Category Archives: California Divorce

Epstein Credits and the Family Home
California Divorce

“Epstein” Credits and the Family Home

As a couple moves toward a divorce or legal separation, one potentially hotly contested issue involves what is known as “Epstein” credits. “Epstein” credits were named after the case in which they were first recognized, In Re Marriage of Epstein, which was decided by the California Supreme Court in 1979. These credits may be given to a party who pays community debt with separate property funds before a divorce or legal separation is final. If you are unfamiliar with the nature of community and separate property, please see our blog here.

The issue of Epstein credits often comes up when one party stays in the family residence with the children after the couple is separated. These credits are based on the notion that the family residence is community property and that both parties have a right to receive the benefit of that property until community assets and debt have been allocated by the court. The parties could benefit from the property in different ways: by staying there themselves, by renting it out, or by selling it. Therefore, when one spouse stays in the home, he or she is receiving a benefit and also depriving the other spouse of beneficial use of the property.

Epstein is not limited, however, to the family home. These credits may be requested any time preexisting community debt is paid with the separate property of one spouse. For that reason, they may apply to credit card debt, vehicle loans, and tax payments. However, the party requesting these credits must be able to show that a community debt was paid with his or her separate funds, such as income earned after the date the parties separated. When Epstein credits are awarded, the spouse who paid the community debt is entitled to be reimbursed out of community property assets.

Additionally, the right to Epstein credits may be extinguished under certain circumstances. For example, no Epstein credits will be awarded if the debt payment was intended as a gift, if the parties agreed that no reimbursement would be made, or if the payments were made in place of spousal support.

As you might imagine, both the date of separation and the nature of the debt involved are critical to a court’s decision of whether to award Epstein credits.

Because the legal issues in determining how property and debt are owned are significant, the assistance of an experienced divorce attorney can materially change the outcome of a divorce or separation matter. For these issues, you need an attorney with substantial experience in Northern California who will represent you aggressively. Please contact The Law Offices of Judy L. Burger at (415) 259-6636 to learn more.

How Is Debt Divided in California Divorces?
California Divorce

How Is Community Debt Divided in California Divorces?

Have you ever wondered how community debt is divided in a California divorce or legal separation? State law mandates that a couple’s community estate be divided “equally”, taking into account both assets and debt. It also provides several specific rules for dealing with debt.

Debt may be allocated as separate debt, community debt, or a combination of both. This determination is similar to the way community assets, or property, are handled. If you are not familiar with the concept of community property, please see our separate blog here.

As you might expect, separate debt is allocated to the person who incurred it. For example, under most circumstances, debt incurred by one of the parties either before or after the marriage will be the responsibility of that party. An additional category of separate debt about which many are unaware is debt incurred during the marriage that was “not incurred for the benefit of the community”. This type of debt is treated as the separate debt of the person who incurred it.

Community debt is handled differently. Under ideal circumstances, the parties agree on how they would like to allocate community debt; however, even if they do agree, the division of debt is not official until a judge enters a final order approving their agreement. If the parties cannot come to an agreement, the judge will do it for them.

The law provides additional rules to distinguish community from separate debt. Debt incurred after marriage but before separation is usually community debt, even if it is only in one spouse’s name. An example of this would be a credit card acquired during the marriage in the name of one spouse. The separate or community nature of debt incurred after separation but before judgment is entered depends on whether it was incurred for the “common necessaries of life of either spouse . . . or the children”. If the debt was for common necessaries, the court will allocate it according to the parties’ need and ability to pay it. If the expense was not for common necessaries, it will be allocated to the party who incurred the debt.

In allocating debt, there are additional considerations, called “reimbursements” or “credits”, that the court may assign due to payments made on the family home after separation, the use of the family home after separation, and payments made for education or training. These topics are discussed in separate blogs on our website.

If a couple’s community debts exceed its assets, the judge will assign excess debt according to what is just and reasonable. The court may consider the parties’ ability to pay, relative to one another, in making this determination.

The manner in which debt is allocated in a divorce or legal separation can impact you for the rest of your life. In hotly contested matters involving debt division, you need an attorney to protect your interests. The attorneys at the Law Offices of Judy L. Burger have extensive experience in property and debt division. Call today: (415) 293-8314.

What Is an Ex Parte Hearing?
California Divorce

What Is an Ex Parte Hearing?

Regardless of the circumstances, divorce and legal separation are difficult for everyone involved. Sometimes, however, they can be particularly stressful, such as when there is a threat of violence, danger, or significant financial injury.

Fortunately, the California judicial system has in place a procedure to deal with circumstances like these quickly: ex parte hearings.

 Ex parte hearings are simply emergency hearings. Depending on a court’s caseload, it can take weeks or even months to get a hearing before a judge.

Ex parte hearings are designed to reduce that time drastically. However, they are only available for true emergencies, when there is a threat of irreparable harm or immediate danger. Examples of factual circumstances that may warrant an ex parte hearing include the following:

  • child visitation or custody rights with a parent who leads a dangerous lifestyle;
  • a threat of grave injury to a couple’s children; and
  • a valid concern about depletion of community funds from a joint account.
An application for ex parte relief must be supported by very strong evidence of future irreparable harm or immediate danger. For example, exposure of a young child to alcohol and drugs could warrant an application for an ex parte hearing. Likewise, the prior acts of a spouse wiping out community funds from one bank account would likely warrant ex parte relief to prevent him or her from doing the same thing with other accounts.

In most cases, the person against whom an order will operate, usually the other party to the divorce or custody proceeding, has a right to notice before an ex parte hearing is held. This is because the judge may order relief that contravenes that person’s rights, such as the right to visitation or the right to access his or her own money. However, when absolutely necessary, notice may be avoided. This is only true if providing notice will result in immediate, irreparable harm.

Care must be taken when requesting ex parte relief. If it is requested unnecessarily, it can affect the court’s view of the parties in future proceedings. Judy Burger is experienced in presenting ex parte issues in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas. If you believe ex parte relief may be needed in your case, contact her today at (415) 259-6636.
How Is a Business Interest Valued in a California Divorce?
California Divorce

How Is a Business Interest Valued in a California Divorce?

For those going through a divorce or contemplating one, a common concern is how a business interest will be treated by the court. Sometimes, both spouses own a business together. Other times, however, only one spouse has an ownership interest in a business.

By law, California courts must make a substantially equal division of community-owned property. Therefore, the first step in deciding how to deal with a business ownership interest is to determine whether it is separate or community property. It may even be a little of both. If you are not familiar with basic property law in California divorces, please see our separate blog here.

If the couple started the business together and operated it together, the court will likely decide it is a community-owned asset. However, often, business ownership is not so clear. For example, sometimes, a business was started before the couple married. Other times, although one spouse may be the owner “on paper”, the other may have worked in the business and contributed substantial value to it. In more complicated cases such as these, the court will need to decide issues such as the value of the business at the time of marriage and the present, the value of spousal contributions to the business, and other difficult factual questions.

It is usually necessary, in these cases, to retain a forensic accountant. Forensic accountants are trained in both accounting and investigative techniques. For this reason, they can be invaluable partners in determining the value of a business and in presenting their valuations to a court.

Forensic accountants are experts at detecting irregularities in company records. Their findings can help demonstrate, for instance, if one spouse has altered company records to make it look like a business is more or less profitable than it really is. Ultimately, the accountant will give an expert opinion about the value of the business. One of three methods is typically used:

    • the income approach, which attempts to value future economic benefits;
    • the market approach, which compares the business to others that have recently been sold; and
    • the asset approach, which compares the relative assets of the business to its liabilities.
If the parties do not agree about how to divide a business ownership interest, the court will divide it for them, keeping in mind that their community property must be divided substantially equally. How this takes place is within the court’s discretion. Options available to it include awarding the business to the spouse who plays the greatest role in its operation, awarding it to the other spouse, dividing the stock ownership among the parties, and ordering the sale of the business.

Business ownership interests are among the more difficult issues that arise in family law, and how they are handled can affect the parties for the rest of their lives. The attorneys at The Law Offices of Judy L. Burger have extensive experience in all matters relating to property division, including dealing with business interests and forensic accounting. Make the call today to learn how our attorneys can protect your financial future: (415) 293-8314.
The Intentional Breach of a Spouse's Fiduciary Duty
California Divorce, Marriage

The Intentional Breach of a Spouse’s Fiduciary Duty

A fiduciary duty is one in which one party owes another the highest duty of care. For example, someone serving as an executor of an estate has a duty to handle its property and finances with the utmost care. An executor cannot misappropriate money or steal property belonging to the estate, or he may be liable for damages.

Similarly, California law places a fiduciary duty on each spouse to act in the best interest of the other spouse. California Family Code § 721 explains that spouses have “a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing” with each other and that “neither shall take any unfair advantage of the other.” This fiduciary duty includes three core components: (1) allowing access to records of financial transactions; (2) providing accurate and complete information about community property transactions; and (3) treating benefits and profits from certain community property transactions fairly and accounting to the other spouse for them.

 In addition, California law provides a duty of full disclosure regarding all community assets. The duty applies during the period of marriage and after the parties separate, until the item is divided by the court or the parties. Indeed, the California laws regarding divorce provide a formal method by which the assets and liabilities of each party are disclosed to the other.

What happens if one spouse does not perform his or her fiduciary duties? The failure to perform these duties is a called a “breach,” and the law sets forth what happens when there is a breach. The consequence that is imposed depends upon the seriousness of the breach and the view of the family court.

Examples of ways that parties may breach their fiduciary duties include hiding assets or transferring assets to try to deprive the other spouse of any interest in them. The law provides several remedies, or consequences, for a breach of spousal fiduciary duties, including the following:

  • A court-ordered accounting and determination of rights of ownership;
  • The placement of the name of a party on the title of an asset;
  • An award of either 50% of an undisclosed or transferred asset or of an amount of money to compensate the injured party for the loss of interest in that asset; and
  • Attorney’s fees and court costs.
In particularly egregious cases, the family court can order the breaching party to give the injured party the whole asset or to pay the injured party its full value . When fraud, oppression, or malice have been adequately proven, the court may award punitive damages, designed to punish the breaching party . It is sometimes necessary to hire a forensic accountant to show that a spouse intentionally breached his or her fiduciary duty. A forensic accountant is trained to trace funds and assets, which can help demonstrate that a spouse intended to hide or misappropriate community assets.

Breach of the spousal fiduciary duty is serious wrongdoing. If you are concerned that your spouse may be attempting to hide or minimize assets, you need an aggressive lawyer who will fight on your behalf. The attorneys at the Law Offices of Judy L. Burger have extensive experience in contested divorce and property proceedings. Call today to learn how our attorneys can protect your property interests as you go through this difficult time: (415) 293-8314.
Who Gets the Family Home in a California Divorce?
California Divorce

Who Gets the Family Home in a California Divorce?

In a divorce, one of the most significant concerns is what will happen with the family home. This is particularly true when minor children are involved.

The family residence is often the largest asset owned by the parties to a divorce, so the financial interest is often significant. In addition, there can be a sentimental attachment to the home. For these reasons, dividing the parties’ interest in the family home can be easier said than done. The first task is to decide who actually owns the house. You can learn more about determining basic ownership interests here.

 It is not always easy to apply property law when dividing the family residence. For instance, what happens if the down payment was made with separate property funds? What if both parties contributed to pay down the mortgage while they were married, but the home is titled in just one name?

When there is a community property interest in the residence, there are three basic ways it can be divided: (1) sell the property outright and apply the profits toward the couple’s community property estate, to be divided; (2) one spouse buys out the other’s interest, assuming the purchasing spouse has adequate funds or credit to do so; and (3) deferred sale.

The first two of these options are fairly straightforward. However, a “deferred sale of home order”, also known as a “Duke” order (named after a significant case on the issue), requires some explanation. Deferred sales are usually considered when the parties have minor children and want the children to be able to stay in the family home until a later date. A custodial parent, in these situations, is given exclusive use and possession of the home on a temporary basis so that the kids can stay there.

 In determining whether to allow a deferred sale, the family court must first consider whether it is economically feasible to do so. The court must balance the relative hardship of the parent and children staying in the home with the hardship placed upon the parent no longer living there. The law requires that certain factors be considered in making these determinations. It also requires that the deferred sale of home order contain an end date, such as the date the youngest minor child attains the age of majority or graduates from high school.

In addition to the disposition of the home, the family court will have to determine whether one party must reimburse the other for “contributions for the acquisition of property”. These reimbursements may be required if one party made the down payment on the family residence out of separate funds. They may also be required if separate funds are used to pay down the principal on the home.

As you can see, many factors impact how the family residence is handled in a divorce. How these issues are presented can significantly affect your outcome. Judy Burger is experienced in complex property division matters and how to present those in family court. Please contact her today at (415) 259-6636.
How Are Stock Options Divided in a California Divorce Proceeding?
California Divorce

How Are Stock Options Divided in a California Divorce Proceeding?

When a couple divorces, it is easy to divide physical items. One of the parties simply takes possession of items such as home furnishings, tools, jewelry, and even cars. Other property is more difficult to evaluate and divide. This is the case with employee stock options.

Stock options are granted by a company to an employee, usually managers and executives. Stock options represent the right of the employee, at some point in the future, to purchase company stock if he or she chooses to do so. Sometimes, a company gives an employee stock options to attract the employee to come to work for it; other times, a company offers stock options to try to keep an employee or to compensate him or her for future work. If and when a stock option “vests”, the employee has the right to buy the company’s stock.

A basic understanding of property rights in California is essential to understanding how family courts deal with stock options. You can learn more about these rights here.

In addition to understanding basic property law, it is important to understand what the term “vest” means in relation to stock options. The date a stock option “vests” is the date upon which an employee has the right to buy the stock. This is known as “exercising” the option right.

The first step in determining how to handle stock options in a divorce is deciding who owns the option. Courts have broad discretion on how this is done. However, two different approaches are typically used, both of which are named after the cases that established them. They are known as the Hug formula and the Nelson formula; they are also known as time rules. In essence, the sooner after the date of separation an option vests, the larger the community interest in them.

Which formula is applied, usually depends on the reason the company offered the stock option in the first place. The Hug formula typically applies to options that were given to the employee to attract him to work. The Nelson formula is usually used when the options were offered to keep an employee or to compensate him for future work. While many people assume that options that vest after the date of separation are separate property, this is simply not true when the Nelson time rule is applied.

Valuing stock options properly requires an attorney who understands all the law and who is experienced in making the strongest arguments for her client. To obtain the counsel of just such an attorney, please contact the Law Offices of Judy L. Burger. We have extensive experience in divorce, child custody, and child support matters. Call today to learn more: (415) 293-8314.
California Divorce

Basic Property Rights Law in California Divorces

Understanding the basic rules of property ownership in California is critical for anyone going through or contemplating a divorce or legal separation. Property may be owned by a spouse separately, meaning that it is his or hers alone, or it may be held as community property, which means that both spouses share it equally. It is important to understand the difference because, generally, a spouse has no right to any portion of the separate property of the other. On the other hand, California law provides for equitable division of community property.

Property acquired before a marriage or after a married couple separates is considered to be separate. In addition, property given to or inherited by a party during a marriage is considered to be separate. In most cases, a person has no right to the separate property of his or her spouse.

California law assumes that property acquired during a marriage is community property, which means that each spouse holds a one-half interest. Both spouses have an ownership right to one-half of community property, regardless of who actually acquired the property. In determining whether property is separate or community, the date of separation is critical. In fact, the date of separation is sometimes hotly contested for this reason. The date of separation is established, by law, as the date on which two things occurred: (1) one spouse subjectively made the decision that the marriage was over; and (2) that spouse took an objective step to implement his or her decision.

With titled assets, such as homes, cars, and boats, a second property law presumption may come into play. The California State Legislature has passed a law that the“owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title”. This means that a court will assume that the name of the person on title to property is the full owner of that property. It takes strong evidence to overcome this presumption.

As you might imagine, the community property presumption and the legal title presumption can often be in tension with one another.

There are many nuances in California statutory and case law that impact property division, and the proper presentation of property issues can significantly affect your outcome. Judy Burger is experienced in complex property division matters and how to present those in family court most favorably to her clients. Please contact her today at (415) 259-6636.
California Divorce

What to Look for in a Divorce Attorney

Woman in target

Finding the Right Attorney

Family law matters usually involve highly charged emotions as people deal with the fallout from a broken marriage, a messy divorce and ongoing custody issues. When emotions run high, it’s critical to have an attorney who can clearly explain the ground rules and impart confidence that your case is being handled effectively.

Knowing What to Look For

Here are some tips to help you find the right lawyer for you:
  • Experience Counts. Find out how long the prospective attorney has practiced family law in California and approximately how many such cases he or she has handled.
  • Resources Count. Find out whether the prospective attorney has sufficient resources to handle your case efficiently and effectively.  For instance, if your attorney carries a large caseload, he or she should have a sufficient number of assistants to help manage the caseload.  Alternatively, if the prospective attorney has a light office staff, does he or she use technology to help manage the load?
  • Personality Counts. You should perceive that a prospective attorney is prepared to be a strong advocate and is willing and able to fight for the best outcome possible for you.  Personalities vary greatly among attorneys, as with any other profession, but mid-divorce is not the time to wish your attorney were more aggressive.
Choosing the right attorney in the beginning can save you a lot of time and stress and allow you to get on with your life as quickly as possible. At the Law Offices of Judy L. Burger, we will effectively and efficiently pursue the best outcome possible for you in your divorce or custody proceedings. Judy L. Burger is known for her aggressive representation of clients in high conflict cases in and around the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas.  If you are a parent facing a divorce or custody dispute, call us today to learn more about how we can help.  Call (415)293-8314 in the San Francisco Bay area or (916)631-1935 in the Sacramento area, or contact us online via our confidential inquiry form
California Divorce

Taking Your Ex Back to Court to Collect Your Fair Share

MoneyvLove Some divorces can be accomplished in what seems like a blink of the eye.  Oftentimes, a young couple without children or assets to speak of simply needs to sign a few legal documents to go their separate ways.  But as years go by and marriages get longer, divorces get more complicated as children are born and assets are accumulated. Such was the case with Frank and Jamie McCourt. At the time of their divorce, Frank was the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. In determining Jamie’s stake in the family assets, Frank estimated the value of marital assets, including the Dodgers franchise, at roughly $300 million. Eventually, the divorce was finalized in October of 2011and Jamie was awarded $131 million. Not exactly half, but not too shabby, either. A mere six monthly later, however, Frank sold the Dodgers franchise for a whopping $2.15 billion. (That’s right, billion with a ‘B’). Jamie promptly took Frank back to court, feeling she had been cheated out of her fair share. Among other things, Jamie alleged that Frank grossly undervalued the business. Situations like this are not uncommon, particularly when the marital assets include a business. An experienced and pragmatic divorce attorney understands the importance of a fair business valuation conducted by a qualified expert. Be sure your attorney is prepared with the facts so you can get your fair share the first time around. If you feel like your spouse took you to the cleaners in your divorce, before giving up, consider your options for taking your ex back to court. At the Law Offices of Judy L. Burger, we will aggressively pursue the best outcome possible for you in your divorce or custody proceedings.  Depending on the status of your case, time may be of the essence, so don’t delay. Judy L. Burger is known for her tenacious representation of clients in high conflict cases in and around the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas.  If you are a parent facing a divorce or custody dispute, call us today to learn more about how we can help.  Call (415)293-8314 in the San Francisco Bay area or (916)631-1935 in the Sacramento area, or contact us online via our confidential inquiry form.