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