroiled, for instance, in litigation with a former spouse (or in paternity cases, the other parent). These privileges apply equally to registered domestic partners pursuant to the general application of Family Code section 297.5. Limitations on the marital privilege are generally found at Evidence Code section 972. 

These privileges serve two important public policy goals: 1) to preserve and promote marital harmony and 2) to encourage and preserve confidences between husband and wife. Essentially, the assumption is that society has more to lose from the disruption of the marital relationship that might be caused by encouraging spouses to testify against one another, or to disclose secrets, than it has to gain by learning what was said. This makes sense - however, unrepresented parties often lack an understanding about their rights and privileges, which can be waived if not properly asserted. Hence today's Blog.

The testimonial and confidential marital communication privileges require the existence of a valid marriage or domestic partnership. Keep in mind that they do not apply between you and the spouse or domestic partner whom you are litigating against - these privileges cease to exist as between parties to a dissolution or related family law proceeding. In addition, where no valid marriage existed (i.e., a marriage that was void at its inception (bigamous, incestuous, lack of proper solemnization and the like)), the privileges never arise. In contrast, where a marriage is voidable (minority, fraud, physical incapacity) the privilege exists unless and until a final judgment of annulment has issued.

Testimonial Privilege

• The privilege applies only during existence of valid marriage or domestic partnership
• A married person has a privilege not to testify against his or her spouse in any proceeding. Evidence Code § 970.
• A married person, whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be called as a witness by an adverse party without the witness spouse's prior express consent. Evidence Code § 971.
• Both testimonial privileges belong to the witness spouse.
• The 970 privilege permits a spouse to refuse to answer questions requiring testimony about the other spouse, whether or not they are a party to a proceeding.
• The 971 privilege only permits a spouse to refuse to answer (or be called) in proceedings where the other spouse is a party.
• The 970 privilege belongs only to the spouse who has been called as a witness - in such cases (i.e., where the other spouse is not a party) the other spouse has no standing to prevent their spouse from voluntarily testifying.
• The 971 privilege belongs to both spouses. Thus, even if spouse B is willing to answer questions about spouse A in pending proceedings involving spouse A, spouse A can assert the privilege to bar the testimony that otherwise might have been obtained.
• Once the marriage is terminated by Final Judgment (for instance, even a "status termination" on bifurcated proceedings where other issues remain reserved and therefore open - like property division or custody), the privilege evaporates (but see the confidential marital communications privilege below).
• The privileges do not apply to proceedings brought by one spouse against the other.
• They do not apply to certain types of hearing, including competency or commitment/conservatorship proceedings (since alleged mental or physical condition may be in issue).
• These privileges do not apply to juvenile court proceedings. [EC section 972(d)].
• Trial courts are not required to inform spouses of their rights not to testify - being uninformed and then giving testimony that could have been avoided does not operate to permit the testimony to be stricken.
• There are critical exceptions to the privilege that apply in family court proceedings [EC section 972(g)]. These include:
  • A married person cannot claim the testimonial privilege to refuse to answer questions about issues relating to income, expenses, assets, debt and employment of either spouse.
  • An action brought against the spouse by a former spouse to establish, modify or enforce a child, family or spousal support obligation arising from the marriage to the former spouse.
  • An action brought against a spouse by the other parent to establish, modify or enforce a child support obligation for a child of a nonmarital relationship between the parties.
  • In proceedings brought by a guardian of a child against a spouse relating to a child support obligation.
• Note that the testimonial privilege in the exceptions above (disclosure of income and assets, etc.) remains intact if other information is sought beyond the scope of these finance related exceptions, as to the requested disclosure of such other information.
• There are two exceptions in which a spouse may be deemed to have waived their marital privilege to refuse to testify or be called as a witness:
  • Unless erroneously compelled to do so, a married person who testifies in a proceeding to which his or her spouse is a party, or who testifies against the spouse in any such proceeding, waives their section 970 and 971 privileges in those proceedings for all purposes. 'Erroneously compelled' means under circumstances indicating "irresistible force", for instance where a judge orders the spouse to answer the question.
  • A married person cannot assert these privileges in a civil proceeding which they themselves have brought, or are defending, for the "immediate benefit" of his or her spouse, or both jointly. In such cases the privileges are effectively waived. [Evidence Code § 973(b)]. A common example would include an action for personal injury damages against a third party.

Confidential Marital Communications' Privilege

Absent a waiver or an exception, a married person, whether or not they are a party to proceedings, has a privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communications between the married person or their spouse made while they were married or domestic partners. Evidence Code section 980. 

Here are some general points to understand as to the limitations of this privilege:

• There must be a valid marriage or RDP at the time of the communication.
• This privilege survives the dissolution of the marriage itself.
• Each spouse or former spouse holds and can assert the privilege.
• Only "confidential communications" are exempted from disclosure. A "communication" means a written or oral statement or act intended to convey a message.
• As to the existence of assets and debts, it doesn't prevent disclosure of the fact of the existence of same - it only protects communications about those subjects.
• The communication must have been made in a setting that reasonably implies a confidence. There is a presumption that communications between spouses were made in confidence, but that presumption can be overcome upon a proper showing.
• If a third person was present, then there may not be a presumption that the communication was intended to be "confidential" or the presumption may be rebutted.
• The privilege will not exist where the party asserting it is abusing the "mantle of confidentiality", for instance where it is part of an assault by one spouse upon the other.
• It cannot be asserted where its application would serve to enable or aid a crime or fraud that is being attempted (although the privileges under EC sections 970 and 971 may apply).
• It does not apply to proceedings against the spouses themselves, and there are other limited exceptions (juvenile court proceedings, for instance).

Thurman Arnold, CFLS

Advice for Couples in 2012, Including How to Balance Power in Your Marriage! 

It has been my repeated experience that, in anticipation of a divorce action, an unethical or abusive spouse will take strategic steps to hide assets and obfuscate the methods used to hide them. The ramifications to the non-managing spouse can include not only an unfair disbursement of community assets upon resolution of the case, but also manifest into reduced calculations of temporary and permanent spousal support and child support. 

California family law attempts to minimize the potential for financial fraud during the life of a divorce action. For example, it creates rules for mandatory disclosures of assets. It creates fiduciary duties for managing spouses. It creates methods for discovery of financial and asset information (but only in the context of a legal action, after the relationship has broken down). It creates pre-judgment and post-judgment penalties for non-disclosure. 

In a perfect world such legal tools alone would fully prevent the potential for financial dishonestly between separating spouses. But the reality is that the law routinely fails to protect the financial interests of the non-managing spouse in this regard, and the root cause of that failure occurs because non-managing spouses don't take steps to equalize the playing field when it comes to information about family finances during the course of the marriage. Stated another way, individual non-managing spouses are often unable to utilize the tools that the law provides to ensure they receive a just and equitable share of the fruits of the community's efforts during the course of the marriage because they lack the information necessary to have their lawyer fully protect their interests.  Too many non-managing spouses wait until the time of separation to learn about the family finances.  By then, non-managing spouses and their attorney are playing catch up, and not always winning. As such, it is of paramount importance that a non-managing spouse be proactive in learning as much information about the family finances as possible, and do so not only on the eve of a divorce, but also during the entire course of the marriage itself.   In this day and age, knowledge is the coin of the realm.

Economists recognize that one source of market failure (i.e. inefficient allocation of resources) is caused by a phenomenon called asymmetric information. Asymmetric information affects decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. In adverse selection models, the ignorant party lacks information while negotiating a contract to the transaction. Common examples of information asymmetry include 'insider' trading in the stock market, or buying a 'lemon' used car. Understanding and combating asymmetric information is crucial to economists because market failure leads to net losses for society as a whole. Understanding and combating asymmetric information should be equally important to the non-managing spouse and his/her attorney because of its strong potential to lead to inequitable settlements or trial results.  In the economic sense, asymmetric information between spouses about the family finances is a form of market failure. To be sure, if you are contemplating or undergoing a divorce action, you will (in most cases) effectively be negotiating a transaction that will bind you and impact your financial future.

The best way overall way to combat a managing spouse 's tendency to commit acts of misfeasance or non-disclosure regarding financial interests is to equalize the flow of financial information from the very outset of the marriage, with information parity being a non-managing spouse's goal.

Hand-in-hand with the goal of information parity is a mindset that fosters such parity being present throughout the marriage. That mindset is, simply stated, one of equality and mutual appreciation. Two people will divide labor in a marriage so as to maximize their relative strengths and weaknesses, and in so doing the synergy benefits the martial community as a whole to a greater extent than either person could do individually. Economists refer to this phenomenon as comparative advantage, and recognize that such a situation is optimal in the context of maximizing social utility. So too is comparative advantage optimal for managing a household. 

As a simple 'traditional' example, assume Chris and Pat are married. Chris has a greater income earning potential due to holding a doctorate degree and having a good network of people to whom Chris is favorably known in the locale. Pat has greater domestic abilities due to having a bachelors degree in nutrition a work background in home decor. Based on these comparative strengths, Chris and Pat decide that Chris will work full-time and Pat will take care of the home full-time. Pat's excellent meals keep Chris energized and in good health.  Pat's superior aesthetic tastes keep Chris in style with cool cloths. Chris's boss comes over for dinner and is impressed by the feng shui of the domicile. Over time Chris gets promoted and raises. Chris uses the additional income to make financial investments, go on vacations with Pat, and purchase a better home. By Chris and Pat each doing what they are relatively strong at, they, both individually and as a whole, are made economically better off. But more to the point, it is their interdependence that necessarily caused the mutual gain. The law recognizes this fundamental principal in the context of divorce by creating the concept of community property; that regardless of whether it was Chris's paycheck that allowed for the growth of assets, Pat's contributions to Chris's earned income are equally important and therefore necessitate equal division should Pat and Chris's relationship end. So as to a non-managing spouse's mindset, I strongly encourage all such people who are contemplating marriage, married, contemplating divorce, or involved in a divorce have one that recognizes their contributions to the community and requires takes a role.

On the practical side of things, here is a list of information parity objectives that I believe healthy marital relationships should achieve:

• Spouses should store copies of written financial documents in a safe place and where the other spouse doesn't have access.
• Spouses should have all depository, investment, retirement, and debt account numbers written down in an asset ledger. Annual inventories of all assets with a value over $500.00 should be maintained and signed off on by spouses and kept in the asset ledger.
• Spouses should keep copies of income information, including payroll stubs and other documents showing income such as rental checks from investment property or brokerage statements from securities dealers. 
• Spouses should copy and store all financial account information from banks savings and loans, credit unions, particularly monthly statements. Spouses should also copy and store other banking information such as passbooks, check registers, and deposit slips. 
• Spouses should agreed to have all financial information statements should be sent to each spouse individually, directly from the applicable financial institution, and be received only at that spouses primary residential address (and not, for example, at a business). If one spouse insists on receiving their financial information from home or stops receiving financial information mail at the residence, it is often a red flag. 
• Spouses should maintain copies of tax documents, including personal tax returns and business tax returns, and attached forms, for the preceding five years.
• Spouses should receive and keep business financial statements, including net worth and income statements, in the case of a small business.
• Spouses should keep copies of all wills and trusts, and attachments thereto (such as a grant deed that has been recorded in favor of a trust for the benefit of the spouses).
• Spouses should keep copies of all life insurance policies.
• Spouses should keep copies of all outstanding debts incurred during the marriage that are in either spouses name.
• Spouses should keep a list of all personal and real property owned prior to the marriage.
• Spouses should keep a list of all safe deposit boxes and their contents.

Other tips you should know about and red flags you should watch out for to protect you from an unscrupulous spouse:

• Don't wait until things are going badly in the relationship to achieve financial information parity. Work towards that goal from the outset.
• Conduct asset searches of your spouse's biographical information by professional third-parties on an annual basis.
• Be aware that there is a statistically higher incidence of spouses hiding money in their second, third, or later marriages.
• Its best to have only a certified public accountant prepare the spouses' tax returns (as opposed to 'bookkeepers' of other unlicensed persons acting as pseudo-accountants), as they are subject to professional  conflict of interest rules. Do not sign any document seeking your informed consent to waive any conflict of interest rules with respect to accountants without consulting an attorney.   
• Particularly in the case of a small business, become knowledgeable about the business's employees, its normal income, its normal expenses, and how it accounts for them. A small business in particular is breeding grounds for accounting tricks to make it appear less valuable. I have seen this occur by the managing spouse: favor/incentivize cash payments from customers, funnel personal expenses as payments from the business, creating and paying fake employees (including the spouses' own children) and then voiding the uncashed checks after the divorce is final, or delaying new long-term business opportunities (i.e. taking new customer orders, signing new clients, or receiving transfers from escrow-like accounts such as paypal.com). It's important to be familiar with the inner-workings of a small business so you can note when something is amiss. Carefully review and copy customer/client payment agreements and accounts where a small business operates on a largely cash basis.
• Review financial statements on a regular basis. It is easier to access and digest three months of recent transactions than five years of relatively distant transactions. Look out for large or out-of-the ordinary deposits or withdrawals, and try to trace the source/end-point of the transaction to the best of your ability.
• Be aware that municipal bonds and certain savings bonds, because they are tax-free, are not reported to the IRS and therefore can be a vehicle for asset hiding because they do not need to be disclosed on tax returns. Look out for large investments in these assets.
• Non-managing spouses should be careful about signing joint tax returns that claim large deductions for various expenses, particularly in the case where a small business is involved. Although it might mean a larger tax burden in a particular year, in the context of a divorce it often results in lower spousal support and a lower business valuation, with attestation proof presented to a judge in the form of your signature.
• Big changes to the administration of finances can be a red flag: applying for large new loans, the closing of a bank account or change to an investment portfolio, particularly without the input of the non-managing spouse, might give opportunity to hide money.
• Know your spouse's boss well, and make sure they like you. I have experienced collusion between employers and employee so as to show short-run decreases (bonus or raise deferral) to income agreed on increases after the divorce is complete.  If you separate from your spouse, let your spouse's boss know that event has occurred in writing. 
• Do not sign deeds or other papers concerning real estate papers without consulting an attorney.
• Watch out for bank accounts opened in the name of spouse's children, as they do not get listed on that spouse's tax statements they can be a method of hiding community assets.
• Also watch out for overpayments on taxes. A managing spouse may try to receive a tax return later after the divorce is final by overpayment now, or alternatively filing amended taxes.
• Avoid 'loans' to friends or family.           
• Be a Missourian, i.e. don't take your spouse's word. Have the managing spouse show you with the documents that corroborate what they tell you about the family finances. 
• Don't allow fear of ruining the relationship, cultural values, or laziness prevent your pro-activity in becoming astute in the family finances. Defensive responses to your inquiries and requirements for financial information parity by the managing spouse may indicate diversion of community assets.  
• Always remember that the burden of proof rests on the accuser, not the accused, to prove diverted assets to a court. Take all actions to protect your interests with this rule in mind.

These are my thoughts at the end of 2011 - I wish each of you, and each of us, a Happy New Year in 2012, and I hope that we all strive to be transparent and ethical during the coming year!

ATTORNEY MICHAEL C. PETERSON JOINS THE FIRM! 

Marriage of Margulis, Part 2 - Duties of Managing Spouses

Part One

A Shifting Judicial Response to Overzealous Advocacy:
Excessively Exuberant and Inflammatory Litigation Tactics
Will Not Be Tolerated in California

Marriage of Duris & Urbany

Be Careful What You Ask For,
and Consider Asking for Something Different

Q.  My attorney has used the word "tracings" several times, and I really don't understand how this works.  Can you give me a simple explanation?

A.  Unlikely (sorry!).

Tracings may be required by California law in a number of settings in order to find out what each spouse's share of the community property is. They generally show up in several recurring situations, but unfortunately for simplicity's sake there are numerous permutations of where tracings come into play. Chief among them is where cash or assets that was used to purchase property was "commingled" (think tossed salad with separate property lettuce leaves and community property mixed vegetables) at the time it was contributed. Please use the search engine at the upper right to see my Blog Articles for the definitions of community and separate property.

These include:

• Determining the community verses separate property attributes of an asset that was acquired with funds contributed during marriage that were a combination of each (CP and SP). This is called "characterization" - does the asset belong in whole or in part to the community estate, or to one party's separate estate, or both in different degrees? The community component is sometimes earnings that were used to pay down secured debt each month when, for instance, a mortgage principal payment is made for a separate property asset (a Moore-Marsden situation). It can include one time downpayments from joint bank accounts that contain community income or earnings (or separate property accounts that may have been commingled with joint funds or not or community property accounts that include separate property components) further complicated in the case of a refinance, and more.

• It is extremely common that a community property asset (acquired during marriage, possibly but not necessarily in joint names), or improvements to it, traces partly or 100% to a separate property source. Many parents 'gift' their child part or all of  the downpayment for the couple's first home. Or, a separate property asset (acquired during marriage but titled in one spouse's name alone - usually seen with real estate) may be purchased using joint funds.  In either event there is a tracing right of reimbursement per Family Code section 2640 to the respective community or separate property interests that bought it, in the event of a dissolution or legal separation. FC §2640 is in the top five of all California property division statutes and is critical for an understanding of what your legal interests are if either spouse has any colorable claims to separate property used during marriage. Many middle income and high asset property division cases are a puzzle map of assets that are not what they seem at first glance.

• There are a number of situations where reimbursement claims arise from the payment of joint or separate debts using money that the other spouse had an interest in (whether community funds or separate). Under limited situations there may be a right for the community, or the other spouse's separate property, to be reimbursed, but you will be required to trace these funds to claim them.

• Often intended or unintended transmutations have occurred. Family Code section 852 is the chief transmutation statute, and another of the top five California dissolution property statutes. Transmutations involve a change in the character of property, from community to separate or from separate to community or separate to the other party's separate property. These commonly require tracings in order to establish the FC § 2640 interest. For instance, husband and wife own a residence together in joint names. It was purchased during marriage. But there is need for a refinance, and one spouse's credit is bad. The parties agree that husband will borrow the money, and the lender requires that wife sign a quitclaim deed before escrow can close. Husband assures wife 'not to worry.' Wife signs the transfer deed and doesn't seek legal advice. She has unwittingly transmuted her community interest to husband's separate property. Years later the property has appreciated. What is Wife's interest? (Breach of fiduciary duty questions have to be the subject of a separate Blog but, again, please try our search engine for more information!)

Did I say I would give a simple answer?  No?  Good!

In order to unwind transactions during marriage where monies and property with separate and community property attributes have been mixed together, the "separatizer" (the party seeking to establish their separate property contributions to the community or separate property of the other spouse or partner) has the burden of proof to present reliable tracing evidence to the Court. In order to settle even mildly complex dissolutions as between the parties without going to trial, this information must be provided and laid out in a concrete manner to convince the other side that you have the ability to meet your burden.

Here are some of the rules that apply the mechanics of tracings in dissolution actions and legal separations.

If the commingled funds are used to purchase property, the party who deposited the separate funds may attempt to trace the source of the funds used to purchase the property to establish that it is separate because separate funds were used to purchase it. This may overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community. Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604.

If separate and community property or funds are commingled in such a manner that it is impossible to trace the source of the property or funds, the whole must be treated as community property. Marriage of Mix, supra.

If the title to the property was taken jointly, tracing cannot be used to overcome the presumption from the form of title. Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 813-814.

Direct tracing and tracing through family expenses are two independent methods of tracing to establish that property purchased with commingled funds is separate property.

Direct Tracing

Separate funds do not lose their separate character when commingled with community funds in a bank account so long as the amount of separate funds can be ascertained and at no time period were the funds spent down below the balance of SP claimed unless replenished with SP instead of CP. Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604.

If money is withdrawn to purchase specific property, questions of fact that must be determined include (Marriage of Mix, supra):

• Whether separate funds continue to be on deposit; and

• Whether the drawer intended to withdraw separate funds.

The party seeking to establish a separate interest in presumptive community property must keep adequate records. The party must show the exact amount of money allocable to separate property and the exact amount of money allocable to community property before it can be said that the money allocable to separate property is not so commingled that all funds in the account are community property. Marriage of Frick (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 997. If the payments claimed to be separate were made periodically, each payment must have been made when separate property funds were in the account and must have been accompanied by an intent to use those funds rather than community funds. Marriage of Higinbotham (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 322, 329.

Tracing Through Family Expenses

The second method of tracing to establish that property purchased with commingled funds is separate property requires a consideration of family expenses. This tracing method is based on the presumption that family expenses are paid from community funds.

If at the time the property is acquired it can be shown that all community cash and income in a commingled account was exhausted by family expenses, then all funds remaining in the account at the time the property was purchased were necessarily separate funds. Marriage of Mix, supra.

This method can be used only when, through no fault of the spouse claiming separate property, it is not possible to ascertain the balance of income and expenditures at the time property was acquired. See v See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778, 784.

The spouse claiming separate property must keep adequate records to overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property. See v See, supra.  Most people don't.

The take-away:  If you are contemplating a divorce and have tracing issues, protect your records now so that they do not 'disappear.'  It can be very expensive to obtain bank statements and canceled checks dating back years, and with all of the bank failures and mergers today these records may become impossible to obtain.  If you cannot meet your tracing burden of proof, you lose on the particular reimbursement issue.

As you probably have guessed, tracings are quite expensive and typically involve the assistance of a forensic accountant. Moreover, not just any attorney will know what to do with this information!

    "(a) At a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause pursuant to subdivision (b), the court shall receive any live, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing and the court may ask questions of the parties.

    (b) In appropriate cases, a court may make a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony and shall state its reasons for the finding on the record or in writing. The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 2012, adopt a statewide rule of court regarding the factors a court shall consider in making a finding of good cause.

    (c) A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony.

If the witness list is not served prior to the hearing, the court may, on request, grant a brief continuance and may make appropriate temporary orders pending the continued hearing."

Family Code section 217 will cause a sea-change in day to day family court proceedings across our state, unless family court judicial officers ignore it to the limited extent possible by court rules.  It will likely have immense financial and resource consequences upon not only the courts but upon parties to family court proceedings.  It will force the state government in coming years to study whole new paradigms for resolving divorce and domestic partnership dissolution outside the adversary template, including those currently practiced in New Zealand and southern Australia. 

It will also pressure parties to consider mediation, and collaborative processes which occur outside congested courthouses, much more carefully.  The costs of adversary litigation are about to sky-rocket, making mediation even more appealing from a financial perspective (I have written extensively about the emotional and psychological benefits here an elsewhere).  There simply is no governmental money available to absorb the coming Elkins Onslaught. For more information about an alternative method for resolving family disputes, please visit us at www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com.
  
At the same time, at least in the short run taken together with some of the other revisions that become effective next month, it may encourage more people to litigate more stubbornly and so make mediation seem less attractive than it did before the changes (just the reverse will be true).  Some folks will mistakenly assume that this invites the use of court hearings as a live-testimony forum for sharing unresolved complaints relating to their marriage or domestic partnership dissolution with the other party in open court.  Instead, judges will sustain objections to such irrelevant material and parties who seek to use Family Court as a platform to air relationship grievances will find themselves alienating the trier of fact in ways that will have adverse consequences to them beyond just the time and expense of the exercise. 

The purpose of today's Blog is to introduce you to section 217 and the new changes.  I will follow up with more articles in coming weeks.  Without a doubt the new rules will make all the information I provide on my websites more relevant and timely for my readers. 

Stock options that are earned during the marriage, but vest afterwards, generally belong to the community. They are treated as deferred compensation, like certain types of pensions. Usually an employee is granted the right to buy stock, now or in the future, at a fixed price. They may be forced to sell that stock back to the company if they leave. What controls whether the options are characterized as community or separate is when they are granted and when they vest. If they do not vest at all, as where a minimum number of years of service by the employee are required which is not met (even where the employee-spouse quits after separation and so blows them up), they are neither separate or community property - instead, they are not viewed as a property interest at all.  In those cases they were a "mere expectancy" that never matured.

In cases where an employee must work for the company for a fixed number of years to be eligible, but the spouses or RDP's separate before those years have been served, the options have both community and SP attributes. To the extent that they result from post-separation efforts too, they must be apportioned between CP and SP. As with how interests in pensions are commonly evaluated, courts tend to follow a "time-rule". The time rule looks like this:

DOG to DOS
__________  X  # of Shares Exercisable = C/P shares
DOG to DOV
    
        DOG = Date of Grant
        DOS = Date of Separation 
        DOV = Date of Vesting

Stock options that are granted after the DOS are usually treated as the separate property of the recipient, even where some of the employee's contributions occurred before. This is because of the importance of what the employer intended to the analysis.

This Blog is intended just to give you some sense of the law over these potentially complex questions. As with everything, different facts can lead to different outcomes and stock options are complicated financial devices. 

Also, stock option disputes sometimes involve claims of fraud - as where a small closely held company or family business tries to funnel or manipulate how when the options are granted or vest in an effort to favor one spouse over another. 

Perhaps the only practical way that a former spouse or partner may learn that stock options exist or when they vest or are exercised is by the self-disclosure of the employee. The law is clear that spouses and domestic partners are required by their fiduciary obligations to make these disclosures. Refusals to disclose can have severe consequences under Family Code section 1101.

Q.  My divorce seems like it has stalled.  My wife operates our family business, we own several properties including a commercial building and she collects the rents, she isn't cooperating with me on custody on our kids, and I need money to pay my attorney.  She is controlling this case, and I am getting nowhere.  Any recommendations?

TW Arnold
10/18/10

Q.  Can you please help.  I understand a Moore-Marsden analysis needs to be performed on my house in my pending divorce, but I don't understand what it is my attorney is telling me. 

Frederic:

Here is an illustration of how the calculation works. Please see my FAQ on Moore Marsden generally. As you can see, it is complicated. You will need a forensic accountant and you may want a real estate expert because fair market values need to be fixed at various dates. Your situation is even more complicated because you placed her on title. The simplest Moore-Marsden situation deals with a property owned in the name of one spouse throughout the marriage, where marital earnings are used to pay the mortgage down - the fundamental concept is that the community should get some reimbursement for this, which comes back as a share in the appreciation and reduced principal obligation. 
 
You will need to get:

• the mortgage payoff balances on the date of marriage;
• the mortgage payoff balance on date of the transmutation (when your wife went on title)
• the payoff balance at date of separation
• and you will need a mortgage balance near the date of your trial

I want to mention that all transmutations that favor one spouse and disadvantage the other, like putting her on the deed on 1/1/02, are subject to a claim that they should be set aside. This is because there is a presumption that your Wife exerted undue influence upon you - please research my fiduciary duty blog articles using the on-site search engine if this interests you.

Therefore, one scenario is:

Assuming                                                                $   54,875     dowppayment
and                                                                                6,836     (paydown before M) 
(you will need the mortgage statements)                        25,125     appreciation before M 
and                                                                             (20,197)    principal reduction  during M

then:                                                                           $54,875 [DP] PLUS $89,803
[SP Loan of $110,000 minus $20,197 CP payments] 
 = $144,678 DIVIDED BY $164,875 [purchase price]
= 's a 87.75 SP Interest

and                                                

$20,197 divided by $164,875 =' a 12.25% CP interest