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 Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure Category

May 17, 2010
  My husband was HOSPITALIZED after we SEPARATED; am I liable for the bill?
Posted By Thurman Arnold
Q.  After my husband and I separated, he was hospitalized and incurred $28,000 in medical bills.  The creditor is threatening to sue me.  Am I liable?  Is there anything I should do?

A.  In a recent appellate decision out of San Diego County (CMRE Financial Services, Inc. v. Parton), the wife called police after an incident of domestic violence and shortly thereafter filed for DV restraining orders.  A week later the parties separated, and the husband was admitted to Tri-City Medical Center for treatment for a severe emotional illness.  He incurred substantial medical bills.

The wife filed a dissolution action three months after that.  In her Schedule of Assets and Debts she listed the debt as owed by her husband.  A judgment for dissolution came to be entered several months later, and it did not assign the hospital obligation to the wife.  It appears to have been a default judgment against the husband.

CMRE, the assignee of Tri-City Hospital, sued both the husband and wife to collect the money for husband's treatment; by then husband had disappeared and was never served with the lawsuit.  Wife responded by denying liability, and with a cross-complaint that alleged that by sending her collection notices CMRE had violated the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Title 15, United States Code section 1692 et seq.), and that she should obtain damages against them. 

CMRE filed a motion to toss out the cross-complaint, relying on the language of Family Code section 914(a)(2), which states that spouses are liable for debts incurred by the other when separated if these are for "necessaries of life." 

The trial court agreed with CMRE, and the matter proceeded to a judgment against the wife for the full amount plus interest.  Wife appealed.

The appellate court ruled in favor of wife, and reversed the trial court.  Wife would have been liable for these medical costs IF a dissolution including property division had not been granted, or if the dissolution judgment had assigned the debt to her, or if she had agreed to support her estranged husband while they were separated.  For instance, if the parties had reconciled and if CMRE had sued the wife and obtained a money judgment against her, she would have been on the hook.  But once a dissolution judgment was entered that did not assign the debt to the wife she was protected.  Family Code section 916.

The appellate court also noted that an independent basis for holding wife free of the debt included Family Code section 4302 which states that a person is not liable for the support of their spouse when the person is living separate from the spouse by agreement, unless the agreement calls for support.  The court reasoned that while the starting point is that spouses are liable for the other's necessaries while living separately that rule will not apply where they are separated by agreement (apparently the agreement can be verbal or implied from conduct), unless the agreement includes a promise to support the other.

This appellate decision seems confusing because the language of the statutes themselves conflict.  The court continued by noting that the legislature has declared that one spouse's liability for the other spouse's post-separation necessaries is entirely derivative of the fact of marriage and not the same as a debt personally incurred by the supporting spouse.  This means that "the liability imposed by section 914 can be avoided by the simple expedient of entering into a separation agreement which does not provide for support."

The only exception might be where a creditor alleges a marital settlement agreement violates the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.  CMRE did not allege any fraud between these spouses.

This is landmark case because up to this point most lawyers and judges believed that spouses were liable for the necessaries of life of the other, even after separating, and that this was a special exception to the general rule that once spouses separate liability for debt ends.

Now we know that you have at least two ways to avoid this debt:  (1) Obtain a Judgment for Dissolution before the creditor obtains a civil judgment against you, but be sure that the debt is assigned to the other spouse; and (2) be sure that you don't have an agreement to support the other spouse in place, at least at the time the debt is incurred.  The judgment can be based upon a marital termination agreement.

If you pretend to separate, or separate just to avoid the debt, and if the creditor claims you did this fraudulently to avoid liability, the outcome might be different.

One additional point of information:  Under the circumstances of this case, CMRE was found to have in fact violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act just by sending threatening letters, and of course by filing suit.  Knowledge of this case can be used to back off creditors who are harassing you.

Thurman W. Arnold III
http://www.thurmanarnold.com






Continue reading "My husband was HOSPITALIZED after we SEPARATED; am I liable for the bill?" »

Permalink 
 
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)
 

Palm Springs Family Law Attorney
Contact Thurman W. Arnold III
Site Map

Professional Web Design The information on this Palm Springs Family Law Attorney / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications 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   Fax: (760) 320-0725

Administration