Posts Tagged ‘Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney’
December 7, 2011
I often am asked what constitutes a valid California marriage. Does California recognize a “Common law marriage”? The answer is no. California does not provide for a common law marriage. It does not matter how long a couple have been together in a committed relationship. If you have not married your partner then you are not married pursuant to California law.
Elements of valid marriage
In general—consent, license, solemnization, authentication: A valid marriage under California law requires the consent of the parties to that civil contract. [Fam.C. § 300(a)] But the parties’ consent does not alone constitute a marriage. To validate the marriage, the consent must be followed by issuance of a license (Fam.C. § 350 et seq.), solemnization (Fam.C. § 400 et seq.) and authentication (Fam.C. §§ 422–425); and the authenticated marriage license “shall be returned to the county recorder of the county where the marriage license was issued.” [Fam.C. §§ 300, 306; see also Fam.C. §§ 359, 360; Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 33 C4th 1055, 1075, 17 CR3d 225, 235–236; Estate of DePasse (2002) 97 CA4th 92, 101, 118 CR2d 143, 150]
What if you are married outside of California (or in a foreign country)? The answer is that the marriage is valid so long as the marriage complied with all legal requirements of the jurisdiction where you married. Typically, this means that you obtained a valid marriage license, the marriage was consensual and was authorized pursuant to law.
If the marriage is not a valid marriage then the marriage may be void or voidable (depending on the situation). Therefore, it is extremely important when considering a divorce to first consider whether your marriage is a valid marriage under California law. If it is not a valid marriage then you may not have to file a divorce lawsuit.
If you have any questions regarding your California divorce matter please contact attorney Keith F. Simpson in Manhattan Beach, California at (310) 297-9090 to discuss your matter today.
http://www.simpsonlaw.net
http://www.caldivorce.net
Tags:California Divorce, California Divorce Blog, El Segundo Divorce, El Segundo Divorce Lawyer, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Hermosa Beach Divorce Lawyer, Keith Simpson, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Palos Verdes Divorce, Palos Verdes Divorce Attorney, Palos Verdes Divorce Lawyer, Redondo Beach Divorce, Redondo Beach Divorce Attorney, Redondo Beach Divorce Lawyer, Southbay Divorce, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
July 9, 2011
As a California Family Law Attorney I am often asked by parents with a custody sharing agreement about how to move away from the area with the children. This is often referred to as a “Move Away” matter. Typically, a parent might receive a new employment opportunity out of state, or have family out of state, and decide that it will be better to relocate with the children. California law does allow for a parent to relocate out of State with the children but only upon the parent first obtaining court approval. There are many ways to obtain court permission (a court order) which is discussed below. The issue arises when the non-moving parent objects to the Move Away out of state (or out of the area since California is a large state).
I always recommend first discussing the matter with the non-moving parent. If the non-moving parent agrees with the move away then we can simply draft the required documents and request the Court to sign. This is the easiest way to accomplish a move away out of state.
If the non-moving parent objects to the move away then we must file a motion with the court and request a court order to allow the move away out of state. The non-moving parent will have the opportunity to object to the move away and the court will hold a full court hearing. If the matter is very complex the court may order that Minor’s counsel be appointed for the child or children and a California Family Code Section 730 Evaluation occur to evaluate what is truly in the best interest of the children. After an evidentiary hearing the court will either conclude that the moving parent may move away with the children or the moving parent may not move away with the children. (The judge cannot order the moving parent to remain in the area however the judge can order the children to stay with the non-moving parent). These are the possible Court orders. Therefore, I do not recommend that you attempt to pursue this matter without an attorney. This area of law is extremely complex and therefore requires legal representation in my opinion.
Now for the law on Move Away matters. In California, the Custodial Parent has a presumptive right to change the children’s residence. By statute, the parent with sole physical custody of the children has the presumptive right to change the children’s residence—i.e., to move away with the children; courts will not interfere with that decision (enjoining the relocation or changing custody) unless the move is detrimental to the child. “A parent entitled to custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.” [Fam.C. § 7501(a); Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 C4th 25, 32, 51 CR2d 444, 449; see Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 C4th 1072, 1094, 12 CR3d 356, 372—custodial parent's presumptive right to relocate with children not dependent on whether parents had history of cooperative coparenting]
Codified public policy: The Legislature has elevated the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Burgess (the modern-day seminal case in this area), as developed below, to statewide public policy: “It is the intent of the Legislature to affirm the [
Burgess] decision … and to declare that ruling to be the public policy and law of this state.” [
Fam.C. § 7501(b)].
However, there is not an absolute right to relocate or Move Away. Section 7501 unambiguously provides that the custodial parent’s right to relocate with the children is presumptive only—not absolute; that right may be curtailed if the move would result in detriment to the children. This is so even if the custodial parent has been awarded both sole legal and sole physical custody; he or she nonetheless has no “inherent” or “absolute” right to change the children’s residence. “[T]he statute contains no qualifying language purporting to limit its application to parents with only certain custodial rights.” [Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 C4th 947, 957, 38 CR3d 610, 616; see also ¶ 7:562a re noncustodial parent's standing]
The Standard and burden of proof is as follows: Generally, the governing standards and burdens of proof in move-away cases are the same as in all custody adjudications:
Initial custody adjudications—best interest analysis: In an initial custody determination, the trial court has the “widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child” (Fam.C. § 3040(b)) and must look to all the circumstances bearing on the child’s best interest (including, of course, the mandatory § 3011 factors, ¶ 7:312 ff.). [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 C4th at 31–32, 51 CR2d at 449; see Ragghanti v. Reyes (2004) 123 CA4th 989, 996, 20 CR3d 522, 527(trial court used correct “best interest” analysis because parties stipulated there was no existing “final permanent custody order”)]
Stated another way, in an initial custody decision, the planned move and any resulting prejudice to the children must be considered; but those factors do not preclude the court from also considering
all other circumstances bearing upon the children’s best interest. The noncustodial parent does not have a burden to show the move will be detrimental; “under the best interest analysis [applicable to initial custody adjudications], the trial court’s consideration of the evidence is not limited by the need to make a threshold finding of detriment.” [See
Ragghanti v. Reyes, supra, 123 CA4th at 997–998, 20 CR3d at 528 (brackets added)—although child had lived with Mother first 6 years of her life, trial court acted within its discretion in determining it was in child's best interest to live with Father, awarding him
sole
custody]
Some questions which will need to be addressed in a Move Away Motion are as follows:
• the children’s interest in stability and continuity in the custodial arrangement;
• the distance of the move;
• the children’s age;
• the children’s relationship with both parents;
• the relationship between the parents including, but not limited to, their ability to communicate and cooperate effectively and their willingness to put the children’s interests above their individual interests;
• the children’s wishes if they are mature enough to make that inquiry appropriate;
• the reasons for the proposed move; and
• the extent to which the parents currently are sharing custody.
As discussed above, this is a very complex area of California Family Law and I therefore recommend that you contact a competent attorney to represent you if you are contemplating pursuing or opposing a child custody Move Away motion. Please contact Attorney Keith Simpson to discuss your legal matter today at (310) 297-9090 or visit his website at http://www.simpsonlaw.net. Attorney Simpson is located in Manhattan Beach, California and practices Family Law throughout California.
Tags:California Divorce, California Divorce Blog, Child Custody, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Hermosa Beach Divorce Lawyer, Keith Simpson, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Move Away, Move Away Child Custody, Palos Verdes Divorce, Palos Verdes Divorce Attorney, Palos Verdes Divorce Lawyer, Redondo Beach Divorce Attorney, Redondo Beach Divorce Lawyer, Southbay Divorce, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
May 21, 2011
I often receive questions from people about unpaid child support. Can I still collect on unpaid child support? Does interest accrue on unpaid child support? The answers to both of these questions are yes.
California law provides that a child support judgment is enforceable until paid in full or otherwise satisfied—even after the child reaches age 18. This includes interest and penalties computed thereon. (California Family Code Sections 291(a) and 4503). See also Marriage of Hamer (2000) 81CA4th 712, 718, 97 CR2d 195, 199.
Regarding child support arrearages (unpaid child support), like all money judgments, California child support orders accrue post judgment interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum. Unless the judgment provides otherwise, the interest accrues as to each installment when each installment becomes due and continues to accrue for so long as the arrearage remains unpaid. See California Constitution Article XV, Section 1; California Codes of Civil Procedure Sections 685.010(a), (b), 685.020(b); Marriage of Hubner (2004) 124 CA4th 1082, 1089, 22 CR3d 549, 553-554. Since the interest on arrears accrues and is payable as a matter of law, trial courts are without authority to waive or forgive interest accrued on past-due child support amounts, just as courts cannot retroactively modify or terminate the arrearages themselves. See Marriage of Hubner (herein); Marriage of Robinson (1998) 65 CA4th 93, 98, 76 CR2d 134, 137; Marriage of McClellan (2005) 130 CA4th 247, 259, 30 CR3d 5, 14-15.
If you have a valid order or judgment for the payment of Child support in California, you have the right to demand payment and enforce the judgment. There are many ways to enforce a child support order (this will be a discussion for another time). If the parent who is ordered to pay child support refuses to pay, it is important that you see an attorney immediately to discuss your rights and possible remedies. Please contact Attorney Keith F. Simpson at (310) 297-9090 to discuss your child support issues today!
The Law Offices of Keith F. Simpson, A Professional Corporation, is located at 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 170, Manhattan Beach, California 90266. You may also review the website at www.simpsonlaw.net or call Keith Simpson to schedule an appointment.
Tags:California Divorce, Child Support, Child Support Arrearage, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Keith Simpson, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Palos Verdes Divorce, Palos Verdes Divorce Attorney, Palos Verdes Divorce Lawyer, Redondo Beach Divorce, Redondo Beach Divorce Attorney, Redondo Beach Divorce Lawyer, Torrance Divorce, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer, Unpaid Child Support
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
February 15, 2011
In California Child Support is money paid from one parent to the other parent to assist with the expenses associated with child rearing. The California Family Code refers to child support as a support obligation owing on behalf of a child. (California Family Code Section 17402) Generally speaking, California law required both parents to support their minor children “in the manner suitable to the child’s circumstances.” (California Family Code Section 3900)
All minor children of the parents are owed a duty of child support. The obligation to support a child is not limited to the parents’ marital status nor is it limited to biological offspring! (California Family Code Section 7602; White v. Marciano (1987) 190 CA3d 1026, 1031, 235 CR 779, 782)
Once the issue of parentage is determined, the court will move to decide the issue of child support. A finding of parentage occurs when the court makes a finding as to who are the child’s legal parents. In California, courts will use a program called Dissomaster which is a computer program. The judge will input data into the Dissomaster program to determine the amount of child support one parent will be ordered to pay the other parent. The types of data include 1) the amount of custody each parent has 2) the respective incomes 3) the monthly expenses 4)hardship expenses 5) multiple other expenses and data. The Dissomaster will provide a child support number which the court will usually accept and order the supporting parent to pay the non supporting parent.
The guideline formula for computing child support is provided algebraically as follows: CS = K [HN -(H%) (TN)] (See California Family Code Section 4055(a)).
CS equals Child Support;
K equals the amount of income to be allocated for child support as set forth in Family Code Section 4055(b)(3);
HN equals high earner’s net monthly disposable income;
H% equals approximate percentage of time high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent (where the parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children, H% equals the average of the approximate percentages of time the high earner spends with each child);
TN equals total net monthly disposable income of both parties. (See California Family Code Section 4055(b)(1).
Child support, unlike spousal support, is not tax deductible to the paying spouse. Furthermore, child support is not taxable as income to the parent receiving the child support. It is important to have your attorney request child support payments at the outset of your divorce case if you are eligible to receive child support. The issue of child support is a complex matter and should be discussed with your attorney. For further questions, please contact Attorney Keith F. Simpson today at 310-297-9090 or read more about California divorce and family law at his websites www.simpsonlaw.net or www.caldivorce.net
Keith F. Simpson is a Manhattan Beach, California lawyer who practices law throughout the State of California. Call Attorney Keith F. Simpson today with your child support or divorce question.
Tags:California Divorce, California Divorce Attorney, California Divorce Blog, California Divorce lawyer, Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Keith Simpson, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Southbay Divorce, Spousal Support, support, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
January 1, 2011
As a divorce attorney, I often find the need to obtain temporary court orders for spousal support for my clients. When a divorce or legal separation action is pending, the court may order either spouse to pay any amount necessary for the support of the other spouse pursuant to California Family Code Sections 4320(i), (m), and 4325. An action is “Pending” from the time the petition is filed until its final adjudication on appeal or until the time for appeal has ended. The Court may make a temporary spousal support order retroactive to the date of filing of a petition requesting spousal support.
DETERMINING TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT
So, how does a court determine who will pay and how much spousal support should be paid? There are two basic factors for the court to consider in awarding temporary spousal support. First, the court evaluates the applicant’s need for support and the other party’s ability to pay. (See Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 CA3d 64, 74, 214 CR 919. Temporary spousal support may be ordered in any amount based uon the party’s need and the payor’s ability. Findings of the trial court on need and ability are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (See Marriage of Wittgrove (2004) 120 CA4th 1317, 17 CR3d 489)
Generally, courts take the view that the purpose of temporary spousal support is to enable the supported spouse to live in his or her accustomed manner pending disposition of the action (See Estate of Fawcett (1965) 232 CA2d 770, 784, 43 CR 160. See also Marriage of Wittgrove, supra; Marriage of Winter (1992) 7 CA4th 1926, 1932, 10 CR2d 225) However, courts do recognize that incomes are often insufficient to support two separate households and still maintain the same standard of living during a pending divorce.
Courts typically refer to “Guidlines” in an effort to determine temporary spousal support. A trial court’s use of guidelines based solely on affirmed income is appropriate. See Marriage of Winter (1992) 7 CA4th 1926, 1933, 10 CR2d 225. However, the Court may not use “Guidelines” when determining long term spousal support.
A temporary spousal support order is terminated by the issuance of a judgment, dismissal of the pending action or expiration under its own terms. An order for temporary spousal support may be modified or terminated by the court at any time. Modification or termination may not, however, affect the payor’s liability for payments that accrued before the notice of motion or order to show cause to modify or terminate was filed. (See California Family Code Section 3603)
Temporary spousal support may be modified without a showing of a change of circumstances (unlike post judgment spousal support). See Sande v. Sande (1969) 276 CA2d 324, 329, 80 CR 826.
Current circumstances: In evaluating the parties’ respective needs and abilities to pay, the court cannot engage in speculation. Its order must reflect the present facts and circumstances, based on evidence in the record and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom at the time of the hearing. [Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun (1987) 190 CA3d 645, 656, 235 CR 587, 590;Marriage of Baker (1992) 3 CA4th 491, 498, 4 CR2d 553, 557; seeMarriage of Rosen (2002) 105 CA4th 808, 824, 130 CR2d 1, 10—abuse of discretion to fix spousal support on basis of self-employed obligor's average income 2 years before support hearing where evidence at time of hearing showed substantially lower income]
“[A]n order for spousal support must be based on the facts and circumstances
existing at the time the order is made.” [
Marriage of Tydlaska(2003) 114 CA4th 572, 575, 7 CR3d 594, 595(emphasis added; internal quotes omitted)—request to modify spousal (and child) support properly denied for failure to file
current income and expense declaration.
Special rule for modifications based on unemployment:A modification or termination of
spousal
support based on a spouse's une
mployment “shall be” made retroactive to the
laterof the date of service of the OSC/motion to modify or terminate or the date of unemployment, “
unless the court finds good cause not to make the order retroactive and states its reasons on the record.” See California Family Code
§ 3653(b). What amounts to
§ 3653(b) “good cause” for nonretroactivity is left to case law development. The only case law on the point to date, however, involves a child support modification and the court's analysis placed heavy emphasis on the policy underpinnings of the statewide child support guideline which would not factor into a strictly
spousal support modification; quite the contrary, the policy concerns underlying spousal support are entirely distinct from those associated with child support. Undoubtedly cognizant of that, the court in this case expressly stated it was not offering any opinion on the
§ 3653(b) “good cause” issue in instances not involving
child support. [See
Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 CA4th 546, 560, 14 CR3d 482, 492, fn. 10]
I hope this blog regarding temporary spousal support has been informative. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Keith F. Simpson to discuss your divorce case today at (310) 297-9090. The Law Offices of Keith F. Simpson, A Professional Corporation is located in Manhattan Beach, California. Please also visit www.simpsonlaw.net or caldivorce.net for further information.
Tags:California Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Keith Simpson, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Spousal Support, temporary spousal support
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
October 2, 2010
The one issue in divorce cases which has the potential to make any case become extremely litigious and emotional is the issue of child custody. The breakup of a marriage is usually difficult enough. Try deciding who the children will live with and how often!!
Unfortunately, children often become pawns in a chess match when discussing child custody. For example, one spouse may be angry with the other spouse because of an affair. This spouse may attempt to extract revenge by not allowing the other spouse time with the children. There is a saying that in Criminal Law, you find bad people acting their best in court. In Family Law, you find good people acting their worst in court.
So what is the law regarding child custody? Who decides who will have the children? In California, family law cases are decided by a Judge or Commissioner. There are no jury trials in California Family Law Courts.
California law provides that it is in the public policy of the State to ensure minor children frequent and continuing contact with both parents after their separation or dissolution except when that contact would not be in the child’s best interest. California Family Code Section 3011 sets forth factors which indicate when it is not in the child’s best interest. If there is a question as to whether the issue of frequent and continuing contact conflicts with the health, safety and welfare of the child then the court will typically side with the child’s safety and fashion a visitation order to ensure the child is safe.
Parents often make the mistake of assuming that child custody is awarded according to what is in their best interest. This is not the case. Custody orders are often inconvenient for parents and that is because the orders are made according to what is in the child’s best interest.
If you have any questions about child custody issues please do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Keith F. Simpson, A Professional Corporation, to discuss your case today. Attorney Keith Simpson is located in Manhattan Beach, California. Attorney Keith Simpson writes this California Divorce Blog and practices Family Law in Manhattan Beach, California.
Tags:California Divorce, California Divorce Blog, Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, El Segundo Divorce, Family Law, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Keith Simpson, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Palos Verdes Divorce, Palos Verdes Divorce Attorney, Palos Verdes Divorce Lawyer, Redondo Beach Divorce, Redondo Beach Divorce Attorney, Redondo Beach Divorce Lawyer, Southbay Divorce, Southbay Divorce Attorney, Southbay Divorce Lawyer, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
September 18, 2010
Recently it seems that many of my cases involve Spousal Support (formerly known as “alimony”). In fact, many cases seem to hinge on the issue of spousal support. I mean that all other issues can be resolved with the exception of spousal support. Spousal support can be, and often is, an emotional issue. Think about it. One spouse is faced with the prospect of breaking up a “lifetime partnership” with the other spouse but may be on the hook for paying spousal support for Life! This can often be difficult to imagine but a reality nonetheless.
So what is spousal support? Spousal support is a court order for one spouse to pay any amount necessary for the financial support of the other spouse (See California Family Code Section 4320). The Court may make temporary spousal support orders from the time the Divorce lawsuit is filed. At time of trial the Court may make permanent (lifetime) spousal support orders. This means that one spouse may be ordered to pay the other spouse support for the remainder of his or her life! There are many factors which the Court will consider when determining the amount of spousal support and the duration. A rule of thumb is the longer the marriage, the more likely the Court will order lifetime spousal support. Any marriage with a duration of ten years has been held to be a “long term marriage” and therefore makes is more likely that a court may order lifetime spousal support.
There are many methods to resolve the issue of spousal support. Typically, the spouse who is the higher income earner will be the spouse who is ordered to pay spousal support. Some options for resolving spousal support are as follows: 1) Agree upon a monthly spousal support amount for the remainder of the supported spouse’s life (or until the supported person remarries or the paying spouse dies). 2) Agree upon a monthly spousal support amount for a defined period (i.e., pay spousal support for five years). 3) Pay a one time lump sum spousal support payment. This option can be a double edged sword and may be a gamble. For the paying spouse, the gamble is that they are betting that by paying a one time lump sum payment the total sum will be less than if they paid a monthly amount for life. If the supported spouse immediately remarries or passes away then the paying spouse will have vastly overpaid the amount of spousal support necessary. The same is true of the supported spouse (i.e., the risk of taking a one time lump sum payment as opposed to spreading monthly payments over a lifetime period). Who knows how long both spouses will live. What is the condition of their health? Does the supported spouse want to remarry in the near future? These are all questions which parties and their counsel should consider when evaluating the tricky and emotional issue of spousal support.
If you are facing difficult decisions regarding spousal support please call Attorney Keith F. Simpson today to discuss at (310) 297-9090. Thank you for reading my California Family Law Blog!
Tags:Alimony, California Divorce, California Spousal Support, Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, El Segundo Divorce, El Segundo Divorce Attorney, El Segundo Divorce Lawyer, Family Law, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Hermosa Beach Divorce Lawyer, Keith Simpson, Legal Separation, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Palos Verdes Divorce, Southbay Divorce, Spousal Support, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
September 17, 2010
Welcome to the first blog posting from attorney Keith F. Simpson of the Law Offices of Keith F. Simpson, A Professional Corporation. Today I am going to write about options available to a person who has decided to file for divorce (also known as marital dissolution).
In California, a person has the option of filing a petition with the Superior Court of California for 1) Marital Dissolution (Divorce) 2) Legal Separation or 3) Nullity.
In California, a person may obtain a judgment of Marital Dissolution or Legal Separation on the following grounds: (a) Irreconcilable differences that have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage; or (b) incurable insanity. The vast majority of parties filing for divorce choose the former “Irreconcilable differences” as the alleged reason for filing for a judgment of Marital Dissolution. The Court typically makes a finding to the effect that the Irreconcilable differences have led to the “irremediable” breakdown of the marriage. In my experience Courts tend to liberally construe the term “irremediable” breakdown of the marriage and order a judgment of Marital Dissolution so long as it appears that their is no possibility of reconciliation.
You should be aware that California has a residency requirement which must be satisfied prior to a Court entering a judgment for marital dissolution. At least one party must have been a resident in the State of California for six months and a resident in the County where the lawsuit was filed for at least three months prior to the Petition being filed with the Court. In the event neither party can satisfy this residency requirement, the parties may file for a Legal Separation and later (presumably six months) amend the Petition to a filing for Divorce. This will allow a couple who recently moved to California to proceed with filing the lawsuit and obtaining a Divorce Judgment as soon as possible (6 months).
A Legal Separation, unlike Divorce, does require the consent of both parties (unless the respondent does not appear and a default is entered against the respondent). Also, a judgment of Legal Separation does not terminate the parties’ marital status. This will allow a spouse to remain on the other spouse’s health care insurance plan. If a party obtains a Divorce, the other spouse is precluded from remaining on the other spouse’s health care plan. This is a very important consideration which all parties should consider prior to requesting judgment for Divorce.
Nullity is a completely different concept. A judgment of Nullity may only be granted by a Court when a marriage is void or voidable for the following reasons: (a) incest (b) bigamy (c) a spouse was not an adult when married (d) spouse was erroneously thought to be deceased (e) fraud (f) unsound mind (g) force (h) physical incapacity. There is no statutory residency requirement to file a petition for a Judgment of Nullity. There is also no consent requirement between the parties. Finally, a Judgment of Nullity acts to nullify the marriage (as if the marriage never occurred).
Thank you for reading my first blog entry. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Keith F. Simpson to further discuss any family law questions you may have at (310) 297-9090. Please also view our website at http://www.simpsonlaw.net or http://www.califdivorce.info
Tags:California Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, El Segundo Divorce, El Segundo Divorce Attorney, El Segundo Divorce Lawyer, Family Law, Hermosa Beach Divorce, Hermosa Beach Divorce Attorney, Hermosa Beach Divorce Lawyer, Keith Simpson, Legal Separation, Los Angeles Divorce, Los Angeles Divorce Attorney, Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer, Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Divorce, Manhattan Beach Divorce Attorney, Manhattan Beach Divorce Lawyer, Nullity, Palos Verdes Divorce, Palos Verdes Divorce Attorney, Palos Verdes Divorce Lawyer, Redondo Beach Divorce, Redondo Beach Divorce Attorney, Redondo Beach Divorce Lawyer, Separation, Southbay Divorce, Southbay Divorce Attorney, Southbay Divorce Lawyer, Torrance Divorce, Torrance Divorce Attorney, Torrance Divorce Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »