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

Parties' Circumstancs

How the Court Ruled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176 

"Grandmother contends that the trial court erred in applying the clear and convincing burden. We disagree with her and agree with the trial court's legal conclusion. We hold as follows: To overcome the presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of the grandchild, a grandparent has the burden of proof and must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that denial of visitation is not in the best interest of the grandchild, i.e., denial of visitation would be detrimental to the grandchild. The fair import of the word "detriment" is damage, harm, or loss. (See American Heritage Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) P. 388, col. 2.) If grandparent visitation is in the grandchild's 'best interest,' it is not 'detrimental.' If grandparent visitation is not in the grandchild's 'best interest,' it is 'detrimental.' [citations omitted].

Until today, no appellate court has expressly held that section 3102 requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. 'There is some authority for the proposition that the same test which applies to a custody award to a nonparent should apply to a visitation award to a nonparent that is, that "judicially compelled visitation against the wishes of both parents" "must not be allowed unless it is clearly and convincingly shown that denial of visitation would be detrimental to the child." ( In re Marriage of Gayden (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1510, 1517, 1520 ... [involving a motion for visitation by a biologically unrelated person under former Civil Code section 4601 (now Fenn v. Sherriff , supra , 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1486; see also dictum in In re Marriage of W. , supra , 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 74 ['Where natural parents are unified in opposition, nonparental visitation can be ordered only if such visitation is in the best interest of the child and denial of visitation would be detrimental to the child'].)

'The degree of burden of proof applied in a particular situation is an expression of the degree of confidence society wishes to require of the resolution of a question of fact. (Citation).' [Citations omitted]. There is no question that a grandparent has an important interest in visiting with a grandchild. But the higher degree of the burden of proof that we adopt simply demonstrates that there is a preference in favor of the presumably correct choice of a fit sole surviving parent. Such choice is 'first.'

In formulating our holding, we are guided by and adopt the cogent analysis of Justice Chin in his concurring and dissenting opinion in In re Marriage of Harris, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 247-250; see also the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Brown at pages 251-253. To adequately protect a fit sole surviving parent's constitutional right to raise a child, a "mere preponderance" burden as to "best interest" is not sufficient. The "clear and convincing" burden, i.e. evidence "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt," promotes a parent's constitutionally protected "first" choice. The higher evidentiary burden preserves the constitutionality of section 3102 and insures against erroneous fact finding. ( Id., at p. 248.)

The clear and convincing burden is not insurmountable. We can certainly envision a case where a trial court could factually find and rule that grandparent visitation is appropriate over the objection of the fit sole surviving parent. This, however, is not such a case. The trial court did not credit grandmother's testimony.

Even if the trial court had erroneously applied too strict of a burden for grandmother, we we would still affirm the order denying visitation based upon the trial court's alternative ruling. As indicated, we commend the trial court for its well-articulated order. First, it ruled that the "clear and convincing" burden was appropriate. This was a debatable issue which we now settle. But it was also prescient in articulating its alternate best interest ruling which is rooted in traditional family law principles. 'We may not reverse . . . simply because [in theory] some of the court's reasoning was faulty, so long as any of the stated reasons are sufficient to justify the order. [Citation.]' ( Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 844.)"

Note to reader - I've added some emphasis to this.

So, we now have a rule that is clearly intended to honor the constitutional issues addressed to some extent in the U.S. Supreme Court's Troxel decision. But the decision omits to discuss any of the legislative history of Family Code section 3102 as to whether the burden of proof that is associated with it is nearly as hard as what the decision makes it become. While "clear and convincing evidence" is not an "insurmountable burden," practically speaking any lawyer will tell you it almost is. Morever, while the decision admits that grandparents have important interests in visiting with grandchildren, it totally ignores the rights of children to know their families of origin. There is no mention that any lawyer was ever appointed for the minor in this case. 

This decision should also be evaluated in light of a Fourth Appellate District decision issued less than a month ago. In Hoag v. Diedjomajor the Riverside based appellate district upheld a trial court order for visitation after a grandparent's child died. The burden of proof applied by the Court was not discussed, but was implicitly by a "preponderance of the evidence."

The outcome was the opposite than here, but in many ways it is entirely consistent with Justice Yegan's decision - and here is what is interesting for me: If a parent refuses visitation, even if they don't get along, to spite the grandparent, they lose. But if the grandparent seeks visitation after spiting the non-biological surviving parent, they lose.

And, I wonder, how can a "fit" parent (by definition) deny any access at all between their child and that child's grandparents, especially when the intergenerational parent is dead, except under the most outrageous of circumstances? Yet, having said that, I must confess that if a grandparent does behave outrageously, then their rights should be limited or nonexistent. Oy vey, possibly the record that we will never see discloses that such was the case here - but we must take it on faith, apparently, that it was. I don't see how we need to impose a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence to ensure that bad grandparents are fenced in - I mean "fenced out".

Another question bothers me - the decision points out that there were nine other witnesses who testified at the trial beyond the grandmother in this case. Did these include the maternal grandparents, who possibly were more favorably received? So often these types of litigation wars can only be funded by older people who have accumulated some wealth. Often these family battles include or are really between parents' parents. I notice that the mother in this case appears to have had premiere local counsel, and that must not have been cheap. The paternal grandmother will foot some of their bill in this case since costs were assessed against her.

But then, of course, other losers as a result of this decision are the grandchildren of grandparents who can behave themselves who may be affected by this new burden of proof. IMHO. But you may disagree - please feel free to comment if you do!

Hoag v. Diedjomahor (October 17, 2011), E050935

The Facts

The Law Concerning Grandparent Visitation

Special Circumstances in Child Support Cases

Involving an Extraordinarily High Earner

___________

IRMO Cryer (8/29/11) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039

Jon and Sarah were married, producing a son together, and later divorced. Sarah subsequently had a second child by a different marriage, which also ended. Although Mom had primary physical custody of the child with Jon for which she received "substantial" child support of $10,000 each month and a 65 % "timeshare", she began to suffer some difficulties that first resulted in Jon's ex parte application to modify the prior agreed upon orders to sole custody in his favor in May, 2009. Jon alleged that she had left his child unsupervised. The family law court denied that ex parte request but admonished Sarah not to leave her children unsupervised. Later that same month CPS became involved when her younger child suffered an injury at Sarah's home. A dependency proceeding was filed against her by the Department of Children and Family Services, which resulted in each child being placed with their respective fathers. There is no commentary in the decision about whether the fathers are working together to preserve and protect the sibling bonding.

When a dependency proceeding is filed by child protective services there are strict rules governing procedure that are generally designed to move the proceeding quickly towards determining whether jurisdiction properly exists, in order to ensure that the public policy favoring reunification with the problem parent is honored. However, Sarah's dependency proceeding moved extraordinarily slowly. In the meantime Jon battled her in Judge Pellman's courtroom. In addition, she was also likely defending against the claims of her second husband over custody of the younger child. We don't know what the exact alleged facts are over the circumstances giving rise to the dependency proceeding, but it is obvious that Sarah had her hands full with "two and a half men" - two former husbands and a young child.

Once his son was placed into his custody, Jon filed an application to modify the $10,000 in monthly support to zero since, after all, the child had temporarily been placed with him. Did he hope this might be the killing stroke (coup de grace) that would bring Mom to her knees, forever? There are litigants who feel that if they seize upon the other party's moment of weakness they will remain in power for the remainder of a child's minority, and a lawyer might reasonably advise this tactic under the aegis of "zealous representation". Jon's extreme request was his first mistake. When people want it all they are sometimes sorely disappointed.

Mother argued that $10,000/month was no burden to Jon because that amount was only 3 percent of his income at the time. She urged that the outcome of the dependency proceeding was uncertain, temporary, and subject to change and that without a steady child support order she would have no money to pay her mortgage, car payments, or any other bills. She pointed out that such a result could never serve the child's best interests.

This is where an outstanding trial judge makes all the difference, because superficially Jon's contentions were reasonable.

Prior to the hearing the parties exchanged income and expense declarations. Jon's "stated income" was alleged as $327,000 monthly when averaged over three years, he held $7 million in liquid assets, and monthly expenses of $29,000. By the way, if people want to go public about their affairs, litigation is the right choice. Sarah had "negligible" assets and overhead expenses of $10,000 monthly, not including attorney fees.

A "guideline" child support order using the "Dissomaster" based upon mother's reduced timeshare would have resulted in her favor of a modified amount of $1,141/month. Sarah argued she would lose everything if that was her only income.

The matter was heard on November 2, 2009. Judge Pellman declined to reduce Jon's child support to zero, even though Sarah had little custodial time under the pending dependency court orders, but she did reduce it significantly from $10,000 to $8,000 monthly. The trial court noted that since Sarah's custody arrangement could be modified by the dependency court in short order (which was expected to be the situation) and DCFS could liberalize Mom's visitation schedule at any time, and therefore found that the minor's best interest was best served if the boy could return to the same home that he had shared with his mother prior to the proceedings, and further that it was important for both the mother and child that she have the ability to have regular and consistent contact with him. She ordered the father to pay $20,000 in attorney fees to Sarah's attorneys.

Jon was not satisfied with this ruling. He immediately filed a motion for reconsideration together with a separate Order to Show Cause seeking an accounting of how all child support funds he'd paid had been used, alternatively requesting that these funds be placed into a trust account for the 'direct benefit' of his son. Evidently he believed that paying a mortgage, and having a car, only benefited Sarah and not the boy. Judge Pellman denied his requests (after making some technical corrections to her orders) and awarded that Sarah receive another $5,000 in attorney fees, which was likely only a portion of what she actually incurred.

Three months later Jon filed supplemental authorities prior to a review hearing that had been set, arguing that the dependency proceedings had still not be resolved and that Sarah's visitations had not been "liberalized" as the Court had anticipated. Further, he argued that Sarah wasn't looking for a job and that she was the one benefitting from the child support payments and therefore the Court should stay child support until such time as Sarah's timeshare was increased by the dependency court. This would have had the effect of "starving" Sarah out and really speaks volumes to the level of resentment that Jon was exhibiting - made ever more poignant for us by reflecting upon the degree of privilege from the extraordinary earnings that he enjoys. Again, a trial and appellate court would be reasonable in questioning his motives based upon all the economic circumstances, and in protecting the disadvantaged party consistent with the law. Which is exactly what happened in both courts. As a further expression of his overreaching (or that of his lawyers), Jon filed a new income and expense showing $474,861 in monthly earnings that averaged his income over the prior three years. While it is true that there is no fixed rule in what span of time courts review in determining income, still they are required to look to relevant evidence. Often times the prior 12 months provides this yardstick. 

Sarah's counsel rejoined that Jon's income over the past 12 months was $791,666/month. Sarah was apparently the tick on the back of the elephant. In addition, Sarah's visitation had been liberalized to include home visits. Sarah argued it would be nice for the boy to have a home where these visitations could occur. Also, she had monthly expenses of $13,271 and no income beyond CS.

On May 10, 2010, Judge Pellman ruled that no changed circumstances existed from the time of her earlier orders to modify support further. There still was no "exit order" from the dependency court. The proceedings had not resolved. Moreover, the finding was unavoidable that Sarah would lose her home without support monies to pay the mortgage. The judge ordered Jon to pay another $40,000 in fees to Sarah's attorney.  

Family Code section 4057(b) is an important provision that cuts both ways in terms of adhering to or departing from "guideline" support. That section states that the amount of child support that is presumed under our state-wide formula may be rebutted by showing that the amounts otherwise rendered by the guideline "would be unjust or inappropriate in [a] particular case." Increasingly attorneys for prime time parents are directing trial Courts to this section to support their claims that when custody is cut-off with the other parent, or severely restricted, that support should be zeroed out. For instance, the argument is frequently made, and sometimes accepted, that where the low earner parent has a de minimis timeshare that would otherwise result in some child support to them based upon the parties' respective incomes, that the de minimis timeshare parent should not receive child support because the prime time parent bears the substantial bulk of the financial burden. The problem with this analysis is that child related expenses for living accommodations are a fixed expense. Marriage of Cryer implicitly recognizes this reality, and Judge Pellman apprehended the paradox clearly.

Jon apparently made this argument - he told the appellate court that Judge Pellman had abused her discretion because "he had nearly total responsibility for the child." Indeed, Justice Boren agreed that "under normal circumstances, such a deviation from guideline support would be an abuse of discretion." But given Jon's income, these were not normal circumstances but not necessarily for the reasons that Jon urged. "The trial court was faced with a pending and uncertain dependency case over which it had no control...." "The trial court also faced the strong possibility that visitation and custody arrangements could change quickly,..." "Furthermore, while one parent enjoyed an extraordinarily high income and could easily afford to pay monthlyl child support of $8,000 or $10,000, the other parent had essentially no income, and would be unable to maintain a household of the sort to which the child was accustomed absent substantial support." Therefore, Judge Pellman did not abuse her discretion. 

The Court noted that although the child support formula, "a complicated algebraic" equation, is often referred to as "guideline" the term is "misleading. Instead, the formula yields "presumptively correct" numbers in all cases which may be rebutted by the particular circumstances of the parties and of the children. In this case the guideline presumption was rebutted consistent with the state policies that:

• Placing the interests of child has been legislatively declared to be the state's top priorty
• A "parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life
• Each parent should pay for the support of children according to his or her ability
• "Children should share in the standard of living of both parents and child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children."

Here "an order that resulted in [the] child's spending time with his father in an opulent abode and time with his mother in a low-rent apartment would have conflicted with principles of Family Code section 4053."

Moreover, while the father "may have found the situation unfair, the primary focus must remain on the child's wellbeing, not the parents' feelings" about money. The revised $8,000/month child support order was only from 1 to 2 1/2 percent of Jon's mnothly income. Judge Pellman's order therefore also served to minimize the harm that might inure to the parties' son had each parent merely supplying living conditions based upon their respective incomes, without help from the other. Finally, the appellate court dismissed Jon's argument that he should not be obligated to pay $8,000 month where the mother's Income and Expense declaration showed that she only paid $4,999 in monthly housing relating expenses. The trial Court had discretion to look the broad view of the parties circumstances and was not required to fix a number based upon any one element of their total expense package.

Irmo Cryer is also an important case for ordering attorney's fees to financially weaker parties. Jon argued that the initial award of $20,000 was more than the mother's attorney had asked for in her moving declaration, but Mom's attorney made an oral request for a greater suma that the hearing based upon fees that had increased since the moving declaration had been filed, and her papers had noted that further fees would be incurred. Next Jon argued that he had won a motion for reconsideration that made him a prevailing party, and that he should not therefore been required to pay Mom's fees. Not so said the appellate court, "[b]ecause of the importance of ensuring that the parties both have the ability to present their cases effectively, attorney fees may be awarded against a prevailing party in family law proceedings."

I have had the great good fortune to have met Judge Pellman, and applaud her efforts and her well reasoned trial court decision! 

Marriage of Margulis, Part 2 - Duties of Managing Spouses

Part One

Marriage of Howell (May 24, 2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1062

• that Pamela entered the agreement voluntarily
• Pamela was capable of understanding the admonition to obtain her own attorney
• she had sufficient time to do so
• at a minimum she could have inquired into the cost of retaining counsel but didn't
• the premarital agreement was twelve pages long, not particularly complex, involved a small estate, made full disclosure, and basically sought to maintain the parties' separate property interests
• she was fluent in English
• she was employed in the field of bookkeeping, which involves the keeping of finances
• under either parties' version, she had at least 14 days prior to the wedding to consider the agreement
• there was no evidence of duress - it was presented to her at least four months prior to the wedding; indeed, she'd provided her own financial information some five months earlier
• given that Michael had been twice divorced, it was reasonable that he would have raised the request for a prenup much earlier than admitted by Pamela, which was way before the parties began to plan for a wedding
• she had mental capacity and there was no evidence of trick or deception
• there was no evidence the agreement was unconscionable when signed

Nonetheless, because the Court believed that FC section 1612 had to be applied retroactively it declined to enforce the waiver and ordered Michael to pay spousal support of $1,015 per month as temporary support, and then $1,659/month until further of court. It ordered Michael to contribute $10,000 to Pamela's attorney fees per Family Code section 2030. Michael appealed the support ruling but not the attorney fees' order.

Justice Benke of the the Fourth District reversed the trial court's determination that FC § 1612 could be applied retroactively. The Court decided that the California legislature must have intended otherwise because (a) there was no express retroactivity provision contained in the statute itself, (b) there was nothing in the legislative history to suggest the legislature so intended; and (c) the addition of the requirement of independent counsel added in 2002 constituted a material change in prior law and to apply it retroactively would upset the expectations of parties to a contract based upon the state of the prior law by imposing a new duty (to obtain counsel) that hadn't existed earlier.

Ironically, it wasn't until 2000 that the California Supreme Court first declared that a waiver of spousal support did not per se violate public policy (IRMO Pendleton and Fireman, 24 Cal.4th 39). Up to that point it was an open question in California whether premarital agreements could ever be enforced as to support waivers.

The Howell trial court had been careful to lay the groundwork in its factual findings to support a knowing and intelligent waiver by Pamela, but for the reach of the 2002 amendments to FC section 1612. Without retro application, there was sufficient evidence in the record to enforce the waiver. Pamela's lack of independent counsel in a pre-2002 prenup was just one of several factors that a court needs to consider in answering whether a support waiver is enforceable in a pre-UPAA agreement.

The appellate court ruled:

"In light of the trial court's findings, which are supported by ample evidence in the record, and based on the law as it existed at the time the parties executed their premarital agreement, we conclude on this record that Pamela, despite not having independent counsel at the time she executed that agreement, knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to spousal support in that agreement."

This prenup was executed in January, 1999, at a time when most family law attorneys anticipated that premarital waivers of spousal support would one day be upheld as enforceable, but had no idea when and under what conditions. Prenuptial agreements used to be viewed with great suspicion by the Courts under the assumption that they were 'promotive of divorce.' The law has radically shifted since then, as has the legislative and public sentiment. Many people - and evidently Michael in this case - who have prior marriages and children won't get married without one. In that sense they may actually serve to promote marriage.

I find one of the most interesting facts of this case to be the evident simplicity of this particularly premarital agreement. Rarely have I seen a prenup agreement that is only twelve pages long. We lawyers tend to make them quite complicated, partly out of fear of committing malpractice in this area of the law; we may want to reconsider this strategy. The Howell decision, which would have had a different outcome if the agreement had been executed after the enactment of the 2002 amendments to FC § 1612, expresses a major new judicial attitude that support waivers in premarital agreements are to be enforced when they are not unconscionable at the time they are signed, or under current 1612 at the time a party seeks to enforce them. It may serve people to reduce them to their bare essence rather than elongating them. An agreement that is 50 pages long may seem incomprehensible to most nonlawyers.

By the way, prenups that don't mention spousal support will be much more easily enforced. While it is possible for a court to strike only the spousal support language in agreements that contain them, it is also possible the entire agreement could be stricken if the waiver is rejected depending upon how interrelated various provisions are.

For those contemplating drafting or signing a prenup it remains very difficult to predict whether they will be enforced under the circumstances of a contemporary divorce or legal separation. Section 1612(c) reads:

"(c) Any provision in a premarital agreement regarding spousal support, including, but not limited to, a waiver of it, is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement of the spousal support provision is sought was not represented by independent counsel at the time the agreement containing the provision was signed, or if the provision regarding spousal support is unconscionable at the time of enforcement. An otherwise unenforceable provision in a premarital agreement regarding spousal support may not become enforceable solely because the party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by independent counsel." [Emphasis added].

We await further appellate rulings to determine what the bounds of "unconscionab[ility] at the time of enforcement" are. This is where drafting these agreements is especially tricky, and requires great skill. Don't believe that support waivers will always be enforced, particularly where they are blanket waivers (as opposed to limiting spousal support rights by duration, amount, or future circumstances at time of enforcement).

In the meantime, as to this decision, it appears that Pamela's side threw all the standard objections at the trial court that one would expect where there is a challenge to a prenup (wedding already planned, embarrassment and cost, duress, lack of understanding, no independent review and Michael didn't offer to pay for her to get one), and they didn't stick. She has to repay all the alimony she received, plus Michael's costs on appeal. 

T.W. Arnold, C.F.L.S.

Kevin Q. v. Lauren W. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 633 

The Fourth Appellate District has taken the next predictable step for litigants who hope to force the other side to contribute to exorbitant attorney fees incurred in certain high conflict family law cases. In so doing the law as it relates to the "relative circumstances" of the parties has been expanded to require that trial courts treat recurrent monetary infusions made by family members as "income" for purposes of interpreting the larger picture as it relates to attorney fee requests.  Previously that argument only existed within the realm of support obligations.

This is the first case that deals with what happens to attorney fees claims, in a situation family lawyers know is common where grandparents may be effectively encouraging (and often funding) a rancorous custody battle between their child and a now estranged former partner. Often in family court litigation there are not merely two individuals at war - their relatives have also been sucked into the trance. Many wealthier Americans are able to fund their child's litigation attorneys, or pay that child's household bills so that their need to find work is reduced. The parents of these children may feel forced to underwrite this status quo, effectively spending the family inheritance now. This may be the real subtext to the case.

Kevin Q. is a natural evolution of a doctrine which was recently stated in Marriage of Alter (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 718. In Alter the trial court found gifts from the former husband's mother to be disguised as loans and imputed income to him for these gifts in deciding his ability to pay child and spousal support.

In Kevin Q. and Lauren W., published on May 13, 2011, the two parties incurred over $400,000 in lawyer's fees combined fighting over the paternity of a boy born outside of marriage. That these are warring high-conflict parents is made clear from the fact that this is their second published appeal (see Kevin Q. v. Lauren W. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1119). Mother won the first appeal; Kevin prevailed here. Both sets of litigants have had the same attorneys throughout the proceedings. Kevin Q. is himself an attorney who practices family law in Orange County. As it turned out in the earlier case, Kevin is not the child's biological father but he alleged he was the child's psychological parent - the appellate ruling was that Kevin was not the boy's "legal" father. Unfortunately for the child, it sounds as though the man declared to be the legal father went "walkabout." I cannot tell whether Kevin continued to maintain any relationship with the child after he lost his paternity claim ('once a psychological parent, always a psychological parent?'). Perhaps the parties or their attorneys will weigh in this Blog so I can have the facts corrected.

The first decision is dated June 19, 2009. In December, 2009, Lauren moved the court to order that Kevin pay her outstanding attorney fees, including those from the earlier appeal. Kevin had contributed a total of $20,000 up to that point. Her attorney was Debra Opri of Opri & Associates; Kevin was represented by Marjorie G. Fuller and Marc S. Tovstein. Hence, all the litigation after the first decision appears to be over recovering attorney fees relating to it (but this is unclear). Fees upon fees?

In this round Attorney Opri filed a declaration stating that there was $55,754 due from the earlier work and that another $178,581 and costs of $6,589 was incurred thereafter. Hence, Lauren's total unpaid fees amounted to $227,746. Opri's hourly billing rate was $575 and her law clerk's was $225/hour. Of these fees, Attorney Opri had only received the $20,000 from Kevin plus $28,280, which included a payment of $15,600 from Lauren's father. Lauren urged that Opri had been effectively working for free. She owes her father "tens of thousands" and he was tapped out.

Kevin responded that Lauren's fees were unreasonable. She'd incurred $311,242 in fees for the entire case while his fees totaled $141,384. He complained that $4,200 in charges were for driving time for her attorney to travel from Beverly Hills to Orange County.

The matter was submitted for decision to the trial court, with the issue being identified as whether "attorney fees should be paid to [Lauren], based on need and ability to pay, as set forth in ... [Family Code] sections 2030, 2032, 7605, and 7640." Lauren urged that because the underlying dispute concerned paternity, Family Code section 7605 and section 7640 governed and that these statutes required a different analysis than under sections 2030 and 2032.

The court made the following findings: Kevin's average monthly income was $12,803. He had borrowed $50,000 from his relatives for attorney fees, which he was paying back at the rate of $150/month. He had monthly expenses of $13,320 leaving a deficit of $517.

Lauren had zero income from employment and had not worked since 2006, although she had a master's degree in psychology and is a certified chemical dependency counselor. She received $8,700 per month from "others." Her monthly expenses were $9,197, leaving a shortfall of $497.

Loans vs. Gifts From Family Members

Marriage of Greenberg (April 28, 2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095

Marriage of Ruiz (4/14/11) 194 Cal.App.4th 348 

In the recently published Fourth Appellate case of Marriage of Ruiz out of Riverside County, the parties' marriage lasted 32 years - married in 1973 (not the summer of love), they separated in March, 2005. A major bone of contention was how to characterize Wife's lump-sum worker's comp settlement of $250,000 received several years before the breakup, which netted $172,364 after attorney fees and costs. Wife believed it was all hers in the absence of proof by Husband of what portion of the money she received should be allocated between compensation for loss of past income verses what portion was intended to compensate her for loss of future earning capacity. Not surprisingly if Husband indeed had the burden of proof on this issue, he was never going to meet it - worker's compensation awards and financial settlements relating to personal injuries are simply gross numbers that some insurance bean counter crunches and then offers a gross settlement to resolve. No one in Wife's work compensation team was thinking about a fixed amount that was intended to resolve temporary compensation benefits as opposed to wife's lifetime loss of income producing ability - these claims just don't get settled in that fashion. Hence, if Husband had the burden of proving an imaginary apportionment he would never be able to do so and Wife would take all.

This case illustrates what can happen where one party or another has the "burden of proof" on a particular issue - often this is a short hand way of saying "you lose."

Four years later their divorce proceedings resulted in a discretionary trial court finding that $103,033 of the award was CP, with a balance of $71,311 being Wife's separate property. This finding was upheld on appeal as a reasonable exercise of discretion by Judge Irma Poole Asberry.

Wife argued that despite the statutory community presumption per Family Code section 760 that property acquired during marriage belongs to the community, existing caselaw (Raphael v. Bloomfield) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 617) required a conclusion that the award is community property only to the extent that it is intended to compensate for the injured spouse's reduced income during the marriage and before separation, and for injury-related expenses that were paid with community funds. She urged that the remainder of an injured spouse's recovery is intended to compensate her for their diminished earning capacity and/or medical expenses which continue after the DOS.

Therefore, the Wife here argued that Raphael carved an exception to the rebuttable presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property, instead creating a presumption that the award is the injured spouse's separate property. If true, this would impose the burden of proof as to allocation upon the noninjured spouse. Hence, she argued, if neither party could show evidence of how the award was calculated the party with the burden of proof would lose. The record on appeal was clear that neither party produced any evidence one way or the other because - frankly - there was and could be none.

Judge Asberry correctly declined to find that the general overriding FC § 760 presumption could be trumped by this supposed exception. Since Wife evidently concluded her best litigation strategy was not to offer any compromise solution for determining the competing community verses separate property interests, the court applied a formula suggested by Husband for apportioning the award as between CP and SP. Wife took and all or nothing position that was a high stakes gamble, and she lost. Interestingly, the decision is clear that had she suggested some other valuation method the trial court could have found that was more equitable than Husband's proposal instead, and it would not have been reversed.

Play hard ball, get slammed.

The rule reiterated by the Ruiz court is simple, fair, and obvious. It is already established that period disability retirement payments which are received during marriage are community property, in that they are intended to compensate the community for loss of income that the injured spouse would otherwise have earned. Periodic disability payments received after separation are the separate property of the injured spouse alone for his or her diminished earning capacity. Citing the California Supreme Court in Marriage of Jones (1975) 13 Cal.3d 457, the Riverside justices stated "[s]o long as the marriage subsists, the [injured spouse's] reduced earnings worked a loss to the community. But such community loss does not continue after dissolution; at that point the earnings or accumulations of each party are the separate property" of each.  "[O]nly such payments as are received during marriage are community property."

But within the context of worker's compensation permanent disability awards, as was presented here, Raphael had concluded that the timing of the award (i.e., whether received before or after separation) should not dictate the outcome - instead the inquiry was what portion was intended to compensate the injured spouse for his/her reduced earnings during the marriage, which would be CP. Again, a question that is not likely to be answered by the non-injured spouse because they have no access to such information assuming it even was part of the settlement calculation; yet, this perhaps reasonably did suggest to Wife's attorney he might successfully argue that the burden of proof was hence placed upon the Husband.

The Ruiz Court decided that neither party had a burden of proof that would create a rebuttable presumption in the favor of one or the other because the trial court properly concluded that the award was part community and part separate property of Wife. The issue was then for the trial court to decide in terms of equitable apportionment of the competing interests. "In doing so, the court may use any method which fairly apportions the assets or its value between community and separate property interests. Because it is the court's obligation to make an equitable apportionment, neither party has the burden of proof in the sense that a failure of proof will result in an award of the asset in its entirety to the other party."

Thus, in equitable apportionment cases involving disability awards, which includes all hybrid mixes of community/separate attributes, a disadvantaged party (here the Husband who could not marshal much less control the evidence of what the worker's comp carrier intended when it settled Wife's case) does not lose simply because of a failure of their access to proof. Instead trial courts are free to fashion any result which works substantial justice. This was fair because nothing indicated that Wife had received any temporary disability benefits during the marriage that got banked - this lump sum settlement was all that she apparently received for the total loss occasioned to her, and to the community, for the injuries she suffered.

To the extent that the Wife argued the trial court's division of the CP amounts vs. the SP amounts was arbitrary, she had no right to complain because she never suggested any other measure that the trial court might use in supporting a different allocation scheme.

So, the lesson is this: Play hardball, get slammed..... (mediate your disputes instead, and don't disconnect from reasonableness - one never knows how a court might rule!)

Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S

F.T. vs. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1

F.T. v. L.J. is an important opinion for move-away applicants and their attorneys not just because it clarifies existing law and provides guidance on a host of issues commonly encountered in litigation over these arguably unfortunate situations, but it is going to be widely talked about by the mental health community and will influence how  Evidence Code 730 and Family Code section 3111evaluators report to the courts because of this appellate court's attention to the details for what various FCS ("family court service" employees) and MHP's ("mental health professionals") opined. It appears that some of them, including the court mediators, took their eye off the ball as established by earlier legal precedent on this topic and the information presented to them.

The parties in this case dated for five or six months and this brief time together produced a bouncing baby boy in January, 2006. For the first thirteen months of his life, the child lived with Mom. On February 17, 2007, however, Mother burned her baby's arm with a hot curling iron "apparently to each him a lesson by showing him how hot it was." Father picked the boy up that evening, saw the injury, and took him to the hospital. Hospital staff called CPS and the police. Criminal charges were filed against the mother.

The child was placed with Dad and Mother's visitations were ordered supervised. Two weeks later he filed a petition to establish paternity and an OSC requesting orders for sole legal and physical custody. The parties were directed to attend custody mediation through Family Court Services but were unable to reach agreement, and so the mediator recommended that the child's primary residence be with Father and that Mother have supervised visits. In April, 2007, the parents stipulated to the recommended order "without prejudice to either party."

Five months later Father filed an OSC request seeking an order allowing him to move with the child to Texas. The parties were ordered back into mediation. At that time following a custody review hearing, the trial court removed the supervision requirement for Mom's visitation. Once again (surprise!) the parties could not agree in mediation, and the mediator recommended that Father have primary physical custody and that he be allowed to move, noting that in November, 2007, Mother had pleaded guilty to one count of simple battery on the child and was given four years' probation, and that she had an eleven year old child from a previous relationship who lived with the paternal grandparents.

For unknown reasons Father's request went off calendar at the time of the scheduled December, 2007, move-away hearing. In February, 2008, he refiled his application and psychologist Yanon Volcani, Ph.D., was appointed to conduct a psych evaluation of the parents and child. He issued a report in September, 2008.

Volcani recommended against the Father's proposed move to Texas, believing that it would interfere with this 2 1/2 year old's bonding with Mother because of the distance (based upon current best mental health opinions on the developmental stages of children). Volcani concluded that telephone, webcam, and other means of contact would not be well suited for a child this age, and had concerns whether Father would "enthusiastically" support the child's relationship with his mother. He also felt that mother had learned from her experience of burning the child, and while her action was 'rash, impulsive, and insensitive' the data did not suggest a "broader abusive intent." He recommended that Mother's timeshare be incrementally expanded.

On September 18, 2008, the trial court adopted Volcani's proposed parenting plan as a temporary order pending an evidentiary hearing, without prejudice, based upon findings that this was in the best interests of the minor. The matter was then lost in the limbo of hearing continuances and further court services mediations ultimately until March 5, 2010.

By now Father was requesting permission to move to Washington instead of Texas, and was intending on marrying a woman living there. Mother had married. Lynn Waldman, a Family Court services counselor, reported to the Court that she had learned that the minor child in 2009 began exhibiting rage, temper tantrums, and other behavioral issues at school and that this three year old was seeing a counselor who couldn't explain "where [Child's] anger is coming from. She interviewed Dr. Volcani but developed incorrect impressions about whether he'd last met with the parents over the two ensuing years after his initial report, and other misconceptions. She recommended against the move to Washington, but stated that Father should remain in his role as the primary caregiver.

In February, 2010, Volcani issued a report supplementing his opinions from September, 2008. Father by then had married his fiance, who herself had two teenagers. Volcani had re-interviewed the parents, the new spouses, and the minor's preschool teacher and therapist. He noted that since the initial evaluation that the parents had been co-parenting in a "relatively cooperative and stable manner." The minor was continuing to have rage issues (e.g., throwing a chair and punching another student) but these were improving. Still, because of the child's age it was difficult to know what was causing it.

On March 5, 2010, the trial court held a hearing but did not permit live testimony and denied the Father's request to move. The court made a number of findings which were not supported by the record. Chief among them was the conclusion that the parents "are not communicating" - when in fact Dr. Volcani actually stated otherwise and that their communications had vastly improved over the two years that had passed. Moreover, without any rational MHP support, the trial court concluded that the evidence proved the child's rage, speaking out in his sleep, and bed wetting all had to do with the parents' lack of a meaningful dialog. The court stated it "feels that the anger is coming from the tension between the two parties."

Maybe, but the court didn't pull this conclusion from any evidence before it in terms of an expert assessment and conclusion that this was the case (the child's own therapist couldn't explain the child's behaviors). Some conclusions apparently exceed what common sense would otherwise suggest.

By the way, what is a three year old doing with a therapist?

Anyway, the Court adopted Volcani's conclusion that the child's healthy development was being impeded, although on different grounds than Volcani had expressed. The court concluded "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...."

Huh?

Moreover, the Court implied that if Father decided to move anyway that the Court would take custody away from dad and give it to mother, a really bad idea under existing caselaw because of its coercive overtones.

Enter the Established Law of Move-Away

This is what makes this case important - a judge that was justifiably bothered by the impact that the relocation would have on the relationship between a parent (mother) and child understandably struggled not to permit the move. But she was wrong and the appellate court scolds her harshly for it. Her decision was not an exercise of informed discretion.

At the same time, some of the Father's arguments were off-track as well. For instance, he argued that he had a presumptive right to move under authority of Family Code section 7501 which states: " A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." The Fourth Appellate District ruled that 7501 only applies to "final" custody determinations, and not those that are "temporary," following the case of Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249. Here the parties had lived under a "stipulation" for two years, but had never reduced it to a final agreement and no court had ever ruled as to any contested matter within the context of an evidentiary hearing. This is a rule that most family law attorneys already know well (which is why the smart ones write their orders to declare the custody agreements favoring their clients as "final" orders). The practical effect of this fact in this case was that "Mother did not have an initial burden to show [that] Child would suffer detriment were he to move with Father to Washington." 

Father also argued that because Mother had been convicted of battering her son, a presumption arose under Family Code section 3044 that she should not have custody of the boy that was possibly "conclusive" if not merely rebuttable. While the idea that the presumption might be conclusive based evidently upon the appalling seriousness of intentionally burning a child is ... creative ... it doesn't track in the slightest what California law says on the subject, and was quickly disposed of by the appellate judges. The justices ruled that "[a] section 3044 finding of domestic violence 'in a family law case changes the burden of persuasion as to the best interests test, but it does not limit the evidence cognizable by the court, and it does not eliminate the best interest requirement."  "Nor does the statute establish a presumption for or against joint custody; again, the paramount factor is the child's health, safety and welfare. And where the section 3044 presumption has been rebutted, there is no statutory bar against an award of joint or sole custody to a parent who was the subject of the order. This is particularly important in move-away cases." In this case the trial court had not made any express findings under section 3044 anyway, so on remand that is a subject the court is directed to pick up.

However, what the trial court did wrong is this:

The father had no burden to prove his move was "necessary". When the trial court opined that "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...." it supplanted the rule of law with an understandable discomfort with the effects the move would have on Mom's relationship with her son. The issue instead was the best interests of the child, and that decision must be considered in light of the established rule that "the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements - and the harm that may result from established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker [father here] - weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements." 

Hence, Judge Schall's "order denying Father's motion reveals a misunderstanding of the determination a trial court must make in deciding a move-away motion by a custodial parent. In this case, the trial court, in effect, avoided the ultimate question whether a change in custody would be in Child's best interests were the custodial parent (Father) to move to Washington.... The question ... is not whether the parent may be permitted to move; the question is what arrangement for custody should be made [if and when the custodial parent moves]." A custodial parent is not required to show a planned relocation is necessary.

In other words, the trial court has to assume the plan for the proposed move is a serious one, and has to address the issue of custody as though the move will occur. Moreover, and this is the heart of the decision and the basis for reversal, "[t]o the extent the trial court denied Father's move-away motion with the goal of maintaining the status quo and/or coercing Father to abandon his plan to move to Washington, it erred." [Italics added].

Finally, while the effect of a move will naturally be detrimental to the child's relationship with the remaining parent, this is but one factor for the court to consider and cannot be the sole basis for denying a move. The case of Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 (hand's down the most important move-away case to know), establishes a litany of factors for trial courts to consider in their totality - which is the subject for another Blog.

This case is reversed and remanded to the trial court to evaluate all the LaMusga factors and so exercise an informed discretion before summarily denying Father's request to move.

Okay, sorry, I'm tired now - I'll be back to add some more thoughts!

Marriage of Duris & Urbany

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