Los Angeles Family Lawyer Blog

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

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

The Marshall family has provided additional information: While Anna Nicole Smith alleged tortuous interference, a Houston Probate Court threw out the claim.

As the result of receiving a default judgment against her for sexual harassment, Smith petitioned for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in California. The Marshall's son made a non-dischargeability claim against Smith based on allegedly libelous statements she made shortly after her husband became deceased accusing the son of frustrating the deceased's intentions to set up a new trust and isolating the deceased. The son had successfully sued Smith's attorneys on the same grounds in Texas State Court. The debtor opposed the claim and countersued the son on the basis that the statements were true. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the libel claim on summary judgment and did not allow the claim to proceed to trial. After being released from bankruptcy, Smith prosecuted her counterclaim against the son for interfering with the father's intention to set up a trust in favor of Smith.
During the Texas Probate proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court awarded Smith $474 million on the basis of a sanction against the son and deemed the interference to have occurred. The Federal District court subsequently vacated the Bankruptcy award and reduced Smith's award to $88 million.
However, after a five month jury trial in Texas, the Probate Court entered a decision that the deceased's will and trust were valid and his son was the primary beneficiary, rejecting Smith's claim that the son had exerted undue influence on his father or interfered with any trust for Smith. As such, when the matter came before the 9th Circuit appellate court, it rendered the District Court's decision invalid on jurisdictional grounds, declaring that only Texas's Probate Courts had jurisdiction over matters of estate probate.

If you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in a marriage dissolution but your spouse can afford an attorney, then you need to call the Law Offices of Frazee/Laron. Frazee/Laron will seek the payment of attorneys' fees from the spouse holding the financial means to afford an attorney. The legislative goal of Family Code Section 2030(a)(1) is to ensure that each party has access to legal representation to preserve each party's rights. As stated in a recent case, Alan S. v. Superior Court: "[T]he purpose of section 2030 is not the redistribution of money from the greater income to the lesser income party. Its purpose is parity: a fair hearing with two sides equally represented. The idea is that both sides should have the opportunity to retain counsel not just (as is the usually the case) only the party with greater financial strength."

For example, In Marriage of Smith, Case No. E047535 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 8, 2010) (unpublished), wife and husband filed for marriage dissolution in 2001 after having two children. Dissolution proceedings showed that husband had a much higher monthly income as compared to wife. Wife claimed she had incurred attorney's fees of $85,000 compared to husband's fees of $150,000. She requested a "needs based" award (under Family Code sections 2030). Even though noting the downward trend in the economy that negatively impacted husband's income and cash flow, the lower court nevertheless awarded that the wife's fees would be paid by husband in the sum of $62,300, payable at $2,000 per month.

Last year a woman called me from a woman's shelter and asked if I could represent her even though she had no money. In time I was able to secure her a $500,000 settlement enabling her to return to nursing school and purchase a home.

-RoseAnn Frazee

Most adults will remember the bankruptcy case (federal court) of Vickie Marshall aka Anna Nicole Smith versus her husband's son, J. Pierce Marhsall, for tortious interference with her husband, J. Howard Marshall's inter vivos gifts to Anna/Vickie. In May of 1994, Maria Antonia Cerrato, 23 at the time and Smith's housekeeper/nanny, sued her for $2 million, charging sexual assault and sexual harassment. After losing a default judgment against her, Anna Nichole filed for bankruptcy. Under the tortious interference theory, the federal bankruptcy court in California awarded her $44,292,767.33 in compensatory damages and another $44,292,767.33 in punitive damages plus litigation costs. Pierce appealed this decision, which has subsequently been overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, on June 10, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in San Diego rendered an opinion in Munn v. Briggs. The Appellate Court carefully analyzed the Tortious Interference with Inheritance Expectancy throughout the United States and decided to decline to recognize that tort in California state courts. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court found that the appellant's remedy in probate court was adequate. "[T]ortious conduct relating to wills, such as the use of undue influence, threats, or coercion to procure a particular disposition, or destruction of a will, has long been recognized as a legal wrong, but only against the testator [person who signed will] whose right of free testation is infringed upon, not the beneficiary. A purported injury to an intended recipient is not recognizable (because there is no right to inherit); instead, the probate system through the will contest proceeding aims to offer all interested parties a forum in which to litigate the testator's true intentions."

Frazee/Laron recently successfuly settled a case between a brother and sister in which the brother contested the disposition of their mother's estate. Frazee/Laron is a litigation law firm in Pasadena, California, and they handle probate litigation.
--RoseAnn Frazee

Everyone has read the ads about living trusts. The major purposes for a living trust are to avoid probate and to save on death taxes. There are many other reasons such as asset protection, clarification of inheritance rights, administration of estate, guardianship and other issues. However, to utilize the trust can be tricky. For instance, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, rendered a decision filed on Ooctober 28, 2009, and ordered for publication on November 24, 2009, in the case of Presta v. Tepper. In that case, three partnership agreements were created with regard to real estate investments. The partnership agreements reads: Robert Tepper as Trustee for [his family trust] and Ronald Presta as Trustee for [his family trust]. The issue decided by the Court was whether or not the individual men entered into the partnership agreements or did the family trusts enter into the agreements. The Court decided that the individual men entered into the partnership agreements and not the family trusts. Therefore, the family trusts did not have any effect with regard to distribution of the partnership proceeds. If the partnership agreements had been created by Ronald Presta Family Trust and Robert Tepper Family Trust, then the Trust Agreements would hold the interests in the partnership. Why was this important? One partner had died and the widow was suing for distribution of the partnership assets. Therefore, wording can be critical in preparing these legal instruments. The Law Offices of FrazeeLaron stands ready to assist in legal instrument preparation including irrevocable trust agreements or other estate planning documents.

RoseAnn Frazee
Pasadena Family Law Attorney

The quick answer: It depends on the case. In Los Angeles Superior Court, 90121 Family law cases were filed from January-December 2008 according to the Monthly Filings and Dispositions Report prepared by the Los Angeles Superior Court Statistics Section. There are not enough family law attorneys to handle all of those cases. In addition, each case is different: (1) some parties have been married a few years when others have been married for years and years; (2) some parties have children whereas other parties never had children; (3) both parties worked in some cases but the other spouse did not work and took care of the children instead; (4) some parties have obtained assets during the marriage; others do not have very many assets; and the list goes on. Adult citizens have each their own set of problems, cultures and characteristics.

As a result, the Los Angeles Superior Court and published books provide limited self-help services for those who cannot afford an attorney or who are educated enough to understand the forms and process, can read and speak English well and can represent themselves and do not have spousal or children support or asset issues. Even then, such self-help can be fraught with danger, and the parties should be cautious.

However, many issues arise where an attorney is essential. Attorneys have many skills not available to the lay person. All family law attorneys are skilled in evidence presentation. It is important that evidence may be considered by the judge; otherwise, the evidence never gets before a judge. Family law attorneys have (1) experience with many different cases not just your one case, (2) sometimes experience before a certain judge, (3) many volumes of case law, treatises and practice guides, (4) usually have an objective view of your case rather than the emotional cloud of a party, and many more skills that a lay person cannot compete with such skills.

In addition, lay persons can be confronted with unanticipated problems and complications that a skilled attorney will see before such an event happens and can recommend remedial measures before the occurrence. Unfortunately, we have seen too many clients get harmed by unanticipated complications in which the harm has already happened, and it is oftentimes impossible or impractical for an attorney to rescue the party after the fact. Most, if not all, complicated divorces should be handled by attorneys to minimize damages to a party in this life-altering process of divorce. Give us a call for a free consultation at frazeelaron.com for more information.

RoseAnn Frazee
Pasadena Family Law Attorney

Given the complexity of family law, why do people represent themselves? Oftentimes they have no choice. Court-appointed counsel in family law matters is not a right as in criminal law. Legal services agencies in California are able to serve relatively few people who have family law issues due to funding limitations. Even then, legal service agencies serve low-income people with special requirements such as domestic violence. Sometimes even middle-class parties find it hard to secure an attorney. The average family law attorney in California charges more than $300 per hour and requires a retainer of approximately $5,000. Such families are increasingly finding themselves with no paycheck, a diminished amount of equity in their homes, and reduced savings, leaving them unable to afford high-priced attorney. Even people who start out with attorneys at the beginning of their cases often run out of money and become self-represented before their cases are over.

The Pasadena Law Offices of Frazee/Laron opened to assist the average citizen in family law matters with limited budgets. The law firm charges based upon the specific case needs and attempts to secure a settlement between the parties without expending unnecessary legal fees and costs.

RoseAnn Frazee
Law Offices of Frazee/ Laron

As a Pasadena Family Law Attorney, I see the frustrations that many parents have when their day in court does not go as planned. Many people think you can simply come back into Court and argue the same issues. Unfortunately, for many who get unfavorable decisions, they usually must wait a full six months before they re-petition the Court, and only if there is a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a second look at the issues.

There is another alternative, but it can be difficult. A person can file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Issues if they do not agree. However, there are two major hurdles that must be overcome. 1) The Motion must be filed within 10 days of the prior Hearing that is not agreed upon. 2) The Reconsideration must be based on new facts, circumstances, or law that were not known at the time of the prior hearing.
Essentially, this translates to the reality that if a situation develops after the hearing that greatly changes the fairness of the situation for one parent, it is already too late. Also, if that parent could have or should have brought up a changed fact, law, or circumstance, then it is their fault and they typically will have no relief. This is often the source of much frustration for not only people who represent themselves, but attorneys as well.
The lesson learned is that plan carefully your arguments, as a second bite at the apple may be harder to come by than you think. Let an experienced Pasadena Family Law Attorney at Frazee/ Laron assist you in fighting for your rights without wasting your time.

Kirk Laron
Pasadena Family Law Attorney

Parents in Los Angeles who want to get a child custody or visitation order from the Court must begin the process of opening a Court Case. If this is the first time you have sought to determine custody and visitation, then you are likely going through a divorce and are attempting to either come to a marital settlement agreement, or you are in the midst of fighting with the other parent for these issues.

Often, one parent will be unhappy with the initial order for Child Visitation and/ or Custody, and will want to change what the Court has ordered. Any change that is asked for will require another filing to the Court. However, one cannot just file because they are unhappy with the Court's decision. The judicial officer will require a change in circumstances that shows a change is in the best interests of the child or children who are at issue.

As a Pasadena Family Law Attorney, I have often seen parents who feel they are not being heard in Court, and complain that Judges are unfair or attorneys do not represent their point of view. You must keep in mind, however, that to allow every parent who doesn't agree with a decision to engage in endless court hearings regarding fairness would be to overwhelm the justice system that is already time consuming for those who attempt to use it. As a result, standards are imposed. If you have issues of Child Custody and Visitation, you may be best served speaking to a Family Law attorney rather than trying to do it alone, or you may quickly become frustrated, overwhelmed, and discouraged because you cannot follow proper court procedures.

Kirk Laron
Pasadena Family Law Attorney

Given the economic struggles that have overtaken Los Angeles and the rest of California, many parents are running into Court to reduce Child Support payments based on a lowering of income without an Attorney. Others are claiming they cannot work, so they have no income at all. While this can be a painful reality, the Court will not always play along with the concept of being unemployed, so Child Support cannot be paid, expecially if your ex-Spouse is being represented. Going it alone in Court can be a costly mistake, and making a statement in Court is often not the same as proving it so.

Imputed Income is the concept that if a person has the ability and opportunity to work, then they should be held to that standard. The idea is that it is not in the child's best interest to have a parent who stops working or fails to really seek a job in order to avoid paying Child Support to their ex-Spouse. While being involuntarily unemployed may be a more common scenario today, many Judges will often still hold someone to what they ought to be earning. Here are some factors to think about:

1. Has the spouse previously earned an income consistently, showing recent opportunity to work?
2. Does the education level of the spouse show an ability to work in a given field?
3. Has the spouse previously quit or were they laid off? This goes to the opportunity and ability arguments.
4. How affected by the economic downturn is the field or occupation that the spouse was working in?

For example, the Real Estate or Banking Industry may be more susceptible to the downturn than Healthcare or Education.

The basic common sense rule is that you can lead a person to a job opportunity, but you can't make them actually apply for the job. As a result, imputed income is just one way of combatting efforts to shirk responsibility of paying for one's Child Support.

A Los Angeles Family Law attorney can explore the area of Imputed Income if you feel that a spouse is not being held to their proper Child Support Obligation. If you are being forced into Court because your ex-spouse is claiming you should be working, a Family Law Attorney can help defend you if your unemployment is involuntary. Frazee/ Laron is a law firm that can help solve your family law problems and make sure your rights are being fairly represented.

Kirk Laron
Pasadena Family Law Attorney

A recent case greatly affects the rights of Los Angeles residents, Carmona v. Carmona (9th Cir. 2008) 544 F.3d 988, by providing strong protections for an ex-wife (or ex-husband for that matter) that was a beneficiary of her ex-husband's retirement account. Where the husband later married his present wife and tried to switch his retirement to his present wife, the Court ruled that there was no reversing the benefit to the ex-wife if that retirement had become payable during the prior marriage.

Even when there is waiver language in the Marital Settlement Agreement, the Court will not replace the former spouse who is already locked in under a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity under ERISA.

However, the plan must be an ERISA regulated plan. What is interesting to note is that even if both parties somehow attempt a later agreement in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the Court will not give it any power. Simply put, once the ex-spouse retires and the prior spouse is named on that ERISA Retirement Plan, the deed is done. The rights are irrevocably vested! If you are concerned about your divorce and how things will end up, do not hesitate to contact the Offices of Frazee/ Laron.

Kirk Laron
Los Angeles Family Law Attorney

While visitation necessarily turns upon the custodial parent's ability to make the child available for visitation, a custodial parent probably has sufficient control over a child of "tender years" to compel the child to visit with the other parent under the terms of the court order; and the custodial parent's failure to comply would thus be punishable by contempt.

Teenagers are a different breed. Although teenage children remain subject to their parents' control until age 18 or marriage, if a teenager refuses to visit with the noncustodial parent through no fault of the custodial parent, the noncustodial parent probably has no remedy. The California Court of Appeal held in 1987 that a mother of a 14-year old child could not be held in contempt because there was no showing that the mother had the ability to compel the child to visit.

Lesson learned. The noncustodial parent needs to make quality time with the teenager so that the teenager will want to visit with him/her. Sitting on the couch watching television and making out with a lover is not quality time with the teenager. Or having the teenager "hang out" with you and your friends and/or lover may not be enjoyable for the teenager. A child is visiting with YOU not your friends and needs your undivided attention during this visitation period no matter what age if you want to develop a parent-child bond and continuing relationship. Just because the noncustodial parent's child support will be reduced based upon the visitation time is no reason to force the teenager to visit; the teenager knows that reason. It is the noncustodial parent's duty to make the teenager want to visit and the custodial parent's duty to encourage the visitation. A family law attorney in Los Angeles can provide you the appropriate advice in when and how to go to Court effectively to modify child visitation and/ or child support.

-RoseAnn Frazee-
Pasadena Family Law Attorney

While visitation necessarily turns upon the custodial parent's ability to make the child available for visitation, a custodial parent probably has sufficient control over a child of "tender years" to compel the child to visit with the other parent under the terms of the court order; and the custodial parent's failure to comply would thus be punishable by contempt.

Teenagers are a different bred. Although teenage children remain subject to their parents' control until age 18 or marriage, if a teenager refuses to visit with the noncustodial parent through no fault of the custodial parent, the noncustodial parent probably has no remedy. The California Court of Appeal held in 1987 that a mother of a 14-year old child could not be held in contempt because there was no showing that the mother had the ability to compel the child to visit.

Lesson learned. The noncustodial parent needs to make quality time with the teenager so that the teenager will want to visit with him/her. Sitting on the couch watching television and making out with a lover is not quality time with the teenager. Or having the teenager "hang out" with you and your friends and/or lover may not be enjoyable for the teenager. A child is visiting with YOU not your friends and needs your undivided attention during this visitation period no matter what age if you want to develop a parent-child bond and continuing relationship. It is the noncustodial parent's duty to make the teenager want to visit and the custodial parent's duty to encourage the visitation.
-RoseAnn Frazee-

Many parents in Los Angeles think that they can simply make an agreement as to how much Child Support needs to be paid. While Spousal Support can often be decided by agreement amongst the parties, Child Support must be based on certain mandated factors that the Court must consider. Those factors are known as guideline support and are as follows:

• The income that both parents either earn or are able to earn.
• Actual time spent with each child
• How many children there are that qualify for support
• Tax filing status based on each parent's tax returns
• Health Insurance coverage
• Additional sources of money that help support the children
• Retirement Contributions that are mandated and not by choice
• Additional costs for the benefit of the child such as Daycare, Tutoring, etc.

Many times, parents think they can simply get an attorney to come into Court and make their own rationale for appropriate Child Support, but this is totally false. The Judical Officer must abide and consider these factors specifically or that Judicial Officer subjects themselves to an embarrassing appeal.

The real attorney's worth comes in making sure the Court is accurately and thoroughly informed about these factors, and is able to demonstrate why the current facts of the case no longer supports the Court's last Order due to a change in circumstances, law, or facts of the case. Contact a Family Law attorney in Los Angeles in order to get a straightforward, no nonsense consultation to see if your Child Support needs to be re-opened to your benefit.

Kirk Laron
Los Angeles Family Law Attorney