Divorce: June 2010 Archives

June 26, 2010

Divorce (in CA marriage dissolution) must be litigated to get divorce decree but agreements should be sought to keep litigation costs to a minimum

Litigation is simply not good for the majority of divorcing couples, and it is cost prohibitive for most. Divorce lawyers should strive to work together until negotiations either result in an agreement or break down and require litigation. Those divorce lawyers who enter a case with all guns blazing are the ones who make the process worse for the family, spend all the money, and alienate everyone--including the general public. Pure collaboration that prohibits any form of litigation is probably not as effective as having the ability to enforce discovery or good behavior through litigation, and it becomes very expensive if lawyers have to be changed out in order to go into litigation. The family doesn't necessarily "end" at divorce; it is important to do what is fair and to maintain some relationships for the sake of the children--"winning" and "losing" are terms that don't always apply to divorce law.
I always try to keep litigation costs down as much as possible and negotiate with the opposing party and attorney.

-RoseAnn Frazee

Bookmark and Share
June 26, 2010

Who gets the engagement/wedding rings in Divorce a/k/a Marriage Dissolution in California?

Who gets the engagement/wedding rings can be a major issue in a divorce also know as marriage dissolution in California. 'The answer: It depends. Each case must be reviewed in detail as to when and how the ring(s) were given, the cost of the rings and the normal station in life of the parties.
For instance, in one case brought before the California Court of Appeal, the appeal court overturned the ruling of the trial court -- see In re the Marriage of Buff and James Mark Steinberger. During the marriage, Mr. Steinburger purchased a diamond ring. The trial court found that the diamond ring to be the separate property of the wife by way of gift from the husband to the wife. However, rather than looking at the ring as a gift, the Court of Appeal looked at the "value placed on the item by the parties" as to whether of a "substantial" value or "insubstantial gift" taking into account the circumstances of the marriage. The Court of Appeal found the ring of substantial value and thus community property in which both parties shared 1/2 interest at the time of divorce.
For interpretation of the California statutes and the fine line interpretations, you must consult with a family law attorney such as Frazee/Laron in Pasadena, California.
--RoseAnn Frazee

Bookmark and Share