California Family Law Attorney
California Family Law Lawyer Attorney Profile Click here to visit our blog Links Resources
Contact the Law firm of Thurman W. Arnold III
California Family Law Areas of Practice
Contact the Law Office of Thurman W. Arnold III
225 South Civic Drive Suite 1-3 Palm Springs, CA 92262

Recent Posts in Marital Termination Agreements Category

December 03, 2010
  ELKINS and New FAMILY CODE SECTION 217: How It AFFECTS YOU!
Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS

Elkins Task Force


The most important new rule in decades affecting the experience of California Family Law litigants is set to be unleashed on January 1, 2011. 

It promises a radical change in the way that all family court proceedings - whether they be dissolutions, legal separations, annulments, support applications, custody, and modifications of all of the above - are processed and decided by Superior Court judges and commissioners. 

This is a result of the Elkins Task Force, which has been quietly operating in the background of the California family law world since roughly August 6, 2007, when the game changing case of Jeffrey Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337 was decided by our California Supreme Court.

Elkins was a landmark decision which held that the Contra Costa County Superior Court could not through its local rules limit parties in marital dissolution actions to introducing evidence in written declaration form that had to be submitted in advance of trial, or prohibiting except in "unusual circumstances" one party from cross-examining the other about the contents of those declarations.  Such a rule, intended for the sake of calendar management and judicial economy, not only had the practical if unintended consequence of favoring parties with attorneys who understood how to work with these rules but fundamentally it violated due process by cutting off litigants' abilities to present all relevant, competent evidence on material issues.  Judges, as the triers of fact, are not able to assess witness demeanor and credibility without live testimony.

What is earth shattering about this decision in these economic times is that the Contra Costa Superior Court had urged that its policies and local rules were essential for the "expeditious resolution of family law cases."  Soon to be former Chief Justice Ronald George rejected this justification: 

        "We are aware that superior courts face a heavy volume of marital dissolution matters, and the case load is made all the more difficult because a substantial majority of cases are litigated by parties who are not represented by counsel.  [Reference omitted].... 

        In light of the volume of cases faced by trial courts, we understand their efforts to streamline family law procedures.  But family law litigants should not be subjected to second-class status or deprived of access to justice.  Litigants with other civil claims are entitled to resolve their disputes in the usual adversary trail proceeding governed by the rules of evidence established by statute.  It is at least as important that courts employ fair proceedings when the stakes involve a judgment providing for custody in the best interest of a child and governing a parent's future involvement in his or her child's life, dividing all of a family's assets, or determining levels of spousal and child support.... 

         Trial courts certainly require resources adequate to enable them to perform their function.  If sufficient resources are lacking in the superior court or have not been allocated to the family courts, courts should not obscure the source of their difficulties by adopting programs that exalt efficiency over fairness, but instead should devote their efforts to allocating or securing the necessary resources."

Justice George ended by directing the California Judicial Council to create a task force (the 'Elkins Task Force) "to study and propose measures to assist trial courts in achieving efficiency and fairness in marital proceedings and to ensure access to justice for litigants, many of whom are self-represented.  Such a task force might wish to consider proposals for adoption of new rules of court establishing state wide rules of practice and procedure for fair and expeditious proceedings in family law, from the initiation of an action to postjudgment motions.  Special care might be taken to accommodate self-represented litigants.  Proposed rules could be written in a manner easy for lay-persons to follow, be economical to comply with, and ensure that a litigant be afforded a satisfactory opportunity to present his or her case to the court."   Hence, the Elkins decision is essentially a Jeffersonian ruling that its intended to empower family law litigants and to require counties and courts to adapt.

The Elkins Task force completed its work and has issued lengthy recommendations. The first changes take place on January 1, 2011.  Possibly the most important change is embodied in Family Code section 217.  It states:

    "(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. 


December is new legislation month at the Southern California Family Law Blog presented by Family Law Attorney Thurman W. Arnold. My goal is to inform you well, and early on, on any number of topics that will improve your outcome in family law matters and hopefully help you to reach results that are fair for you, your spouse or ex-partner, your children, and your blended and extended families.


T. W. ARNOLD, III, CFLS
(State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization)

Continue reading "ELKINS and New FAMILY CODE SECTION 217: How It AFFECTS YOU!" »

Permalink  | Comments(1)
 
October 11, 2010
  Our Disso is Final But We Never Changed the JOINT TENANCY DEEDS. My Ex Just DIED.
Posted By Thurman Arnold
Q.  I just found out that my ex-partner passed away last week.  Our partnership disso became final six months ago.  We had agreed to hold some commercial property jointly until the real estate market improved, and then to sell it and divide what we netted.  They were held in "joint tenancy" and that was never changed.  Does this mean I now inherit his share?


A.  Probably not, but read on.  I talk about this in my last blog about title to property held as "Community Property" and describe "rights of survivorship".  But this raises a point that might be useful for you or someone out there - it is not all that uncommon, especially these days, that people agree to continue to jointly own real estate hoping the market is better down the road when they will finally sell.  Sometimes they'd actually prefer that their former domestic partner or spouse inherit their share if they die first, before the property is sold especially when there are no children or when adult children have been disinherited.

However, it is not enough that a Judgment, Stipulated Judgment, or Settlement or Termination Agreement say "we will continue to hold the property jointly after the divorce is final and will agree to sell it later (or maybe after a specific time period)" to preserve a joint tenancy interest and its chief attribute - a right of survivorship.  This is because without more once the domestic partner (or marital) status is terminated, all joint tenancies that existed prior to that point become tenancies in common as a matter of law.  California Probate Code section 5601.  Tenancies in common do not contain any survivorship rights.

There is a big "however", however.  Section 5601(b) has two exceptions that might help you: (1) Where the joint tenancy is not subject to severence at the time of death, possibly where a written agreement specifically says so (as in a settlement agreement filed with the Court or (2) there is "clear and convincing" evidence that the person who died intended the preserve the joint tenancy in favor of the former partner or spouse.

Hence, where anybody intends to preserve joint tenancy status they should specifically say so in a written document, preferably as part of the Judgment.  I always reference the Probate Code section itself.  Or, there may be something else that is sufficient to cause the Probate Court to find no severence was intended.   My bet is that if there were no other heirs at law for the deceased party, the court would be more easily convinced to find in your favor then if there are surviving children or other family left. 

Notice that under the statute the outcome would be different if the Judgment was a decree of legal separation instead.




T.W. Arnold
http://www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com
Continue reading "Our Disso is Final But We Never Changed the JOINT TENANCY DEEDS. My Ex Just DIED." »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 
September 08, 2010
  What do I do if my spouse or domestic partner does not complete their DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURE?
Posted By Thurman Arnold
Q.  What do I do if the other party to a divorce or dissolution of domestic partnership proceeding refuses to file their Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure?

A.   Declarations of Disclosure must be exchanged in all California proceedings for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, for legal separations, and for annulments.  They do not need to be served in any other form of family law proceeding. 

There are two forms of Declarations of Disclosure:  Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure (PDD's) and Final Declarations of Disclosure (FDD's).  PDD's are governed by Family Code section 2103 and FC section 2104.  FDD's are governed by Family Code section 2105.  While parties to a dissolution or legal separation action can waive the exchange of the FDD in writing (although it is not a good idea to do so for reasons discussed in my blogs about fiduciary duties), they cannot waive exchanging the Preliminary Declarations with one exception:  Where a dissolution or legal separation judgment is obtained by default, the defaulting party need not provide the PDD to the other party.  Family Code section 2110.

Note that I used the words "exchange" and "serve."  This is because the forms themselves are not required to be filed with the Court itself - instead, the proof of service upon the other party to the proceeding is what is to be filed.  Judicial Council Form FL-141 is what you file with the clerk's office.  In practice many people do file the actual schedules with the clerk, which can be a good idea because whether these forms were really exchanged and their contents can have a big impact on future set aside motions.

Here is the California Judicial Council Form FL-140 cover sheet that accompanies the PDD or the FDD.  As you can see, it is the same form but different boxes are checked for each.  A form FL-150 Income and Expense Declaration must accompany both, in addition to the FL-142 Schedule of Assets and Debts and the FL-160 Property Declaration.

The FDD is supposed to have much more detailed information, including supporting attachments, then is expected in the PDD.

Where the proceedings do not conclude by way of a default Judgment, the problem you have where the other party fails or refuses to exchange at least their PDD and thereupon to file the FL-141 proof of service is that the clerk cannot (a) set the matter for trial or (b) cannot accept for submittal to a judge and later filing a Stipulated Judgment or Marital Termination Agreement.  This can make it impossible to conclude a case even by way of settlement where both parties are in perfect agreement, or to obtain a trial date where they are not.  One party can hold up the entire process, and it is true that this often happens intentionally.

There is no set time for when parties must complete and exchange their preliminary declarations.  Family Code section 2104 states in part that "after or concurrently with service of the petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties, each party shall serve on the other party a preliminary declaration of disclosure...."  The problem with this language is the word "after."  The expectation is that this will be done within a reasonable time not usually exceeding 60 days from the date a party appears in the action by filing a Petition or a Response, but the statute does not explicitly say that.

The only remedy you have is file a notice of motion (or OSC application) pursuant to Family Code section 2107 asking that the court order the other party to serve their PDD and file the proof of service within a given number of days, not usually exceeding thirty.  That motion should request an order that the other party's Petition or Response be stricken if they then fail to do so in a timely manner, so that your matter may effectively proceed by default hearing. 

Expect the Court to give the other side one or two opportunities to get themselves into compliance with their fiduciary obligations to provide this exchange. 

Thurman W. Arnold III 

http://www.DesertDivorceandFamilyLawyer.com






Continue reading "What do I do if my spouse or domestic partner does not complete their DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURE?" »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 
April 24, 2010
  Will California recognize a SAME SEX MARRIAGE from Vermont?
Posted By Thurman Arnold
Q.   My same sex spouse and I were married in Vermont in 2001 but moved to Palm Springs five months ago.  Now it looks like we are splitting up.  She works full time and I take care of the home.  Can I seek spousal support in California and get our marriage dissolved here?


A.  As you probably know, Vermont was the first state to offer civil union status to same-sex couples (2000) which was identical to that offered to opposite-sex couples.  California was the first state to offer any legal status to same-sex couples.  Today the only states/territories that permit same-sex marriages or the equivalent civil unions are Connecticut, Washington D.C., Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

Other states give varying recognition to same sex partnerships - for instance, California, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon give broad recognition to domestic partners and other states like Colorado and Maine give limited recognition. 

In California some 18,000 couples marry between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008, when the window closed on same-sex marriage according to our Supreme Court's ruling in Straus v. Horton.  Our office has assisted some of these couples in divorce in our offices since that time.

Even though it is not presently possible for same-sex couples to marry in California, California will recognize valid marriages and civil unions from other states. 

On January 1, 2010, Family Code section 308 was amended to recognize any "marriage" between two persons of the same sex outside of California which is valid by the laws of that state so long as the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008 (the date the California Constitutional Amendment was upheld prohibiting same-sex "marriage").

As to same sex marriages that are lawful in other states which occur after November 5, 2008, California will not allow them to be called "marriages" but will accord these couples all of the rights of California law concerning marriage.

This leaves open the question of what we call dissolutions between "married" same sex couples in California that were entered after November 4, 2008.  Clearly in your case California recognizes a full-blown marriage in the traditional use of the term because you legally married in 2001 in Vermont.  But for those married since 11/4/08 in another jurisdiction there is uncertainty which California Judicial Council forms (which are mandatory) be utilized because those marriages are not domestic partnerships (Family Code section 299.2), nor are they "marriages."  Our office practice will be to simply use the old forms and modify them as necessary.

You may file a marriage dissolution in this state and request all orders that any divorcing couple could request; however, please note that California requires that you be a resident of this state for at least six months before filing for Dissolution but that you can opt to file a Legal Separation Petition at this time, obtain the necessary support orders, and then file an amended pleading for Dissolution once you perfect residency.

Good luck!



Thurman W. Arnold III
http://www.ThurmanArnold.com
Continue reading "Will California recognize a SAME SEX MARRIAGE from Vermont?" »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 
February 08, 2010
  PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURE in California (PDD's)
Posted By Thurman Arnold

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.

Continue reading "PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURE in California (PDD's)" »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 
January 18, 2010
  If my Wife and I are separated, do I have to pay the CREDIT CARDS she ran up after leaving?
Posted By Thurman Arnold

Q.     My Wife and I are separated. Am I liable for her debts she incurs once we split up?


A. If you are a co-signor on, for instance, a credit card account you are also liable to the credit card company. The fact of divorce or separation does not itself alter your obligations with third parties (since they are not allowed to participate in the divorce and they would be prejudiced s if you could unilaterally disavow liability because of divorce).   

As between you and spouse, you may or may not be obligated for one-half the debt depending on when the other spouse incurred it - if after separation, generally speaking they owe it. If the debt was incurred before separation, sometimes the debt will be assigned to one party without offset depending upon what it was for and whether they have the use of that property that the debt acquired - for instance, the furniture charged on the credit card or those car lease payments. Family Code section 910(b). Keep in mind, however, that if you move back in together (reconcile) you may lose these protections. The surest way to establish that a separation has in fact occurred is through filing a proceeding or Judgment for Dissolution or Legal Separation, although separations are suspect where parties continue to live under the same roof.

The Court does have the power under Family Code section 2623 to divide post-separation debts for "necessaries of life of either spouse or the necessaries of life of the children of the marriage" as between the parties "according to the parties' respective needs and abilities to pay at the time the debt was incurred." This is a discretionary call for the judge, and generally debt is assigned to the party who incurs it - particularly if that party is already receiving court ordered or even voluntary child or spousal support. If the post-separation debt is not for a "necessary of life" it will assigned to the spouse who incurred the debt.  

Once your divorce is final or a decree of legal separation has been entered, each spouse is solely liable for all debts incurred thereafter, including necessaries. A Judgment or Marital Termination Agreement is going to assign the debt existing as of that date as between the parties.


TWA

Continue reading "If my Wife and I are separated, do I have to pay the CREDIT CARDS she ran up after leaving?" »

Permalink  | Comments(0)
 

Palm Springs Family Attorneys  | Contact Thurman W. Arnold III | Site Map | Disclaimer

Professional Web Design The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

© 2010 by Thurman Arnold III Law Offices. All rights reserved.

Address: 225 South Civic Drive   Suite 1-3   Palm Springs, CA 92262                  Phone: (760) 320-7915

Administration