Recent Posts in Fiduciary Duties in Divorce Category

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!

Marriage of Margulis, Part 2 - Duties of Managing Spouses

Part One

• See whether the side has done everything the law requires of them in formulating your grounds for "good cause" under Rule 3.1332. If they have and your attorney failed to also comply, this is not good. If neither side did what is required to avoid irregularities, then that is better. If your side did comply but the side did not, that is best and you should point this out in your papers and in oral argument.

• Did both sides exchange the Final Declaration of Disclosure (there is more than one form) and FL-150's within 45 days of the first assigned trial date? The court does not have authority to have a trial when the parties have failed to comply with  Family Code section 2105.  Section 2106 clearly states this and Family Code section 2107(d) similarly states that it is not harmless error for trial courts to ignore FC §2105.

• Did the other side comply with all applicable Local Rules regarding trial? For instance, in Riverside County we have local Rule 5.0053 which mandates that a Trial Readiness Conference be set before trial, and at least in Indio that you (or your attorney) sign a form that you understood and will comply with what those rules require. Here is a link to Title 5 of the Riverside County Local Rules for Family Law cases. There may be similar rules in your jurisdiction. Rule 5.0065 discusses ex parte procedures in Riverside County, which generally includes the family law divisions in downtown Riverside, Hemet, Indio and Blythe.

• Draft a declaration that establishes good cause for your request - one that speaks to both justice and procedural issues. Anticipate what prejudice the other side will claim in opposition to your continuance request. Offer to ameliorate it if you can, in advance of the hearing on the ex parte.

• Rule 3.1332(d)(10) permits the court to impose "conditions" if it grants a continuance. These need to be reasonable of course. A frequent condition "no more continuances." Unreasonable requests may be that you are asked to waive a fundamental right that is a key issue in the case itself, i.e., a waiver of spousal support or an agreement that the court will have retroactive jurisdiction at the trial when it does occur to reach back and modify support to the first trial date. Offering to contribute to the other side's attorney fees incurred surrounding the rescheduling may be appropriate under certain facts.

• Before you file your ex parte, be sure to attempt to "meet and confer" with the other side in an effort to obtain a stipulation to continue instead, and in order to discuss how you might minimize their inconvenience and prejudice and to discuss possible reasonable conditions in advance of the hearing that would address those issues. Attach any confirming letters as an exhibit.

• Make your motion as short as possible and author it to read fast - not more than 10 pages including declarations, points and authorities, and exhibits. Judges have no time to read long winded stories.

• Be sure to notice all the parties for the ex parte. For instance, if there has been a Borson motion by either side that attorney (the former, Borson attorney) must also get notice of the hearing and the paperwork at the time you set the hearing.

• Hire your new attorney first and have them make the motion (which is costly in terms of the amount of the retainer they will reasonably require, since if the motion is denied that attorney knows he may be going into a trial that will take immediate emergency hours to come up to speed on).

• If  you haven't retained counsel yet and just want to continue a trial "to get counsel," you have a problem. While this excuse might work at the first hearing on an OSC or regular motion, it is unlikely to convince a judge who is managing his trial calender. 

Good luck with your new attorney!

Thurman W. Arnold, III, CFLS

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

    "(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. 

• Epstein Credits
• Watts Credits
• Jeffries Credits

This particular Blog addresses your question in terms of Epsteins - the next blog deals specificially with Watts and Jeffries credits. 

Epstein Credits

I have described Epstein Reimbursements in another Blog.  "Epstein credits" is a doctrine derived from the case of Marriage of Epstein (1979) 24 Cal.3d 76, 84-85.  It holds that as a general rule, courts must reimburse one spouse out of the community property who uses earnings or other separate funds after separation to pay pre-existing community obligations.  This commonly occurs with credit cards where there was a balance remaining when the parties separated that one or the other pays after that date.  Epsteins only apply to payments on the portion of a debt that existed at date of separation, and not new debt on an old card that was incurred afterwards.  The rule is not limited to credit cards but can apply to almost any class of debts.

Courts are required not to order this reimbursement if under the circumstances it would be unreasonable for the paying spouse to have expected reimbursement.  If there was an agreement that a party would not be reimbursed, if the paying spouse intended the payment as a gift, or when the payment is made on account of a debt for an asset that the paying spouse was or is using and the amount was not substantially in excess of the value of the use, the Court may decline to order reimbursement.  This idea of the value of use of some property acquired through debt that continues to exist after separation underlies the concepts of Watts credits and Jeffries credits, and is obviously implicated in your question since you occupy the house for which you seek credits and reimbursements.

So, Epsteins are almost always granted as to post-separation payments for expenses, or goods and services, that didn't leave a tangible asset behind that is now being exclusively enjoyed by only one of the two spouses. 

As an example of how this works if there is $15,000 owing Visa for that trip to Hawaii, some groceries, and a child's school tuition at the time of separation and one party pays it off or makes monthly installments on the debt with their earnings or other separate property after that date, a benefit has been conferred upon the community because a joint obligation has been extinguished or reduced.  That benefit must be equalized by a payment to the payor of one-half the amount paid or a credit or set-off against other property that gets divided.  One-half is paid because the paying spouse owed their half anyway.  Any portion paid before the DOS (date of separation) ordinarily will not be reimbursed. 

This is generally true even if only one of the parties actually took the trip to Hawaii, unless that trip was in breach of a marital or fiduciary duty (if the husband snuck off with his paramour to Hawaii, an argument exists that he should not be reimbursed for paying that portion of the debt over the wife's objection).  Family Code section 2625 directs courts to award a debt incurred by one spouse to them alone if debt was not "incurred for the benefit of the community."  Family Code section 2602 empowers courts to "award ... the amount the court determines to have been deliberately misappropriated by the party to the exclusion of the interest to any other party in the community estate."  FC section 2625 is a powerful and much underused statute (many attorneys seem to be unaware of it or try to bluff as though it didn't exist).

Compare this with a situation where a credit card was used to buy a dishwasher that the paying spouse possesses or receives in the divorce - since they are retaining a tangible asset it may not be fair to allow them to both keep the asset and get reimbursed for one-half its costs.  Applying Epsteins can become fairly fact specific.

In situations involving use of a family residence or other tangible assets that continue to exist after separation and which are used and enjoyed by only one of the spouses, an Epstein analysis provides only a part of the answer to the reimbursement question.  In effect first the amount of the Epstein reimbursements are determined, and then the question requires a Watts analysis to determine under equitable principles whether it is fair to actually order reimbursement and, if so, in what amount.

Hence, to resolve your issue you would begin by adding up the costs of everything related to the house that is spent to preserve or protect the asset.  Property taxes are included, but utilities are not.  The utilities you used after the physical separation are your obligation anyway, because they were not incurred during 'the marriage.'  (Please see the Blog Category "Physical Separation.")  Mortgage payments and insurance are considered, and probably the poolman or gardner as well.

Please continue on to the next blog for detailed infomation concerning Watts credits.

Epstein Credits and Fiduciary Duty Issues

Sometimes a spouse or domestic partner will raid the credit cards and take cash advances or buy a new wardrobe, or fix a car, during the weeks prior to separating.  If it later appears that their intention was to stick the other spouse for one-half of this expense, the presumption that this is a community debt (because incurred during marriage) may be overcome and so it may be assigned to the one spouse alone.  It is not fair to hold both parties responsible for debts incurred in anticipation of separation.

However, when one partner incurs a debt frivolously as opposed to recklessly before separation, in a situation not amounting to a breach of fiduciary duty - even over the prior objection of the other spouse - it is likely to be equally divided and Epstein reimbursements ordered.  Both spouses have, under California law, equal rights of management and control of the community property and community credit.

Courts in my experience are reluctant to find breaches of fiduciary duty in Esptein situations unless the behavior was fairly eggregious.  Charging 10 pairs of shoes at Macy's a month before separation may not be viewed as a big deal.  If the debt was incurred in pursuit of an illegal activity like supporting a drug habit or sex addiction, many judges are less reluctant to declare a breach. 

To illustrate another twist, if the credit card was used to pay the spouse's tuition expense instead a child's schooling as in my example above, it may also be unfair to charge the non-schooled parent with one-half the tuition portion of the credit card balance.  A court is likely to look at whether this schooling benefited the community in some way before splitting that debt betwen the parties - i.e., because of the schooling did the student spouse earn more money which was then contributed to the community standard of living and so confer a benefit on both?  Pure student loans are usually awarded to the party who incurred the debt as their separate property obligation. 

Q.     My husband won't stop gambling. Am I liable for his gambling debts?

A.  The community property that the two of you own is liable as to satisfy his gambling obligations, assuming there is any left.   Whether you are liable to the Indian Casino or Las Vegas hotel beyond your share of the community depends upon whether you have an independent contractual relationship with them - i.e., a line of credit in your name. 

As between you and your husband, unless you consented to his gambling he may owe you (if your separate property is somehow attached to satisfy the debt) or to the community estate a reimbursement or indemnification right.   

If he is a professional gambler and this is his "work" the outcome would be different.  The outcome may also depend on whether the community benefited from the gambling, i.e., if winnings were used to support the community, then a court may deem it fair to share the obligation as to "losings".  

This right of reimbursement would similarly exist if he squandered money on drugs, or prostitutes, and so on - assuming you can prove it and trace the money!  The question is whether you consented and ripens when you can establish that his conduct violated fiduciary duties owing you.  One never knows, however, how a judge will treat this on a case by case basis but the law if moving towards greater accountability.

If his gambling does amount to a breach of fiduciary duties owing you as a result of your marriage or domestic partnership, you have substantial remedies.  Try our search at the top right of the page to learn about those topics.

Thurman W. Arnold III

California Family Law Disclosure Forms

Whether you are representing yourself in your divorce, or a pro per family law litigant, you need to know about and understand the Declarations of Disclosure that are required in California before a Judgment of Dissolution may be entered.   Getting it wrong can have serious consequences.   In my experience, paralegal firms or non-lawyer mediators do not know how to properly assist clients in meeting these obligations, and even seasoned divorce attorneys get these disclosure forms wrong.   You need to understand that these disclosure forms are not simply another document that needs to be prepared in a sloppy fashion in order to complete your divorce, but rather they are the proof that you have complied with important spousal fiduciary duties after your physical separation.   

You can’t get even a default divorce and marital termination agreement past the family court clerk without a least a Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure (PDD) and when the other side has appeared in the action, you cannot obtain a Divorce Judgment without both parties have exchanged for waived the Final Declaration of Disclosure (FDD).   Even if the documents have been exchanged, if they are incomplete or inaccurate the other party may be able to set all or parts of your divorce judgment or divorce settlement for up to several years after a judgment is filed.   These rules and requirements apply equally to domestic partnerships, annulments, and legal separations.

This article covers the Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure.

California Family Code sections 2100 to 2113 cover declarations of disclosure for California divorces.  FC section 2100(a) declares it is the policy of the State of California to “(1) marshal, preserve, and protect community, and quasi-community assets and liabilities that exist at the date of separation so as to avoid dissipation of the community estate before distribution, (2) to ensure fair and sufficient child and spousal support awards, and (3) to achieve a division of community and quasi-community assets and liabilities on the dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties as provided by California law.”

FC section 2100(c) states that in order to promote this policy “a full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities in which one or both parties have or may have an interest must be made in the early stages of a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties, regardless of the characterization as community or separate, together with a disclosure of all income and expenses of the parties.”

This bears emphasis:

• There must be a full disclosure
• It must be accurate
• It includes all assets
• It includes all liabilities
• It applies to assets or liabilities one has or may have
• The disclosure must be made early on in the proceedings, although there is no specific time rule
• It doesn’t matter whether you think the asset or debt is a separate property item, you still must disclose
• You must also fully and accurately disclose all income and expenses
• Although the statute doesn’t say it, you may see why these are forms that you do not want to lose – since, as mentioned below, the disclosures themselves are not filed with the court.

FC section 2100(c) does not, however, stop there.   The statute continues “Moreover, each party has a continuing duty to immediately, fully, and accurately update and augment that disclosure to the extent that there have been any material changes so that at the time the parties enter into an agreement for the resolution of any of these issues, or at the time of trial on these issues, each party will have a full and complete knowledge of the underlying facts.”

Family Code section 2102 sets forth the rules governing interspousal fiduciary duties, including the operation and management of community or part community businesses.   I will discuss this section elsewhere and link back to it when that article is finished.

Family Code section 2104 describes the Preliminary declaration of disclosure.   It must be completed as set forth in this Judicial Council Form.   It does not get filed with the Court, but a declaration stating it has been exchanged must be filed with the Court.  

If, as commonly occurs where parties have negotiated and signed an agreement and the Dissolution Judgment proceeds by default with a Marital Settlement Agreement signed by both being submitted, no final disclosure needs to be exchanged between the parties but the Petitioner still must himself or herself complete and serve the Preliminary declaration; the defaulting Respondent is relieved of that obligation.

Family Code sections 2120 to 2129 describe when a judgment for dissolution, or a property settlement or a support settlement, may be set aside for defects in the Preliminary declaration of disclosure and for other reasons.  

You can find the actual California Judicial Council forms here.

Again, I will write an article about that and link back once it is completed so please check back with us.

Q.    I keep hearing the phrase "interspousal fiduciary duties".  What does it mean?

Fiduciary Duties Described