Divorce Law - A Blog By A Divorce Attorney!

                                      Appeals Stemming From Bifurcated Issues              In family law proceedings, parties have the option of bifurcating pivotal issues for an early trial.   Said trial would occur before all of the other remaining issues (i.e. custody, support, visitation) are decided.   Bifurcated trials are similar to regular trials except for at least one major difference.  Property rulings made during a bifurcated trial are NOT automatically appealable.  Thus, if you are unhappy with the trial court's decision, one must generally wait until the remainder of the case is tried before appealing the issue.   Sometimes this can be a very costly and inefficient.  Fortunately, statutory authority provides an exception to this rule.               Courts have the discretion and authority to certify a bifurcated ruling for early appeal.   Family Code Section 2025   provides, “[I]f the court has ordered an issue or issues bifurcated for separate trial or hear

           In most divorce cases, a party may petition the court for spousal support AKA alimony payable by his or her spouse.  In California, there are two types of spousal support payments, temporary and long term.  This post will address temporary spousal support.   California courts have consistently maintained that the duty of the court in establishing temporary spousal support is to render a fair and appropriate order to reflect parties’ financial circumstances at or near the time of separation.     In most cases, said status can be obtained by simply plugging numbers into a guideline calculation.   In Los Angeles County, the dissomaster  computer  program performs this calculation.  This really does away with much of the court's discretion and an attorney's ability to advocate. In some case, however, the use of dissomaster can render an unfair and inappropriate support orders , thus necessitating the trial court’s intervention. For several decades, the co

Many people believe that a separate property business (meaning a business established prior to marriage) is off limits for the proverbial divorce chopping block.  In most instances, especially those involving a service based business, this could not be further from the truth.  In a service based industry, where one (or both) spouse(s) work in the business, the community estate can gain an interest pursuant to the case of Pereira .  Pereria , which was decided nearly 100 years ago, carves out a community property interest in a separate property asset.  The analysis is based on the following rationale, WHERE THE PERSONAL LABOR INVESTED IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF GROWTH - A PEREIRA APORTIONMENT ROVIDES A FAIR APPRECIATION AT THE LEGAL RATE OF RETURN TO THE CAPITAL AND ASSIGNS THE REST OF APPRECIATION AS GROWTH FROM LABOR In real world litigation or mediation perspective, the Pereira interest is generally determined by obtaining two different business valuations, date of marriag

                  SPOUSAL SUPPORT IS ENFORCEABLE NOTWITHSTANDING ONE'S CAPACITY !                I was recently retained in a very interesting case.   The matter posed a unique set of facts and legal issues.  Can the daughter of a party, who lacks capacity, enforce a spousal support obligation on behalf of said party?   Given the ruling by the trial court yesterday, the answer is YES !                                                                  THE LAW!                Although, in general , the only persons permitted to be parties to a proceeding for dissolution or legal separation are the husband and wife ( Cal. Rules of Court , rule 1211(a) .) , the California Code of Civil Procedure provides an exception for a party lacking capacity.   Said representation is usually permissible by and through a guardian or a conservator of the spouse. Code of Civil Procedure § 372.                An "incompetent person" includes “‘a person for whom a conser

For decades California courts have maintained and fostered a strong public policy favoring the establishment , enforcement and modifiability of all child support orders.   The courts have liberally construed statutory law to preserve these powers, even if it meant blatantly disregarding fully executed settlement agreements signed between parties and counsel.   During this period, courts have also addressed the infrequent occurrence of the death of a payor prior to the emancipation of a minor child.    Through case law, we unequivocally know that child support orders not only survive the death of the payor but that said obligation is fully chargeable against the decedent’s estate.   In order to ensure enforceability and potential modification of said support orders, courts have been called upon to and have granted joinder of the decedent’s third party representatives to family law proceedings.   In a scenario where the payor is dead, joinder of a third party is absolutely nece