Recent Posts in Divorce Settlement Agreements Category
| February 26, 2011 |
| Alternatives to Family Court and the Challenge of Mediating Cases With Strong Emotions |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Some of you know that my hope for people with family law crises is that they mediate their disputes, rather than litigate them. This is why I am a co-founder of Desert Family Mediation Services (DFMS), serving the southern California inland and desert cites.
At DFMS we are sometimes reminded that people in relationship breakup who hope to employ mediation to resolve their disputes have a broad range of needs and expectations that involve emotional dynamics in widely differing degrees. Often this occurs when one or both parties expresses deep anger or hurt. It is not uncommon that these dynamics include feelings and judgments between the parties and others that are not immediately evident, but which spill into the mediation at some stage. There is no 'one size' that predicts every couple's circumstance or mediation experience, but it is to be expected that strong feelings about many things may be triggered during the process. If this occurs it can be useful in assisting the parties to facilitate their looking at these feelings, and the raw pain that often underlies them.
Otherwise, when for instance people become stuck in angry exchanges or refuse to consider that what is important to the other person may actually be relevant to both since no agreement can be reached without joint assent, the parties risk impasses that may imperil the mediation's success. We like to say that each party holds the key to unlocking the best resolution for both of them. Looking at emotional dynamics and the feeling and reactivity that they engender may be an essential component to the process, but this is quite different from suggesting that people's minds about what the hold to be true will necessary change or dissolve into a cloud of blissful forgiveness: We just find that positions loosen and dialogue is possible when we look at the judgments that relationship wounds accumulate.
Which is not to recognize that in every case it is necessary or even appropriate to review what the parties' feelings were or have become. Some people wishing to mediate have simply realized their marriage or domestic partnership is no longer working and can amicably admit it, and really just want nothing more than reliable help with the legal mechanics of dissolution. In those cases mediators tend to act more as scriveners - that is, the mediator's role is to formalize the party's agreement rather than to guide the parties by helping to resolve conflict. But even in these seemingly simple situations, there is no guarantee that powerful unforeseen or unacknowledged feelings will not come up in ways that cause a party or both parties pain and so make what seemed simple into something much more textured and complex.
It is often not uncommon that when ask the parties whether they feel it may be or become prudent to discuss emotional issues during mediation one participant, but not always both, report that emotional hurts are not seen as something that will likely arise in mediation. This seems to be true especially where one party has checked out of the relationship some time before the decision is made to break up or is openly expressed to the other person. Psychologists call this "decoupling," and decoupling usually results not only in wide differences in each person's experience of the emotional breakup since one party may have what amounts to a 'head-start'. There are those whose views of "fairness" and "equity" are extensively colored by how the relationship ended or personal hurts or violated expectations that were suffered or inflicted along the way. Such situations also frequently include incidents of 'affairs' or other secretive behaviors that can be devastating to the person who is making a late discovery. Not surprisingly this can result in much anger and resentment, something that fuels conflict and disputes and makes unwinding them more challenging.
All cases are underpinned by important feelings about any number of possible subjects, and each contains its own hooks where people can find themselves getting stuck in an instant. When anger gets linked with concepts of "legal rights," it may be near impossible to work through the parties' interests within mediation without addressing these emotions in some meaningful way. This is one reason why Family Court exists, and why it remains the forum of choice for most people for ending relationships no matter how destructive and expensive it can become. People locked in conflict fueled by anger just may not be able to stop the cycle of reactivity.
A mediator early on is rarely able to foresee whether emotional triggers may threaten to derail the process at any point or stage. This is why we raise this issue for your consideration. But agreeing that emotional dynamics, including underlying anger or judgments, should be discussed at all may not be something both parties will easily agree to. There can be considerable fear about this topic. Perhaps understandably, many people already feel they have suffered enough from their own emotions or from the other's. However, since mediating your case is always a voluntary process for each of you (and the mediator too) it can be imperative that both parties be or become willing early on in order to entertain such a dialogue. This is not something that can be forced or imposed upon either.
Moreover, emotional dynamics and what underlies them challenge mediators equally as much as the parties. Mediators are susceptible to making judgments or being pulled into a relationship dynamic, and this can perpetuate the conflict rather than serve to assist in overcoming it.
Partly because of this recognition, together with Retired Judge Gretchen Taylor, I spent a week in early February, 2011, training with a small group of professional mediators and collaborative attorneys, including several from Europe, under the supervision of Gary F. Friedman, Jack Himmelstein, and Norman Fischer in a program entitled "Self-Reflection in Action: Using Our Inner Selves to Help People In Conflict". These gentlemen comprise the "The Center for Understanding in Conflict & The Center for Mediation in Law", based in Mill Valley. Gary is a mediation trainer, lawyer, and mediator based in Northern California; Jack is a former law professor at Columbia University Law School; and Norman is an author and former Zen abbot and practicing monk. We believe this group is at the cutting edge of developing a meaningful strategy for helping people to become unstuck in mediation.
All of the conflict professionals attending this course work regularly with families who are experiencing varying degrees of relationship crisis. Of particular focus was the high conflict divorce, where strong emotional reactions tend to have a major influence on how mediations unfold and upon their potential successes and failures. Often the parties' emotions can strike chords within the mediators themselves based upon their own life experiences, and so our goal in undertaking this work is to better understand not only your emotions but our own so that together we can navigate and move through conflict together successfully. Judgments, which are often unconscious, frequently impede the ability to move from the problem to the solution unless these judgments are investigated to some degree. Feelings always surround judgments, and are usually a reliable indicator that these judgments which are not evident are nonetheless in operation. By investigating these judgments and what lies beneath them to some extent in their own responses to the parties' expressions of conflict, mediators may be successful in moving parties forward when they otherwise appear to be stuck in impasses that threaten to end the process.
Mediation is not therapy. Even if you choose to mediate, or co-mediate, with one our DFMS mental health professionals (or divorce coaches in the case of Collaborative Mediations), the role of these experts is not intended to include therapy.
The process may nonetheless be therapeutic but only always as you invite and allow.
Understanding-based mediation is not intended to pry or force the parties' boundaries open beyond what they may be capable of or ready for. By this Blog I just want to acknowledge a possible role for de-escalating emotional dynamics within mediation by examining emotions and the judgments and pain that underlie them. I hope to introduce the idea that possibly addressing in some fashion the emotions and judgments that are an 'elephant in the room' anyway, and which can overwhelm the mediation process in important ways if not seen, is something that might better be faced head on.
At the commencement of our mediations, or at any other time, whether the dynamics of emotions that may affect your mediation is something that you want to discuss to some extent, are willing to share, or feel safe expressing or hearing about, is something for you each to decide as a set of ground rules that is not static but changes as mediation unfolds. These rules require consent of all parties and the mediator. As your mediators we cannot and will not force it; moreover, such issues are not what mediation is intended or designed to overcome or transform.
But if there are strong emotional dynamics that may impact nuts and bolts as we address your values and interests in the process of settling your matters, this would be a valuable beginning conversation for us to have. |
 |
| Continue reading "Alternatives to Family Court and the Challenge of Mediating Cases With Strong Emotions" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| December 26, 2010 |
| MEDIATION Is a BETTER ALTERNATIVE To FAMILY COURT For Some |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
 |
|
California Family Courts render unique and invaluable services to people locked in end of relationship struggles. Family law Judges and Commissioners are extremely dedicated and highly trained professionals who make great personal sacrifices when they agree to take the bench. It is hard to imagine more challenging work. For significant portions of the population, the only place where people can go to achieve physical and emotional safety or win some economic equality is the local courthouse. Children in particular benefit hugely from the protections that the system aspires to provide. Besides judges, our county courts offer child custody recommending counselors, family law facilitators, probation officers and many others including courtroom staff, often at little or no direct cost to the parties beyond filing fees (which are ever-increasing). The commitment and availability of these workers is an example of how local governments can successfully improve the quality of our private lives.
But the family court legal system has significant organic, practical and fiscal limitations. Many people don't recognize, or forget, that it is the remedy of last resort - if it is considered to be the point of beginning, vast opportunities are lost. It can take on a life of its own and so be self-perpetuating.
First and foremost it is predicated upon an adversary model for answering disputes. The parties express and argue opposing views or stories about themselves and the other within the framework of complex rules of procedure and evidence that are designed in theory to encourage respect, truth-finding, fairness and uniformity within the process. Most judges do an outstanding job in maintaining civility and dignity during the proceedings. Substantive laws according to statutes and appellate decisions then determine who gets what. But whatever the outcome, it is imposed upon the parties from outside the family itself, and it will not have taken into consideration much beyond legalistic interpretations. It is susceptible of being swayed by inflammatory sound-bytes. The outcome is likely to be disappointing and what people say and do within the adversarial process may gouge new wounds or keep the old ones from healing.
Second, because a judicial officer sits as the "trier of fact" he or she is always the most important person in the room (and sometimes a ghost in the parties' homes). A judge's job includes making decisions in favor of the party who has met their burden of proof - that is, who has established to the court's satisfaction that one position is more likely to be the truer one (by one percent or more). Judges do the best they can to render unbiased and carefully thought out judgments, but they have conscious and unconscious biases like everyone else and the lack of available time and resources, not to mention the often difficult behavior of the parties (yes, and sometimes we attorneys) constrict the luxury of reflection.
Several important consequences flow from these practical realities. The judge's involvement implicitly presumes that peacemaking alternatives to adversary litigation have first been tried and have failed. Sometimes that is true, but more often all that has really happened is that Party One has said "I want it my way" and Party Two has said "No, I want it my way." These two people alone could not save the marriage or domestic partnership, and it is equally unlikely that they can now agree on how to manage the delicate financial and parenting issues affected by their breakup without outside assistance. The fact is that when people are ready to seek outside intervention, the first place they look to is adversarial lawyers or the family court, not noticing they've short-circuited alternative dispute resolution options. One or both hires a divorce attorney (few lawyers describe mediation or collaborative options before undertaking cases, although they are ethically required to do so) or files a proceeding on their own; three weeks later the family's lives are dropped like a ball of snakes into a judge's lap for untangling. Unfortunately this is not the court's role. While all judges promote settlement and joint decision-making if it is safe for the litigants and for their children, a judge's practical function is entirely different. While judges receive varying forms of mediation training at judicial college, they are not hired on and paid to be mediators.
Third, there are policy and fiscal limitations to what county governments, and hence judges, can do. In terms of policy restrictions, few local county courts have developed or make available any kind of mediation programs beyond custody related matters. Custody mediations generally do not allow for at most more than an hour of a custody counselor's time to read the file, assess the parties, and then report to the court. Possibly they have had 30 minutes to interact with the parties to learn the competing and complicated concerns. No matter how dedicated, smart, and professional they are this is challenging task within the allotted timeframe.
Settlement and mediation programs are non-existent in some middle sized and most smaller counties. The Indio Branch of the Riverside County Superior Court has no non-custody family law mediation program in place. This is odd since Riverside is now possibly the largest county in California. Because of budgetary restrictions, throughout southern California when mediation programs exist they often rely entirely upon the generosity of retired bench officers or volunteer attorneys. One resulting irony is that the family court dockets become overcrowded with many cases that are otherwise amenable to settlement, and this further taxes the system and makes less money available for mediation or other needs. Similarly, there is no option for high-conflict families other than to force them to litigate at great cost to all, especially since they tend to re-litigate endlessly, taking up a disproportionate share of court resources and pressuring the time available for other families.
The failure of cooperation between the judiciary and non-public lawyers has several causes that are each difficult to overcome. First, court administrative decision-makers seem distrustful of sharing these tasks outside the system. Second, when it is solicited lawyers are not reimbursed for their contributions of time. Their involvement is an unappreciated public service without economic benefit to them, and indeed such service takes time away from their existing caseloads (read: anxious paying litigation clients). Third, while we sincerely proclaim that settlement is in every way preferable, and acknowledge that it decongests clogged courtrooms and frees up public resources, some governmental officials still seem to consider it as if it were a luxury item. This tracks the views of larger society, which hasn't recognized that mediation is a core asset rather than a stop gap, and this is true of both public and private mediation. Consequently, private mediators are not asked to mediate for the public and receive no systemic support. Lacking support or encouragement many potential mediators don't take developing mediation skills seriously, especially if they cannot also develop a private mediation practice that justifies the investment of time and money that accumulating mediation skills quite assuredly requires.
Despite all the obvious benefits to individuals, families, fiscal conservatives and society in general when mediation works (written about extensively in this site but also at Desert Family Mediation Services), judicial officers and court administrators continue to resist it. This is understandable given that mediation is a latecomer to the litigation party, but otherwise makes no sense. The fact is that there are many reasons why mediation in any form is usually a superior alternative to government sponsored outcomes.
Today it is only the sophisticated legal consumers that recognize its potential value for themselves, largely because they are dissatisfied with their earlier litigation experiences or hope to avoid the experiences of others that they've observed. Some of the very ones who have the money to fund battles between lawyers, in and out of court, see that mediation is a much cheaper alternative or at least come to the recognition after some great expense. This is a secret that most litigating family lawyers know well - once the adversarial experience grinds people down sufficiently, they are ready to begin to think about settlement. That is a good time to bring in the mediators.
By the way, one of the powers of the Internet includes making limited demographic information accessible to web owners regarding their visitors. While I cannot discern who visits my Blogs (and we don't use cookies or any individual tracking techniques), Google provides metrics that do tell me what word combinations people are 'googling' and something about their gender, age, if they have children and their years of education. People seeking information about mediation are uniformly over 45, more than half are male, and most have attended graduate school.
I need to be clear that I am not blaming the courts or the lawyers as being in some form of conspiracy to increase the costs of divorce. Government always reflects the values of the constituency, sooner or later. Dissolution lawyers don't so much market a product as they provide a service to consumers who already have an expectation of what their needs are, even if it is skewed in the sense that it comes from a place of emotional reactivity and fear over losing money, property and kids. Until people who require the services of lawyers become aware of non-court alternatives, they will continue to expect the norm.
We seem to be stuck, but the good news is there is movement occurring. My fantasies include the one about how simply having this chat with you will help in a small way to shift our thinking. I hope to take mediation directly to those whose lives are the essence of what drives the family court system - to people such as yourself. My aim is to bypass outdated and bureaucratic thinking, and to popularize mediation as a preferred method of dispute resolution that potential litigants know to investigate at the outset to test whether it might be appropriate for their situation. One way to do this is to give you an experienced lawyer's inside view of the shortcomings of our legal system as it intersects with relationship transitions. Another is to remind lawyers that standards of practice and ethics require them to describe the possible benefits of mediation before they are retained, because some do not. And another is to encourage government decision-makers to increasingly embrace mediation within the court related processes.
These changes are coming anyway, and for very good reasons.
Drive Your Own Divorce!
Thurman W. Arnold III, CFLS
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
|
 |
| Continue reading "MEDIATION Is a BETTER ALTERNATIVE To FAMILY COURT For Some" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| October 18, 2010 |
| How Do I Get An Order for ATTORNEY FEES in a COMPLEX CASE? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
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?
[Please note - this Blog is updated with a recent Blog Article detailing the 2011 Revisions to the California Family Code affecting attorney fee awards 12/9/10]
A. I frequently hear from people whose cases are "stalled" because they have no money to pay their attorney, and no money to hire forensic experts. It is a problem I face in my practice with certain clients. It takes money to develop your case, and if there is really none available it is difficult to get anyone to pay attention. Often there are assets that only one spouse controls. That spouse or RDP (registered domestic partner) usually claims those assets to be their "separate property" even when the claim is ridiculous (for instance, closely held stock issued as "their sole and separate property" when the vesting of title in their name alone during marriage was just their manipulation and you didn't agree to it).
When there are assets that exist there is much that you can do. These assets, whether they be allegedly separate or community, are available to be borrowed against, or sold, to raise money so you can pay your attorney and hire experts to do the work that must be done.
However, your attorney needs to understand how to accomplish this or find one who does. Specifically one method that works well is to have a referee appointed under Code of Civil Procedure section 639 to oversee a "case management plan" under the circumstances described in
Family Code section 2032(d).
Specifically, have your attorney ask the Court in a motion to make a finding that your case involves "complex or substantial issues of fact or law." These can be related to property rights, custody, visitation, and support and may include bifurcations of issues. If you don't have an attorney, this would still be a start to obtaining findings that will generate money to hire one.
Once the Court so designates your case, it will itself begin to implement a plan or assign someone else - like an outside lawyer whom the court recognizes as an expert, to make recommendations as a referee. While the Court is not obligated to follow the recommendations of these referees, they ususally do. And if they don't the court may find itself overturned on appeal as happened 10/1/10 in In Re Marriage of Tharp, a case I will be writing about in detail as time permits.
This is a major step in not only getting someone to look more closely at the attorney fees you need (judges, after all, have really limited time) but also a good way to jump start a stalled dissolution or other family law case.
BTW, under the new statutes that take effect in 2011 as a result of the Elkins Task Force recommendations, case management may become the norm in California in family law proceedings. TW Arnold 10/18/10 |
 |
| Continue reading "How Do I Get An Order for ATTORNEY FEES in a COMPLEX CASE?" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| October 11, 2010 |
| What does "COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP" Mean? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. I am considering a divorce. I have found the deed to our home, and I see that the grant deed by which we took title is held like this "to Jim ... and Mary ..., husband and wife, as Community Property, with Right of Survivorship." What does this mean for me?
A. There are several very important consequences that flow from this language. The way is which title is held (or "form of title") is also called "vesting." Everything I say here applies to title for any form of property - bank or brokerage accounts, for instance, as well as any kind of real estate and the types of personal property for which we use title documents.
First, a "right of survivorship" means that if one party dies - but only before a final judgment of termination of the marriage of domestic partnership, or where a termination of marital status or partnership status occurs before the rest of the case is resolved in judgment form, the party that survives them inherits 100% of the dying party's share of the community property. It does not matter that there exist a Will or Estate document that purports to create a different transfer upon death. Where a right of survivorship exists there is no need to probate an estate in order to obtain full title - all that is required is that a Affidavit of Death of Joint Tenant be recorded with the County Recorder for the County where the real property is located. A Death Certificate must be attached to it. The transfer is then complete.
For other forms of property, as with jointly held bank accounts, the same results occur. However instead of recording an Affidavit of Death with the County Recorder's Office, a Certified Copy of the Death Certificate is simply provided to the banking institution. As a practical matter vehicle titles are different in the sense (a) they are filed with any DMV office in California and (b) the title language rarely references "community property" or 'rights of survivorship', and instead titles the property to Jim "and" "or" Mary. I will have to discuss the rules relating to inheritances and surviving widows and widowers in a different blog.
Second, if a party dies after a Final Judgment dissolving a marriage or domestic partnership, or after a "status termination" before final judgment, but title to the property has never been changed for whatever reason then there is no automatic right of survivorship - in legal effect, the survivorship rights were terminated (severed) upon the by operation of law as a consequence of the Status Termination.
Likewise, if a party to a divorce proceeding dies before the termination of status then the survivorship right controls (see below). Since people don't expect this, something lawyers call a "Blair warning" based upon a particular appellate decision is set forth in the
Family Law Summons Form FL-110 that no one ever seems to actually read (hopefully your lawyer told you about it).
This is one reason by marital bifurcations can have unforseen consequences and should be taken seriously when another spouse in the course of a divorce seeks to terminate status before the entire case is resolved by Final Judgment.
Third, in California when property is vested in both parties as "CP with right of survivorship" it is the equivalent of a "joint tenancy." All the same rules apply. Thus, what we are speaking to applies whether the "CP with right of survivorship" language was used for more common "to Jim and Mary as Joint Tenants is used."
Fourth, there does not need to be any reference to whether the parties are "husband and wife" for these rules to apply. Non-married people can be joint tenants as to any form of real (land) or personal property and the death of one vests the remaining title in the other - however, since there will be no termination of marital status since there is no marriage (assuming no domestic partnership either), there is only one way to destroy the right of survivorship: By transferring at least one party's interest as a "joint tenant" to themselves as a "tenant in common". The transfer of tenant in common interests after death follow the rules of testacy (a will exists and directs who gets what) and intestacy (no will exists, and specific legal rules declare who gets one depending upon their familial relationship to the decedent.
Fifth, many lawyers and savvy unrepresented parties will destroy the right of survivorship before the termination of marital status through the method outlined directly above. It only requires one party to accomplish this and it does not require the other party's consent. This has risks, however, since if you destroy a joint tenancy interest prematurely and other spouse dies then you will not inherit their interest but you will of course inherit you own 50%. If you are a child of a parent married to a nonparent or estranged parent and wish to protect your inheritance rights for an ailing father or mother - and they want you to inherit - you should consult a lawyer to assist in destroying the right of survivorship in a legally enforceable way. Note that a termination of this survivorship right violates the automatic temporary restraining orders that arise at the moment that every California dissolution or legal separation proceeding is filed, and that special rules exist for terminating joint tenancies which - if ignored - may not only render the attempt transfer void but further subject you to contempt or other penalties including attorney fees for trying to sever it improperly. Family Code section 2040(b)(c).
Sixth, and most important for the average divorce and in answer to your question, important legal presumptions arise from the Form of Title that have a huge impact on whether property is considered as community or separate. Way simply put, title held as you describe will almost certainly be declared community property for purposes of divorce and each spouse will be entitled to an equal one-half equity interest. However, that outcome does not require the "community property" language to be present in order to apply - any form of title acquired in joint names (tenancies in common, joint tenancies, tenancies by the entirety) triggers the presumption. The relevant Family Code section here is 2581.
Seventh and last for this Blog article, title presumptions are a kind of "super presumption" under the law in the sense that generally in order to rebut (disprove) them, the evidence that you submit must be "clear and convincing." A garden variety presumption in comparison is the rule that property acquired during marriage in whatever form (including title) is presumed to belong to the community. Family Code section 760.
Although FC section 760 doesn't use the word "presumption" that is what it means, and this presumption is the ordinary "by a preponderance of the evidence" presumption - meaning 51% likely or better. Clearing and convincing can be considered as 75% or better - although that is a simplification. Take a look at FC section 2581(a) and (b).
Unfortunately, that is not the end of the analysis because even where property is titled jointly, a party who can trace separate property contributions to its acquisition or certain improvements to it can recover those (Family Code section 2640) if they can follow the money through written records in a legally sufficient way in the event of a divorce. In the event of a death, these reimbursements are extinguished.
I discuss "tracings" on this Blog.
Different but similar rules apply to Living Trusts which are beyond the subject of today's Blog. I can see this is a good topic and "I'll be back." |
 |
| Continue reading "What does "COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP" Mean?" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| September 25, 2010 |
| How Do I Use a MARITAL BALANCE SHEET to Figure Out How to Best DIVIDE OUR PROPERTY? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. I am considering filing for divorce, and am beginning to pencil out what the division of our assets and debts might look like. What is a good way to go about this?
A. Prepare a
Marital Balance Sheet. This will give you an idea of how your property could be divided in a dissolution or legal separation, and to allow you to try out different combinations of division.
Its usefulness will depend the accuracy of your assumptions. Often times more information or outside opinions are required to do this with any degree of correctness. Sometimes the outside opinion that is required is the judge's decision on a disputed issue. Marital balance sheets can range from being exquisitely simple to exceedingly complex. Remember that it is the duty of the Court to divide the community estate equally - this division means an equal division in dollars, not that you divide the family residence with a chain saw.
The format itself is simple. You want two columns, one for you and one for your partner or spouse. You will categorize, value, and assign the community property between each of you. Some categories might be listed on a different balance sheet, like pensions.
Here are some suggestions for drafting a Marital Balance Sheet you can work with.
- Use net value numbers, i.e., equity in homes and automobiles. Secured debt is subtracted from fair market value - it is not divided as unsecured debt would be. If you take the house, you take 100% of the mortgage.
- Be sure to use realistic fair market value numbers. Don't make your final decisions based on Zillow. If your assumptions are flawed, your balance sheet analysis will be of limited use.
- Use wholesale Kelly Blue Book values for cars or at least make sure whatever yardstick you use is consistent for both parties.
- Obtain accurate and current pay-off information as to debts. Typically that will be the value of the debts on the date they are assigned, as adjusted for Epstein Credits.
- Don't treat apples and oranges as apples. For instance, list pension assets as a class separate from other assets - the present value of IRA's, 401k's, and other defined contribution plans is always different than the present value of a bank account. These pension accounts are not valued in real dollars but must be discounted, and that may require a pension forensic or CPA.
- Don't include separate property (the other spouse may dispute that characterization). Pure SP doesn't go on the marital balance sheet.
- Assign the debts, placing those numbers in parentheses to ensure they are subtracted and not added in your running total. Remember that it doesn't matter in whose name a credit card is parked. If a debt was incurred during marriage the general rule as between spouses is that each owes 50-50.
- Separate property debts don't go onto the balance sheet because they don't get evenly divided and if they were listed you may inadvertently charge yourself for half.
- Use total values rather than 1/2 community values. These numbers get divided as one of the last steps.
- Don't include support or support arrears.
- Calculate and note Watts' and Jeffries' claims
- List professional practices and businesses but realize you probably have no practical way to put a number on them, would be entirely guessing as to their value, and would probably be wrong anyway. Understand that business are worth more than the sum of their balance sheets or book values.
- If you share this document with your spouse, be sure to write "Confidential Evidence Code section 1152 Materials" on it, which makes them inadmissible as evidence against you. Otherwise you may find yourself stuck with your preliminary numbers when that is not what you intended.
- Realize that if you share this document, no matter how preliminary it is, with your spouse you will be creating in them expectations concerning value or division that they may become stuck on.
- Be careful how you treat negative equity on property. For instance, if you own a car that is worth $15,000 but you owe $25,000 and want that vehicle awarded to you, the other party will not be charged for one-half of the $10,000 in negative equity.
- Leased vehicles should be identified but have no value. I believe it is a good idea to list everything that you own or owe whether or not it has a value or can be valued at that time, since this list becomes an important road map for you and your lawyer.
- Make a note of alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims, but don't value them.
- Don't include your separate property. Include their separate property if you claim it to be all or partly community, but understand those aren't real numbers until a judge rules.
- Don't leave the document lying around where someone else might find it.
- If property is held in one spouse's name alone but a mortgage or taxes were paid during marriage, or if it was improved or refinanced during marriage, understand that the community probably has some Moore-Marsden interest in that property but that you will have great difficulty figuring out what that is without expert assistance.
- Similarly, if one spouse owned property (i.e, real estate) prior to marriage and the other was placed on title during the marriage, note to yourself that the property has community and separate property attributes and understand you will need more information or help to value those competing interests.
- Make a note of all separate property contributions you made for the acquisition or improvement of any property. These are called Family Code section 2640 credits.
- List all other reimbursements due to the community. For instance, there are many situations where the community property is used to pay one party's separate obligations (i.e., child support from a previous marriage) and if you know to assert the claim the community may be entitled to a reimbursement.
- List consumer goods like furniture at garage sale prices unless there is something truly special about the items. Nothing is valued at its purchase price or even its replacement cost new.
- Be sure to include loans from parents, work, or family members that were made during the marriage and assign those that relate to your family or work to you.
- Make a note of any gifts to one or the other of you alone that were used to purchase or improve community property, whether they were received before or during the marriage.
- Look at your bank balances at the date of separation and assign those balances appropriately. If your husband emptied the savings account the day before he walked out, list the amount he took under his column.
This is just a starting point and is valuable as a roadmap to get you thinking about what needs to be done to conclude the divorce. Once you discipline yourself to begin to overcome any paralysis you might feel, the marital balance sheet will speak to you about what is important for you, what the issues are, and will give you some idea of what important paperwork you need to obtain to evaluate your interests now or in the future. Get that paperwork at once. You are going to have to do this exercise anyway once a legal action is filed.
This the some of the information that you must provide in your Declarations of Disclosure. It is an efficient idea to use those forms from the beginning. These California Judicial Council Forms include:
Getting started on this early will make any meeting with a family attorney cheaper and far more useful then if you've not even thought about these things.
To the extent you can determine values or ranges of values, add up the net equity in your column for the community property you want or get, and subtract 100% of the debts that are to be assigned to you. Again, chances are there will be categories where you can't put a number on the items. But if you had the numbers, then after totalling the total net to the other party, subtract the two net numbers. One of you will show a higher number. This number will reflect the over-credit amount to that person which needs to be equalized between you. Divide this number by 2, and the person who netted more owes that resulting number to the one who received less. This amount is called an "equalization payment."
This is just one way to do a marital balance sheet. Often times there is no money to pay the equalization payment because all or most of the community is held in the form of personal and real property. An equalization payment is no good to you unless you can collect it. Perhaps you can get a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the family residence that is awarded to the wife. That is usually a bad idea - you don't want to become a bank, with all the attendant risks of default and depreciation.
Another option once you have these numbers are pencilled out is to go back and rethink how the property was divided. Maybe you should take those Peter Max lithographs after all. Maybe the residence or that vacant lot must be sold to raise money for the equalization payment. It is frequently seen in Stipulated Judgments or Marital Termination Agreements. It is not common in litigated judgments because courts generally must equalize the division at the time of trial, not in the future. This is why property may be ordered sold to ensure an equal, current division of the estate.
If defined contribution pension plans exist these are a good place to find the money to assure the equalization payment is actually honored. But a 401k with a net asset value of $100,000 might only be worth $80,000 after penalties and ordinary income taxes are charged on it. Pensions can be divided without tax consequences (QDRO's) but if you are owed a $100,000 equalization, creating a new pension in your name and transferring $100,000 from the other party's interest in it is like being handed a check for $80,000.

|
 |
| Continue reading "How Do I Use a MARITAL BALANCE SHEET to Figure Out How to Best DIVIDE OUR PROPERTY?" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| September 20, 2010 |
| How Can I Be Sure a Court Will Enforce My AGREEMENT Reached With My Spouse OUT OF COURT? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. My wife and I have reached some agreements about support and property division in our dissolution proceedings. Neither of us have attorneys. I want to write something up that is enforceable. Is there anything I should know?
A. If a case has already been filed and so is "pending", and whether you have attorneys or not, if you and your wife reach an agreement on any issue outside of court and you want to be sure that she can't back out of it before it is signed by a Judge and becomes an order, it is essential that you make reference to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 in any written agreement you prepare.
The terms of all types of agreements that you reach as an incident to pending family law litigation must be independently approved by a court commissioner or judge. Usually these judicial officers just want to know that both parties are in agreement, and will not substitute their opinions for what you've decided, but not always. Particularly where children are involved, judges have an independent obligation to ensure that a child's best interests are protected. Still, judges will not usually reject your agreements - however, if one side backs out before the agreement becomes an order or a judgment, when children are involved a court may be more inclined to refuse to enter the disputed order than it would be if the issues involved property division, debts, or spousal support.
Often times people reach agreements in the hallway outside the courtroom, and then come into court and tell the judge what their agreement is - once that agreement is 'on the record', most courts are going to enforce it. Those agreements often require, however, some further writing like a stipulation and it when the stipulation is presented days or weeks later that the other party may have changed their mind. You now need to enforce that agreement, possibly by a Motion under CCP 664.6.
The problem also arises when cases get settled away from court, during the lunch break, or when the agreement doesn't get put on the record for any number of reasons. Maybe they won't sign some other document that the signed agreement contemplated or obligated them to comply with.
Any agreement you reach with anyone is a contract if certain conditions are met. Unfortunately, failure to abide by such promises may only give rise to a claim for breach of contract under civil law - which is pretty worthless in family law proceedings because you have to file an independent civil action to enforce them, which takes months or years to resolve.
You want enforceable orders. These are something more than mere verbal or written promises, or contracts that haven't ripened into Orders or Judgments.
C.C.P. section 664.6 is extremely important and useful for enforcing written agreements, because it gives the Court the power to enforce the terms of those the agreements as court orders, and to interpret them later if there is disagreement about what was in fact agreed to.
However, in order for 664.6 to work for you, you need to either reference the statute in the document that is signed or in an oral statement on the record. You don't need to mention the section specifically, but I recommend that the following language should appear in the agreement or court transcript: "The parties request the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement per CCP 664.6" is the optimal language to use.
Thurman Arnold
http://www.DesertDivorceandFamilyLawyer.com
|
 |
| Continue reading "How Can I Be Sure a Court Will Enforce My AGREEMENT Reached With My Spouse OUT OF COURT?" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| September 14, 2010 |
| How do CALIFORNIA COURTS divide EDUCATION LOANS? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. My husband completed his training as a doctor after we married. He incurred substantial educational loans which we paid off during the marriage. What rights to I have for recovering those costs?
A. The community estate is supposed to be reimbursed for community contributions to education or training
of a spouse that substantially enhances that person's earning capacity. The amount reimbursed must include interest at the legal rate, accruing from the end of the calendar year in which the contributions were made. [FC §2641(b)(1); see FC §2627.]
Reimbursement is not appropriate in the following circumstances:
- The parties expressly agreed in writing to the contrary [FC §2641(e)]; or
- The contributions were for ordinary living expenses that would be incurred regardless of whether the spouse attended school, stayed home, or worked [Marriage of Watt (1989) 214 CA3d 340, 354].
If the loan is still outstanding at the time of dissolution, the balance is not divided but is instead assigned to the party who was educated or trained, except when the parties expressly agreed in writing to the contrary. [FC §2641(b)(2) (e).]
Nonetheless, the Court may reduce or modify the reimbursement and assignment of educational loans to the extent circumstances render such a disposition unjust, including the following [FC §2641(c)]:
- When the community substantially benefited from the education, training, or loan incurred for the education or training of the party. There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the community has not substantially benefited from community contributions to the education or training made fewer than 10 years before the commencement of the proceeding. On the other hand, it is presumed that the community substantially benefited from community contributions to the education or training made more than 10 years before the commencement of the proceeding.
- The education or training received by the party is offset by the education or training received by the other party for which community contributions have been made.
- The education or training enables the party receiving the education or training to engage in gainful employment that substantially reduces the need of the party for support that would otherwise be required.
Professional licenses and education are not "property" that can be divided in divorce or legal separation in California. Reimbursement for community contributions and assignment of loans under FC §2641 is the exclusive remedy of the community or a party for education or training costs and any resulting enhancement of a person's earning capacity.
However, importantly, the Court should consider the effect of the education, training, or enhancement, or the amount reimbursed, on the circumstances of the parties in ordering permanent spousal support pursuant to Family Code section 4320(b). [FC §2641(d).]
|
 |
| Continue reading "How do CALIFORNIA COURTS divide EDUCATION LOANS?" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| April 23, 2010 |
| Do I need a COHABITATION AGREEMENT? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. I am thinking about asking my girlfriend to move in with me. Should I be considering a Cohabitation Agreement and what would it say?
A. A lawyer's job is to give conservative advice that protects clients from both seen and unseen potential legal consequences relative to the circumstances that are unique to these client's lives. Family law attorneys are reminded every day that most nonlawyers never consider that their new (or old) relationship might one day breakup or dissolve and if so what the fallout might be in terms of property, debts, or even support obligations. People are particularly vulnerable for setting themselves up for future legal difficulties in the early stages of relationship. This is the time when they are least likely to seek family law legal advice but when they need it most.
I commonly encounter several sets of circumstances that justify executing cohabitation agreements, and which affect how they are written and what provisions to include:
1)
Protecting assets, income, and wealth of one party:
Where one partner brings into the relationship assets, debts, or an income stream which is proportionately greater than that of the other partner, the partner in the financially superior position may reasonably be concerned about protecting what they have. I call these "limiting agreements" because their aim is primarily to ensure that the other partner acquires no interest (or only specified interests) in property which is already owned or that is acquired during the relationship - typically through the use of joint bank accounts, joint borrowing, inheritances, or by just plain inadvertence.
Often one partner in these situations has a near zero net worth. The economic reality in our culture is that this is usually the woman, who may also be a custodial parent of a minor child and under economic pressure. The fact is that our culture values the contributions of partners quite differently depending upon whether that contribution is in the form of money, property, or services. People joke about being called 'domestic engineers' and we may talk about women not being employed 'outside the home.' Families are not merely emotional and social units, they are also economic units. Coupling enables people to specialize between themselves so that one person can devote a greater percentage of attention to the job marketplace, for instance, while the other can invest their energies in establishing and maintaining a stable and supportive home environment.
We act as though money is the more valuable contribution to relationship when this may not at all be true. Any sociologist will tell you that if we were to count the hours that most women spend taking care of the home (and especially children), which frees the man up to work for money, and then value this time at a reasonable rate, the economic worth of the non cash contributions by domestic engineers often exceeds the value of the wages earned outside the home by the working partner in most low to middle-high income partnerships (illustrated if you consider what it would cost some outside worker to perform these tasks).
Whether the monetarily disadvantaged partner is a man or a woman, this person's interest lies in avoiding limiting agreements or in having them crafted so that some level of financial protection exists. There are compromise solutions that can be achieved which afford these persons protections they would not otherwise have, which is good reason for obtaining guidance from a qualified attorney.
If partner A earns $50,000/year and partner B works part-time outside the home or not at all, such that his efforts at home help to free up partner A's time so she can devote her attention to competing successfully within the job marketplace, the partners' respective contributions in terms of hours may be the same. If it is similar on a fairness scale, then is it really appropriate that partner A should be solely entitled to a $10,000 savings account she accumulated during the cohabitation when partner B worked only in the home and so did not have access to the dollar wages that could be tucked away?
You don't need to agree with this philosophical analysis, although it is the modern view, but perhaps these examples make it clear that cohabitation agreements include moral, ethical, and fairness considerations which deserve attention. These can be negotiated and compromised in an even handed manner that is respectful of and sensitive to the dignity and relative contribution of both cohabitants. Truly, if two partners enter a relationship where the underlying assumption is that only the partner who works for wages is bringing value into it, this is not an auspicious beginning.
2) Protecting assets, income, and wealth of both parties: Many people who utilize cohabitation agreements have previously been married and divorced, and have ongoing responsibilities for children or aging parents. They cannot afford the economic consequences of another break up and they want the companionship and benefits of a committed relationship.
In many cases the partners may have substantially equal assets and liabilities, or their relative net worths may not be too disproportionate. Two-earner households are more common today than ever before.
I call this variety of cohab contracts 'roadmap agreements.'
In California persons who cohabit who are not married or who are not domestic partners have no rights or obligations between themselves under the Family Code, assuming they have no children together. Their rights or obligations, if any, are determined solely by contract - and if there is no written contract it becomes very difficult to determine what people intended at the time they acquired what they acquired or did what they did. All kinds of claims can be made about verbal promises, and verbal agreements are enforceable when a Judge believes they exist.
Unmarried partners who have not been protected by a written agreement have no right to claim an interest in the other partner's property accumulated during the relationship, and they have no inheritance or survivorship rights absent an existing will or trust. Common law marriage is not recognized in California, unless it was first established in another state which does recognize it.
There are very good reasons to carefully draft and execute cohabitation agreements beyond trying to exclude the other partner from making a claim if the cohabitation ceases. It may be helpful to create a template for how the relationship can be disentangled in an orderly and equitable manner once it ends; however, it can be very useful to have a roadmap about how certain activities should be handled even in an intact relationship. Knowing one's rights in advance and having a formula for confirming them is always a smart thing which can positively affect decision-making.
3) Creating Nonmarital Partnerships: Just as a cohabitation agreement can be designed to protect against creating unintended rights in the other partner, so too it can be positively used to create protections that would otherwise not exist under the law. These are generally called "pooling agreements".
If you create a business partnership or joint venture you do it with the expectation of generating profits, including the coequal sharing of an increase in the value of the partnership and whatever money is spun off and distributed from the partnership. Some people wish to do the same thing with their nonmarital cohabitation partnerships.
Is it any more wise to enter into a nonmarital cohabitation without any form of agreement than it is to enter a business partnership on a handshake? In these times lawyers must shake our heads in dismay when people proudly tell us that their word is their bond and that they make their deals on a handshake. While such sentiment is admirable, it is not realistic.
A cohabitation agreement can be used to specify what property and assets becomes joint and under what circumstances, what the proportionate joint interests are, what to do with debt, and what property is to become or remain separate as to one partner alone. It can be used to protect the partners in the event of death as to property that may be jointly owned but not jointly titled. It can create a structure for valuing and dividing assets that avoids litigation and high legal fees, not to mention hostility and resentment, upon termination of the joint living arrangement.
It can also be used to create certain rights and obligations of support under specified settings.
Whether family attorneys counsel a particular client to utilize a cohabitation agreement, as with prenuptial or premarital agreements, often depends upon who has - or who over time is anticipated to have - the larger economic power and financial resources in the relationship.
The obvious situation is where the economically better off person wants the security of the protections. The common assumption is that the person with wealth should always insist upon a cohab agreement, and that view is probably correct - the agreement, however, can become something much larger and more creative than simple property waivers.
Ironically, people with some degree of economic advantage often don't avail themselves of a cohabitation agreement because they feel embarrassed, uneasy, or frightened to ask the other about it, on the belief the other partner may be offended. In my experience people are only offended when the agreement runs in one direction.
If a woman with zero assets and little income seeks advice about how to structure her economic relationship with the man or woman she is about to move in with, a cohabitation agreement may or may not be in her best interest depending upon the terms. It may come as a surprise, however, to learn that she will probably be far better off in all situations with one than without.
If one participant in a joint living arrangement is obsessed with acquiring and keeping all of the marbles, you are headed for trouble anyway. For me it is always best to admit that there is an elephant in the room. By placing these concerns on the table there is a huge potential freedom to address them in ways which are ignored when there is no agreement. People can be guided into thinking about consequences they otherwise block out of their minds. This can nurture a positive beginning, rather than a beginning by default with neither person is talking about a multitude of what-if's. It provides an opportunity to honor both persons, and is not at all mutually exclusive with reasonable legal protections.
People rarely seek marital counseling outside the church or education before marrying. Similarly they rarely give much thought to how to structure their lives when they undertake living together outside of marriage.
Cohabitation agreements provide an amazing opportunity to consciously and mindfully embark upon a new relationship.
If you intend to share a household with a romantic partner other than only temporarily, my recommendation is that you always consider entering into a cohabitation agreement.
However, it is important that you locate counsel in your area who is not merely a traditional adversarial lawyer, because their resource toolbox for assisting you with all your issues tends to be relatively empty.
Thurman W. Arnold III
http://www.ThurmanArnold.com
4/23/10
|
 |
| Continue reading "Do I need a COHABITATION AGREEMENT?" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| April 07, 2010 |
| Q. Who is liable for debts that we assign between us in our divorce settlement? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. Who is liable for debts that we assign between us in our divorce settlement?
A. After property is divided incident to divorce or legal separation it is no longer community property; it is the separate property of the recipient. This separate property always remains liable to pay your own debts no matter when they were incurred. Even if that debt is assigned to the other spouse in the divorce division, you remain liable on the debt as between you and the creditor. Family Code section 916(a)(1).
Your separate property and what you receive at the time of the division is not liable for the other spouse's debts, whether incurred before or during marriage, and you are not liable for those debts unless the debt was assigned to you in the settlement.
If your property is nonetheless applied to satisfy your spouse's debts by a creditor, you have a further right of reimbursement against your former spouse, plus interest and possibly attorney fees.
|
 |
| Continue reading "Q. Who is liable for debts that we assign between us in our divorce settlement?" » |
|
Permalink |
| |
| March 06, 2010 |
| Is a WAIVER OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT in a PRENUP VALID? |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold |
 |
Q. Before I married we signed a prenup that says I waived any right to spousal support. Is this valid?
A. Maybe yes, maybe no. Sections 1612 and 1615 of the California Family Code impose important limitations on spousal support waivers effective 1/1/02.
Spousal support waivers absolutely require that the party waiving the right was represented by independent legal counsel at the time the agreement was entered into. Family Code section 1612(c). If a lawyer has not advised the party and signed off on the agreement, the waiver is unenforceable.
Even if a party was in indeed represented by independent counsel who advised the client and approved the prenup, the spousal support waiver will not operate "if the provision regarding spousal support is unconscionable at the time of enforcement." Family Code section 1612(c). Time of enforcement means when a party attempts to force the other party to adhere to the terms of the agreement, or is resisting a support request in divorce court.
Creative attorneys anticipate these potential bars to enforcement by carefully drafting the language of the prenuptial agreement, and by creating various scenarios within the support waiver. For instance, a straight waiver of spousal support is much less likely to be enforced than a conditional waiver of support. A conditional waiver might contain language that precludes the waiver if the party seeking support is gravely ill, unable to work, or receiving welfare benefits.
Lawyers drafting premarital agreements tend to charge moderate minimum fees because of the potential attorney malpractice exposure years down the road. Many attorneys won't handle them at all, or refuse to recommend that a party ever waive support and so they will not execute the agreement.
There are a number of other restrictions which must be overcome before a premarital agreement can be enforced. One is that at least seven calendar days must have passed between the date that a party was first presented with the agreement and then later signed it.
While you may be able to accomplish what both parties say they want are are willing to do before marriage in a prenup, you must retain legal counsel who is experienced in this area of the law or things may turn out differently than you expect down the road.
Once a wedding date is set, the earlier you get the agreement negotiated and signed the greater the likelihood it will survive objection or attack later.
If you already signed one and want to know whether it will be enforced for or against you, seek a family law expert immediately.
TWA
|
 |
| Continue reading "Is a WAIVER OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT in a PRENUP VALID?" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
|