The trial court ordered a former wife to pay her former husband $151,967 and his new wife $124,352 both as sanctions under Family Code section 271 and to pay for their attorney fees pursuant to Family Code section 2030. The trial court described the proceedings as a “morass of litigation, the primary purpose of which was to ruin [former husband and his new wife] financially.”
In this case, the 24-year-old son has Tourette’s syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which make it difficult for him to focus on a task. The evidence on his employability, however, is sparse. The trial court found the “child” lacks sufficient means, and even if he could obtain minimum wage work he could not reach his parents’ standard of living.
A man’s child was emancipated when he turned 19 years old. The son was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, psychotic disorder, oppositional defiance disorder and cannabis abuse.
Family Code section 771, subdivision (a), provides that earnings and accumulations of a spouse while living separate and apart from the other spouse are separate property of the spouse. In this case, the couple was separated but still living in the same home. The Court of Appeal concluded Family Code section 771, subdivision (a), requires […]
In their divorce, the wife contended there was a community property interest in a partnership which was owned by the husband for years prior to the marriage for which the partnership agreement was modified during the marriage to state the husband and wife were both owners. In creating a joint title presumption, Family Code section […]
The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ in the first instance after the court issued a modification order changing custody to the noncustodial parent, thereby requiring the minor children to move in the middle of the school year from their California home to the noncustodial parent’s home in Alabama. The appellate court said the […]
By statute, a person is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he received the child into his home and openly held the child out as his own. [Fam.Code § 7612 (a).] Here, the mother conceived the child through artificial insemination by an […]
In Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct.; January 29, 2015) 60 Cal.4th 909, [182 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 341 P.3d 438], the California Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether an arbitrator’s presumably erroneous interpretation of the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA) deprived an employee of an unwaivable statutory right. The plaintiff employee was fired by defendant […]
The appellate court affirmed a trial court’s exercise of discretion to impute income to a father pursuant to Family Code § 4058(b). The appellate court also affirmed the trial court’s child support order because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings the father had the ability and opportunity to keep his job, that his termination […]
In Jackson v. Jackson (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 363, [124 Cal.Rptr. 101], the court held that in a marital action, when a couple switched custody, and the children went to live with the father, California law would allow credit to the father for the child support he rendered to the children while they were in his […]