Divorce And Mediation Blog

According to a story in the Sacramento Bee, California's divorce rate is down, at least for 2009, the year of the study.

Even more significant for those of us who live here, the divorce rate was lower than the national average, by about 10%. Hard to believe, when we tend to assume Californians get divorced more than residents in other places, and our marriages don't last [maybe it's just Southern California that has that reputation].

By region, what we are told by some is the conservative, family oriented, religious South had the highest percentage of divorces, while the liberal Northeast had the lowest.

These statistics don't come from left wing think tank; but from the U.S. Census Bureau., the agency that travels around the country every 10 years gathering information and performing its Constitutional duties.

Several years ago, Mr. Elkins was getting a divorce in Contra Costa County - he ran into a buzz saw when he showed up for trial. Much to his surprise, the judge essentially wouldn't let him present a case because he hadn't followed local court rules - mainly, he hadn't reduced all the testimony he wanted to present into declaration form. Those rules were specifically designed to eliminate trials in Family Law matters in that county.

San Diego is what is known as a Reifler County - pursuant to a California court case in the Marriage of Reifler, on a county by county basis, courts have been allowed to use declarations in lieu of oral testimony in family law cases - it's clearly faster and more convenient, and in the vast majority of cases justice is done by that process - if you want oral testimony, there is a procedure to follow, but the judge has discretion not to allow it. For trials, however, San Diego has always required oral testimony.

In theory, the Elkins decision had no impact on San Diego divorce cases. Unfortunately, for most litigants it isn't that easy. After Elkins, an "Elkins Task Force" was created to solve all the problems in the family law courts. [Insert smiley face here] They ran with the ball and have managed to make a major upheaval by permitting testimony in all hearings as a matter of right, and allowing children to testify in their parents' divorce.

These changes, part in force now and part in 2012, are going to make family law cases much more expensive and much more complicated. Rather than increasing justice, they will deprive more people of their ability to effectively present their cases. In the best of times, divorce courts have been the poor stepchild of the law - the worst court rooms, an insufficient number of judges, and judges poorly trained in the subject matter.

The high volume quickly too its toll on the best of judges, let alone those with no prior family law experience. Because of the high volume of cases assigned to each judge, the emotions attendant to the decisions, the number of substantive decisions that need to be made in each case, and the effect on families of mistakes, burn out among judges often comes quickly.

Where are the judges going to come from to handle the increased work load required by so much oral testimony? Certainly not from the judges who have the seniority to balk if assigned to a family law department.

Where it may take two to four months to get a hearing on a one hour matter before the new changes in the law, what will happen if it takes twice as long to get a hearing because the judge is busy hearing hour after hour of senseless testimony? Increasing chaos, less justice, and higher cost overall.

Yet another press release crossed my computer desktop from a lawfirm that handles divorce cases in San Diego County, braggin about the firm having shown up to do its job. Apparently, if they actually get their clients what they are entitle to receive, they consider it a big deal in their office. :)

In the press release, the lawyers are bragging that one of their own managed to get their client a 50/50 division of a pension. I think that is what is supposed to happen, although the other side doesn't always cooperate. It is also possible they didn't tell all the facts, and there may be a real reason this was a victory. [In fairness, it appears the other side had already collected some of the monthly benefits, and the court ordered half of those paid to the client - but that is what is supposed to happen.]

They go on to brag that the court had the other side pay a portion of their client's fees. That's pretty typical if there is a large disparity in earnings or assets between the two parties, or even an uncooperative litigant on the other side, but hardly a stunning victory. Now, if the judge had ordered 100% of their fees I'd praise them for that, since it is a rarity, but I'd hardly brag about getting "a portion" of my client's fees paid. Ok, maybe if my client's fees were $10,000 and the other side ordered to pay $9,000 I would consider that a job well done, but if that were the case I wouldn't be bragging that I'd gotten "a portion" of the $10,000.

Does anyone really pay attention to this stuff, or is it just Internet junk we could all do without?

Irrespective of your view of gay marriage, if you studied Constitutional Law you had to conclude that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] wasn't constitutional. Essentially, this Clinton era legislation was to appease those who didn't like the idea of homosexuals getting married - this Federal law provides that a state is not required to recognize same sex marriages conducted legally in another state.

This became big news this week when the administration announced it no longer intended to waste time and energy enforcing the law. For students of the Constitution, however, it's not really big news except that a government employee has openly sided with reality.

The problem with the law is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that requires one state to provide "full faith and credit" to the public acts, laws, and court decisions from every other state: Article IV, Section 1. In simple terms, this means such things as a court ruling in one state being entitled to enforcement in another, or a contract validly made in one state is enforceable in another.

When the DOMA was enacted, it was my first reaction that the law violated this provision of the Constitution. There is a strong need for too many politicians to make it look like they are doing something to satisfy their core constituents. Where I have a problem is that they won't admit that they are wasting a lot of time and effort on window dressing to satisfy the ignorance of the voters. Unfortunately, those who claim to want strict enforcement of the country's founding document really only want to enforce the parts of the Constitution they like best, and don't see the hypocrisy. After all, the document is more than the 2nd amendment.

As part of my practice, I have Google alerts to keep me advised of news involving San Diego Family Law. Amazing what Google sends me daily - often some blog or other website change by a lawyer trying to impress potential clients, but also stories about divorces in the news - your basic TMZ saga of a celebrity or a really rich person.

Today, one alert was notice of a "divorce and property support group" where you would talk about your rights, avoid mistakes, learn who gets to keep the house. That's practicing law, or at least teaching the subject. Who sponsors the group? A real estate broker. The charge? $50. Doesn't sound like a support group to me. Sounds like a way to make money in a down real estate market, while getting your name known to people who might need a broker because they are forced by finances to sell their home.

Now a broker might be able to sell your house, but tell you about your divorce property rights? Give me a break. When I tried to find out who was doing this, I learned there is a group passing out "certification" as real estate collaborative specialists in divorce. Their claim to fame seems to be that they can do a better job of selling the house of people going through a divorce than someone who hasn't gone through their 12 hours short course. Never heard of such a certification program before. No surprise there. They are trying to capitalize on the "Specialist" and "Collaborative" designations, especially the latter which has some real meaning in Family Law. And if you want to get your divorce information from a Certified Family Law Specialist, there is a legitimate program behind that rating.

Personally, I know several brokers who don't claim this new "certification" who have sold dozens of homes in my cases with minimal friction between the parties - these are called PROFESSIONALS. I send my clients to them because they do their jobs, and no one complains to me about the choice. And, because they are professionals, they tell their clients to get their legal advice about their property rights from a lawyer.

Then there was the press release from a local divorce mill [advertise heavily, suck in a lot of business, and higher young and/or inexperienced lawyers to work on the cases]. The release was bragging about the great skill of one of its lawyers who had managed to get a father's timeshare with his children increased from 35% to 50%.

Sounds like quite a coup, until you talk to a certified family law specialist - he or she will almost certainly tell you that such orders are really pretty routine, it just depends on the facts. Although such a court order represents a 50% increase in time, it really means adding about a day a week - often a pretty easy feat as long as the non-custodial parent is competent, the children are doing OK in school and socially, and his or her work schedule permits the extra time - the system is biased in favor of equal sharing between competent parents, especially where they live close together, even though children generally perceive a 60/40 split as about equal.

Changing an order can be pretty easy if the 35% share hasn't caused problems, the children are doing well in school, no one has been arrested for a bar fight :), and especially if Family Court Services recommends the change. FCS mediates between the parents, and makes a recommendation to the judge if the parties don't agree.

In fact, an experienced lawyer may have his client agree to a 40% times share at the beginning of a case, knowing that adding an extra 10% [36 nights a year] is pretty easy to achieve the next time the case comes before the judge - all that is usually needed is that the non-custodial parent has kept his or her nose clean, stayed involved with the child or children, and can adjust his or her work schedule to accommodate the extra time since the prior order.

Now, if the non-custodial parent worked 60 hours a week, worked odd shifts, didn't or couldn't participate in parent-teacher conferences and doctor appointments, or take the children to their after school events, different case. Show me such a parent where the timeshare increased 50%, and I'll take notice. That would require luck and good lawyering. A beginner might be lucky....

Here's a question: Would you spend upwards of $300,000 in attorneys fees trying to get your spouse from collecting what he or she is probably going to get anyway? Does the answer change when the dollars change? Does the answer change if the person is in a tax bracket close to 50%, and has to earn close to $600,000 to pay those fees.

Let's say, hypothetically, there is a very long term marriage. The high earner makes about $1,000,000 per year. The low earner wants support to maintain the marital standard of living. In this hypothetical, the low earner worked throughout the marraige and still works, full time, earning about $80,000 per year. Hypothetically, the temporary support ends up being around $30,000 per month. In gross terms, that leaves the high earner with about $640,000 a year, and the spouse about $440,000 per year. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it, but hardly unfair to the high earner after 30 years of marriage.

Temporary support in my county, San Diego, is almost always computer and formula driven: Pretty predictable once you agree on the amount for the parties' earnings and tax deductions. Our computer programs calculate net incomes and divides them on about a 60-40 ratio, although it is adjusted for the recipient-spouse's earnings and often ends up closer to 55-45 if the low earner makes a good living.

Long term support [also called permanent or judgment support] is what a judge would order after trial and the division of assets - the court must then consider a bunch of factors, and is not permitted to use guidelines. Notwithstanding that rule, long term support tends to be close to temporary support for long term marriages: Those twenty plus years, especially if a career was built during the marriage.

Knowing all of that, why would anyone spend that kind of money avoiding the inevitable? I don't have an answer, but it's a question that I ask a lot. Especially after watching it happen time and time again. Personally, I'd rather give the money to my ex-spouse than to the lawyers. The lawyer isn't going to walk my daughter down the aisle or come to my son's graduation, and at least I'm keeping the money in the family.

Here is a link to an interesting article in the New York Times Magazine from last Sunday dealing with the effects of divorced or separated parents attempts to co-parent.

I neither endorse, reject, nor comment on the contents, I am just the conduit. :)

Former San Diego Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham has the memory of so many convicted defendants: "I didn't do anything wrong, it was my lawyers' fault. His claims are reported in the San Diego Union.

His former lawyers no longer represent him. Not hard to figure out why. After all, why would they when they explained the facts of life to a defendant who was absolutely certain to be convicted of accepting bribes. The evidence had been fully developed by Union reporters year ago, and in terms of public opinion the evidence was so crystal clear that his only hope was a plea bargain. The lawyers "couldn't be reached for comment." In fact, they probably can't comment on their discussions with their former client without violating the attorney-client privilege.

Duke accepted expensive gifts from contractors who benefitted directly from his votes. He lived on the boat of one of them, nicknamed "The Duke Stir," obviously named for the congressman. Oh, yes, he lived there free. He sold his Del Mar house so far over market that it caught the reporters' attention - he was able to use the inflated proceeds to move to prestigious Rancho Santa Fe. The buyer of his Del Mar home later sold it for a huge loss at fair market value, even though the real estate market had seen increased prices between the two transactions.

Let the poor guy rot in prison. Who cares that the government seizes his pensions to pay the unpaid back taxes on the bribes he accepted? I don't feel any more sorry for him that for Bernie Madoff - to sides of the same coin.

Duke claims he got sucked in because he couldn't say "No." The evidence shows that he solicited bribes because he deserved them. He was an arrogant bastard throughout his military and political careers, and now has gotten justice. He won't testify in accordance with his prior statements against one of the persons charged with having participated in his schemes - I assume he expects that person to rescue him financially for his newfound fidelity to his friend [more fidelity than he felt for the voters he represented.

A major issue in most of my divorce cases is the value of the family residence. Yes, even in this market there may be equity. The value is affected by the condition of the home, which is often a source of litigation. Usually, there is no home inspection to provide an objective view of the homes defects.

What family law lawyers call the "In Spouse" is the person most likely to end up with the residence; that party generally wants it cheap. The "Out Spouse" wants it dear - often he [or she] is getting a business or other assets offsetting the equity in the home. Sometimes the In Spouse simply has greater resources [separate property funds or family help, for example], and can afford to keep the house. The Out Spouse is often not in the running financially, so he [or she] wants a high value or the property sold for the maximum.

As you can expect, when asserting a value, to the In Spouse the house is a shack; to the former mate, it is a pristine palace. We see these arguments passed back and forth going back to the beginning of real estate. Usually, they are just arguments.

In San Diego, most of our judges want a neutral real estate appraiser, and we choose from a short list of the usual suspects to go to the home and ignore what each party says is good or bad about the house. The real estate appraiser we choose should have a lot of experience in divorce cases, so often does not put much stock in the claims of either side.

This is where a home inspection can help. There was a recent New York Times article on this subject.

Continue reading "Divorce, Appraisals, and Home Inspections..." »

Over the weekend, an interesting article appeared in the New York Times relating to divorce, Alzheimer's, and financial problems.

The story begins with a sad story of a successful lawyer who simply lost track of his finances. His wife learned of the problem when she received a call from their homeowners' association to the effect that their dues were not being paid. He had also stopped writing checks to other creditors, and when she hired a forensic accountant to find their money learned that most of it had "just disappeared."

The article is part of a series on dementia, and points out that difficulty understanding finances, money and credit, is on of the first signs of the problem.

While a person may have sufficient capacity that no one will intervene, the unfortunate part is that they may no longer have the ability to make sound financial decisions. The American Bar Association has published guidelines for lawyers in this area. Unfortunately, in the divorce setting, the consensus seems to be that the lawyer who sees the problem cannot move to have a conservator appointed for his own client, and may not even be able to warn others of what he sees.

The general rule is that when spousal support is ordered by a court, it is deductible by the person who pays, and taxable to the recipient. There are rules that apply, but they are relatively straight forward.

Occasionally, the recipient is a non-resident alien who decides to live in another country: Maybe they return from their country of origin, just want to get away, or they have family there - maybe they can make their support stretch farther. Some who have been married to American citizens for decades were here legally, but remained citizens of another country, and when the marriage failed decided to go to their homeland.

The taxability scheme assumes the government gets tax from one spouse or the other. Although the recipient is usually in a lower tax bracket, that is a bargain we make. When the receiving non-resident spouse moves to Italy, Poland, Japan, or Canada, for example, how does the government get its money? To often, no one asks that question, and finds out too late to solve problems created.

Well, there is an answer: The paying spouse withholds the money and sends it to the IRS. This does not apply in all cases, as there some inter-country treaties that eliminate the obligation. The risk to the paying spouse is that failing to withhold may make him or her liable for the tax that should have been paid.

Will the "document preparer" helping you fill out the paperwork to process your divorce have any clue? Of course not. Even most lawyers don't know the rule unless they attend the type of courses that teach these unusual rules - certified specialists are more likely to take such courses.

40 years ago, California became the first state to allow people to get divorced simply because they no longer wanted to be married to their partners. In 1969, the California Legislature decided that the then-existing concept of "fault" created more problems that it solved; it felt that making the parties lie to rid themselves of a mate made little sense - no marriage was better than open hostilities, and, besides, court rooms are pretty poor places to decide which spouse was worse, or whether bad conduct had happened at all. Since then, 48 other states have followed suit, leaving only New York without a similar option. That may soon change.

This recent op-ed piece in the New York Times summarizes the arguments for and against no fault divorce now being debated in the New York Legislature. These are issues that create substantial debate, but eventually the result always seems to favor allowing people to divorce more freely; I presume that, ultimately, the majority of politicians want to keep their own options open.

Whether you agree or disagree with the concept, you or your spouse can obtain a divorce simply "because...." In California, the standard is that there be "irreconcilable difference." It is sufficient that one wants a divorce and the other doesn't - such a difference is probably "irreconcilable." California also permits divorce because of "incurable insanity," but in 35 years of practicing family law in San Diego, I've never seen anyone bring such a case. It is too easy to prove that at least one of the parties in the marriage is unhappy and wants out.

My office retired a copy machine a few months ago, having worn it out - more than 2 million copies ran through it. The replacement is faster but also scans and e-mails. We make a lot of copies, and buy a lot of copy paper. It has been her long enough that we became attached to it and the repair man who came more and more frequently to replace parts.

The need for a reliable machine came to mind when we received about 800 pages of photocopies, wrapped with rubber bands, no staples and no organization, from another law office. It is what they represented as being the "client's file." We inherit such files a few times a year when we take over a case for a client.

On those rare instances when we turn a file over to a successor law firm, we make copies of most everything in it. But, we make and keep the copies for ourselves, in case a question comes up somewhere along the line, which happens occasionally. We don't keep the original file in those instances - the original, under California law, belongs to the client. We must pass it along to the next lawyer or to the client upon request at the end of our representation.

Continue reading "Divorce Lawyers and the Client's File..." »

Many election years, I get questions from family and friends asking for whom they should vote in a judicial election. This year, the stakes are higher and there are far more elections than usual. The San Diego Union published its endorsements today.

As usual, I recommend family and friends vote for the incumbents. This year is no different from usual, but the stakes this year are more important than usual. This year, a group has organized to run against a number of very good judges. Why? Because they want the law to be different from what it is, and view election to the bench as their way of changing the law. Talk about judicial activism! They have not chosen to oppose bad judges, just anyone in office, apparently selected at random. The Union has endorsed all but one sitting judge, and made no choice for the remaining seat. I can't disagree.

One of the judges running is not well respected: Not by lawyers, and not even by many judges. That doesn't change my position, and the Union has elected not to take a position in that race.

Lawyers who run against sitting judges, in the overwhelming number of cases, aren't the best of their profession. Often, not even close. I do not know well any of the judges still in the race - two of them had long stints in Divorce Court, where I saw them do their jobs well. I see no reason they should not be reelected, and the lawyers who have appeared in front of them far more than I speak highly of each.

A third former Family Law judge, Harry Powacek of Vista, was challenged by a lawyer who didn't meet the legal standards for the office and was kicked off the ballot. Although he does not have to run, Judge Powacek had legal expenses to deal with the matter in court. What had he done wrong? Nothing. He was just an incumbent. I appeared in front of him many hundreds of times, and he always tried very hard to do a good job.

Many such challenges come from a lawyer who didn't get the result he wanted in his own divorce. Many, just from lawyers who want the publicity because it may be good for business.

As I look back over the last 40 years of such nonsense, very few poor judges were opposed for election, and few great lawyers were challenging them for the position. Those few judges who lost reelection did so largely because on some horrible publicity: One was caught tearing down his opponent's campaign signs. One was accused of putting a "little old lady" in jail on Christmas Eve on a minor traffic matter. In the first case, the lawyer one and turned out to be a good judge. In the second, the replacement turned out to be a disaster. In each case, the judge was running against bad publicity for his personal conduct, or perceived conduct. These very rare occasions, where a judge screwed up and lost an election, have given comfort to potential challengers.

A few years back, a lousy judge was opposed by a mediocre lawyer - no one wanted the judge around, but the choice wasn't clear - the judge had not had a lot of bad publicity, so he won handily. In one election, a bad judge resigned when challenged, but that was a rarity.

The problem with the process: Judges are afraid to take legal positions out of fear they won't be re-elected when they sit every 6 years. The fear isn't great, since they have almost no chance of losing - but the cost of running, financial and emotional, is high. 25 years ago, a judge made a hard call and dismissed a few dozen drunk driving cases because the DA's Office screwed up in failing to charge the cases properly - he was right on the law and felt he had no choice. One of my friends decided to run against him because he sensed vulnerability - I didn't know the judge, but opposed my friend, who then withdrew when many others came to the judge's defense.

The process is broken, especially in this political climate. It will be further damaged by voting out very competent judges. That only serves to make those who remain more scared of losing their positions, and more likely to make safe choices when hard choices are called for. Even where the Union has elected not to endorse a candidate, I recommend a vote for the incumbent - it will help stop the nonsense of challenges where there is no need for change.

One Sunday in the Fall of 2009 on 60-Minutes, Leslie Stahl presented a two-part piece on the errors in eyewitness testimony. As attorneys, we know that eyewitnesses are not reliable, either because they lack sufficient information, time to assimilate the information, or have trouble distinguishing between conflicting images that interfere with their reporting. Sometimes, they are simply lying.

In Stahl's report, she carefully stepped through the process by which a rape victim innocently caused a defendant to be convicted - then the process by which he was ultimately vindicated and she realized how she had been mistaken. The victim and innocent defendant later met and wrote a book together about the process.

A number of years ago, the State Bar of California Conference of Delegates faced a debate on whether California should repeal the death penalty. The debate was not whether the death penalty should be repealed, but whether it was such a political issue that funds for the conference should not be used to debate the subject. I argued in favor of allowing debate because lawyers are in a particularly unique position to comment on the reliability of witnesses, including those who end up finding people guilty of crimes for which they can spend the rest of their lives in custody, or be put to death.

In decades of trying cases, I recommend to clients that they settle most cases for something within a reasonable range of parameters because they cannot predict what is going to happen in trial. It is an old legal adage that a trial lawyer will have 3 trials in his case: The case he intends to try, the case he actually tries, and the case he wishes he had tried. When you interview a witness [including your client] who tells you a believable story, you put the person on the witness stand assuming that he is going to tell you the same story he told you days, weeks, or even months earlier. It is rare for that to actually happen, and we are often bewildered by the result.

When you confront your own client who has told a totally different story on the witness stand [for example one that benefits his spouse], they may adamantly deny ever having said anything different. When you show the witness the declarations he [or just as easily "she"] signed in the earlier stages of the case, or read from your very specific notes taken when you carefully interviewed him the first day that you met, or even show his deposition transcript telling a different story, the client is dumbfounded; even those who are trying to be truthful at every stage find their memories shifting as information comes in and time passes.

Eyewitnesses who may have a few seconds glance at the perpetrator of a crime, according to study after study, do not accurately report what they saw. When faced with a lineup, photographic or live, where their choices are limited, they are inclined to find someone that tends to look like the person they saw.

Even worse, having seen a person or a photograph, they become adamant as the memory of the event mixes with their view of the person. This is what memory experts tell us happens, as we mix weak memories into something we are extremely confident actually occurred.

If I see a friend who does something, I can later accurately report having seen the person and identify him because I am very familiar with his characteristics: Hairline, face shape, body posture, movements, height and weight, manner of dress, and dress.

When I see someone for a few seconds that I have never seen before, I lack the ability to identify all of these characteristics. Notwithstanding those television detectives who remember and spot every conceivable detail, most of us are not that observant. In times of crisis, we are even less so.

The Innocence Project is a nonprofit entity whose primary goal is to free those convicted of crimes, where the project believes they are not guilty. Hundreds of convicted felons have been released as a result of the project's work because the testimony convicting them was largely eyewitness identification. Where the perpetrator of an act (such as a brutal rape) left behind samples of tissue or fluids, current DNA analysis enabled the project to show that the perpetrator was someone other than the one identified. In many of these cases, there was a physical resemblance between the convicted party and the person who matched the DNA sample - the witness, however, was incapable of remembering sufficient information to correctly rule out the innocent person.

This is not an indictment of the criminal defense system, it is simply an effort to point out the flaws in the system dependent upon something as faulty as peoples' memories.

A growing number of attorneys are opposing the death penalty because of the inability to go back and correct mistakes that result from witnesses' mistakes. From a recent newspaper article, it appears a growing number of states are questioning the massive amount of financial resources devoted to carrying out the death penalty, usually exceeding the cost of housing the convicted defendant for the rest of his or her natural life.

In a time of fiscal constraints, we may be moving toward a consensus on this subject. The 60-Minutes piece may help the dialogue. It would be interesting if the debate between retribution and forgiveness ends up being resolved by financial considerations. This should not be a political issue.