When a marriage contract is formed, the phrase "the two shall become one" has not only romantic connotations but legal ones as well. After a couple marries, all employment income, real property purchased and other assets acquired during the course of the marriage becomes joint or community property. Similarly, all financial liabilities incurred are the responsibility of both spouses--not just the spouse who incurred the debt. When a marriage is dissolved, a court of law will divide community assets and liabilities in a manner it deems equitable.
For more information please contact the Law Offices of RENEE MARCELLE, 415-456-4444 or visit us online at familylawmarin.com.
--
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
DATE OF SEPARATION
The economic consequences relating to the determination of the date of separation can be significant. It is on this date that the entity known as the "community estate" is terminated and the spouses stop acquiring community property. The date of separation, however, has no impact on the parties' respective interest in previously acquired community property. All income earned after the date of separation is the separate property of the spouse who earned the income. Similarly, all debts and obligations accumulated following the date of separation are the separate obligations of the spouse who incurred the debts. All property rights, including those related to retirement benefits accruing after separation, are the separate property of the spouse acquiring the property. So, given its importance, just what is the "date of separation?"
For further information please contact the Law Offices of RENEE MARCELLE, 415-456-4444 or visit us online at familylawmarin.com.
--
For further information please contact the Law Offices of RENEE MARCELLE, 415-456-4444 or visit us online at familylawmarin.com.
--
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Divorce and Children: How “Conciliation Hearings” Can Heal Disagreements
Divorce cases that involve disagreements about children are often described as “difficult”. Emotions run high; at a local level the judiciary may have to fall upon its own judgement when asked to choose one suitable option above others. Bitterness, heartache and large legal bills can result. Is there another way? I think so.
The majority of children cases relate to the practical arrangements of what happens to their children following the breakdown of a marriage or parental relationship. As Head of the Children’s Department at Stowe Family Law, I have been involved in a number of cases in which one or both parents have asked the court to intervene. Sometimes there are issues that concern child protection; other cases feature styles of parenting that are no longer considered acceptable after a relationship’s failure. The majority of cases concern the practical arrangements and the frequency and duration of the time each parent spends with the children. It is this latter category that has caused me growing concern over the past few years.
The pressures under which the local judiciary operates have not helped. A case scheduled for its first, second or even third appearance may only be listed for a quarter of an hour. Judges are asked to make rigorous, reasoned decisions quickly – and yet some of these cases feature complexities that stretch back years. There may not be time to facilitate a fragile agreement when everyone feels so rushed.
The other difficulty is that too much pressure is placed on parents to sort out their own problems. In some cases, this is simply too much to ask.
My solution?
Conciliation hearings
Conciliation hearings have made regular appearances in the London courts for several years now. I am delighted that a conciliation hearing scheme is now up and running in Leeds, where a number of our clients are based, and also hope that the scheme will be extended to Manchester so that our north west clients can benefit too.
To read this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
The majority of children cases relate to the practical arrangements of what happens to their children following the breakdown of a marriage or parental relationship. As Head of the Children’s Department at Stowe Family Law, I have been involved in a number of cases in which one or both parents have asked the court to intervene. Sometimes there are issues that concern child protection; other cases feature styles of parenting that are no longer considered acceptable after a relationship’s failure. The majority of cases concern the practical arrangements and the frequency and duration of the time each parent spends with the children. It is this latter category that has caused me growing concern over the past few years.
The pressures under which the local judiciary operates have not helped. A case scheduled for its first, second or even third appearance may only be listed for a quarter of an hour. Judges are asked to make rigorous, reasoned decisions quickly – and yet some of these cases feature complexities that stretch back years. There may not be time to facilitate a fragile agreement when everyone feels so rushed.
The other difficulty is that too much pressure is placed on parents to sort out their own problems. In some cases, this is simply too much to ask.
My solution?
Conciliation hearings
Conciliation hearings have made regular appearances in the London courts for several years now. I am delighted that a conciliation hearing scheme is now up and running in Leeds, where a number of our clients are based, and also hope that the scheme will be extended to Manchester so that our north west clients can benefit too.
To read this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
California Divorce Case May Change Rules on Financial Discovery
CALIFORNIA -- A 2007 appellate divorce case has brought recent light to the subject of full financial disclosure in California divorce law.
In In re Marriage of Feldman, a businessman did not disclose certain assets and financial transactions to his wife, although she repeatedly requested the information. Among the information Feldman wouldn't reveal was the formation of several new companies. Mrs. Feldman had learned about her husband's undisclosed assets before the divorce trial and provided her own investigation into the discovery.
Feldman claimed that his lack of disclosure was not intentional and that the secret assets were of small value compared to the whole of the estate. However, the California Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, stating that a divorcing spouse has a duty to disclose everything, which is mandatory until all assets are divided, and that such refusal to do so is not acceptable. According to the Court, Feldman was obliged to disclose all material information in writing, continue to supplement the discovery, and disclose material info before any new project began.
In the end, even though the hidden assets and transactions had not economically damaged Mrs. Feldman in any way, the trial court decided that Feldman should pay his wife $250,000 in sanctions for his failure to comply with the requested disclosure -- as well as another $140,000 in her attorney fees. The court ordered the sanctions under the sections of the TX Family Law Code related to fiduciary duty.
The moral seems to be that hiding important financial information from your spouse is never a good idea. The consequences of doing so, such as the results of the Feldman case, could be far more costly than simply agreeing to a fair property division.
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
In In re Marriage of Feldman, a businessman did not disclose certain assets and financial transactions to his wife, although she repeatedly requested the information. Among the information Feldman wouldn't reveal was the formation of several new companies. Mrs. Feldman had learned about her husband's undisclosed assets before the divorce trial and provided her own investigation into the discovery.
Feldman claimed that his lack of disclosure was not intentional and that the secret assets were of small value compared to the whole of the estate. However, the California Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, stating that a divorcing spouse has a duty to disclose everything, which is mandatory until all assets are divided, and that such refusal to do so is not acceptable. According to the Court, Feldman was obliged to disclose all material information in writing, continue to supplement the discovery, and disclose material info before any new project began.
In the end, even though the hidden assets and transactions had not economically damaged Mrs. Feldman in any way, the trial court decided that Feldman should pay his wife $250,000 in sanctions for his failure to comply with the requested disclosure -- as well as another $140,000 in her attorney fees. The court ordered the sanctions under the sections of the TX Family Law Code related to fiduciary duty.
The moral seems to be that hiding important financial information from your spouse is never a good idea. The consequences of doing so, such as the results of the Feldman case, could be far more costly than simply agreeing to a fair property division.
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
Don't Rack Up Debt to Get Revenge on Spouse
Surely you can think of better ways to punish a cheating husband than to run up his credit. If it were me, I'd look for something more satisfying and original -- and preferably more humiliating for him -- than running to the mall with his credit card.
Seriously, if you and your husband are still seeing each other, it's not really over. In fact, seeing each other when you're not living together is more intentional than just bumping into each other at the breakfast table every day. Divorce is a lot like bankruptcy -- sometimes it is necessary, but it should always be the last resort. If you're not absolutely sure you want this marriage to be over, I suggest finding a counselor or another wise person to help the two of you sort things out.
If you are determined to run up his credit, however, your legal liability depends on whether your name is on the account and the laws of your state.
If you do not live in a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington or Wisconsin) and you are not a joint account holder, you are generally not legally responsible for your husband's credit account balances. This is true even if you are anauthorized user. (If you're not an authorized user, using his cards could get you in more trouble. Don't do it.)
If you're in a community property state, consult with a legal professional where you live. In some states, the marriage ends for community debt purposes when you no longer live together, whether or not you occasionally see each other. In other community property states, you can be liable for debts that are run up until the divorce is finalized.
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
Seriously, if you and your husband are still seeing each other, it's not really over. In fact, seeing each other when you're not living together is more intentional than just bumping into each other at the breakfast table every day. Divorce is a lot like bankruptcy -- sometimes it is necessary, but it should always be the last resort. If you're not absolutely sure you want this marriage to be over, I suggest finding a counselor or another wise person to help the two of you sort things out.
If you are determined to run up his credit, however, your legal liability depends on whether your name is on the account and the laws of your state.
If you do not live in a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington or Wisconsin) and you are not a joint account holder, you are generally not legally responsible for your husband's credit account balances. This is true even if you are anauthorized user. (If you're not an authorized user, using his cards could get you in more trouble. Don't do it.)
If you're in a community property state, consult with a legal professional where you live. In some states, the marriage ends for community debt purposes when you no longer live together, whether or not you occasionally see each other. In other community property states, you can be liable for debts that are run up until the divorce is finalized.
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
Monday, January 25, 2010
Staying Together For the Kids
Last night, one of my best friends called my cell phone twice in one minute -- our signal for distress -- the indication that I needed to pick up the phone right then, even if I was in the middle of dinner. I'd gotten previous distress calls when she found a suspicious lump (the biopsy was, thank goodness, benign) and when her daughter was in an accident. I knew that whatever was coming on the other line wasn't good.
"He is so mean to me," she sobbed into the phone. "It's the same crap year after year after year. I'm at that breaking point where it doesn't seem sane to continue to take it."
Oh boy: I hadn't seen that coming. This is the friend whose marriage sustains my (perhaps delusional) romantic belief in matrimony -- the marriage I point to as evidence that big love, deep connections, and truly equal partnerships are, in fact, possible.
But here she was struggling with the same question I've wrestled with for years: is it better for our kids if we stay in less-than-happy marriages?
Holy cow, is that a big question. And if you've ever seriously asked it, you know it can be an agonizing one. In the coming weeks, I'll be blogging about how I've answered this question for myself.
I know it's tempting to answer the question of whether or not we should stay together for the kids with a simple "yes." As a society we tend to think that kids will do better if parents stay together; that's what our grandparents' generation did, or tried to do. A mediocre marriage is better for kids than no marriage, right? We might believe this at least partly because of a hugely flawed -- but very influential and well-publicized -- study by Judith Wallerstein that "showed" that kids don't notice that their parents are unhappy in a marriage. Wallerstein argued that unless domestic violence is a part of the picture, kids are worse off when parents divorce.
Thinking that an unhappy marriage is better than no marriage -- whether the belief comes from our family or religion or a study like Wallerstein's -- has kept a lot of unhappily married Americans in their marriages. The study, by the way, while embraced by the press and published as a New York Times bestselling book, has been rejected whole-heartedly by social scientists because Wallerstein didn't use a random sample of families that had divorced or stayed married; instead, she looked at a group of divorced people with mental health problems. Her study doesn't meet accepted standards of scientific research, and its findings shouldn't be generalized to families that aren't struggling with the same things for which Wallerstein's tiny sample was being treated (usually histories of mental illness, clinical depression, and suicidal tendencies).
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
"He is so mean to me," she sobbed into the phone. "It's the same crap year after year after year. I'm at that breaking point where it doesn't seem sane to continue to take it."
Oh boy: I hadn't seen that coming. This is the friend whose marriage sustains my (perhaps delusional) romantic belief in matrimony -- the marriage I point to as evidence that big love, deep connections, and truly equal partnerships are, in fact, possible.
But here she was struggling with the same question I've wrestled with for years: is it better for our kids if we stay in less-than-happy marriages?
Holy cow, is that a big question. And if you've ever seriously asked it, you know it can be an agonizing one. In the coming weeks, I'll be blogging about how I've answered this question for myself.
I know it's tempting to answer the question of whether or not we should stay together for the kids with a simple "yes." As a society we tend to think that kids will do better if parents stay together; that's what our grandparents' generation did, or tried to do. A mediocre marriage is better for kids than no marriage, right? We might believe this at least partly because of a hugely flawed -- but very influential and well-publicized -- study by Judith Wallerstein that "showed" that kids don't notice that their parents are unhappy in a marriage. Wallerstein argued that unless domestic violence is a part of the picture, kids are worse off when parents divorce.
Thinking that an unhappy marriage is better than no marriage -- whether the belief comes from our family or religion or a study like Wallerstein's -- has kept a lot of unhappily married Americans in their marriages. The study, by the way, while embraced by the press and published as a New York Times bestselling book, has been rejected whole-heartedly by social scientists because Wallerstein didn't use a random sample of families that had divorced or stayed married; instead, she looked at a group of divorced people with mental health problems. Her study doesn't meet accepted standards of scientific research, and its findings shouldn't be generalized to families that aren't struggling with the same things for which Wallerstein's tiny sample was being treated (usually histories of mental illness, clinical depression, and suicidal tendencies).
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
Teens and Divorce
January is rapidly becoming one of the busiest times of the year for divorce lawyers.
Statistics show this is the period when they receive more enquiries from married couples contemplating divorce than at any other time of the year.
Earlier this week, the Parents Advice Centre invited a leading UK psychologist, Dr John Coleman, to address delegates at Malone House, Belfast, with a seminar entitled "The Forgotten Teen - The Impact of Separation and Divorce on Teenagers".
Dr Coleman has spent his life studying adolescence and is published widely on the subject. He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University.
Pip Jaffa, Chief Executive of the Parents Advice Centre, explains how important it is for local family support services to consider the impact of separation or divorce on teenagers:
"Separation or divorce is an extremely emotional process and as a result parenting can be affected."
"Adolescents find their teenage years a challenging period, as they deal with education, relationships and temptations to stray into risk-taking behaviour."
"If their parents separate, the teenager has the added stress of coping with the fallout at a time when their own emotions are in a state of flux."
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
Statistics show this is the period when they receive more enquiries from married couples contemplating divorce than at any other time of the year.
Earlier this week, the Parents Advice Centre invited a leading UK psychologist, Dr John Coleman, to address delegates at Malone House, Belfast, with a seminar entitled "The Forgotten Teen - The Impact of Separation and Divorce on Teenagers".
Dr Coleman has spent his life studying adolescence and is published widely on the subject. He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University.
Pip Jaffa, Chief Executive of the Parents Advice Centre, explains how important it is for local family support services to consider the impact of separation or divorce on teenagers:
"Separation or divorce is an extremely emotional process and as a result parenting can be affected."
"Adolescents find their teenage years a challenging period, as they deal with education, relationships and temptations to stray into risk-taking behaviour."
"If their parents separate, the teenager has the added stress of coping with the fallout at a time when their own emotions are in a state of flux."
To view this article in its entirety, click here.
For more information, contact the Law Offices of Renee M. Marcelle at (415) 456-4444, or online at http://www.familylawmarin.com/
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
