Orange County Divorce Lawyer Blog

The situation involving Elizabeth Edwards and John Edwards is not uncommon for couples in distress. Elizabeth and John are separated but they do not intend to file for divorce until someone decides to remarry. For most people, upon one person's infdelity, it would make sense for the other party to want to cut all ties, divorce and move on with their life. Such is not the case for Elizabeth and John Edwards. Elizabeth states that the couple plan to sell their $5.5 million mansion in Chapel Hill, North Carolina because their "dream house" just does not have any meaning anymore.

In divorce proceedings here in Los Angeles County and Orange County, liquidation of a community property residence is normal. It's one step towards resolving the property division aspect of the divorce. However, sometimes, if the couple have minor children, the parent raising the children usually wants to hold on to the house until the youngest child turns 18 so that the child can continue with their education in the environment they have grown familiar to. The less disruption for the child, the better the situation becomes. The Edwards' still have two minor children together. So, it is unknown what the couple intends to do regarding whether they intend to send the two minor children to the same school and/or if they will continue to reside in the same area.

For more information on child custody, visitation or disposition of a community property asset, such as a home, contact and Orange County divorce lawyer for more information.

Source: cbs2news.com Elizabeth Edwards: No Divorce from John Planned

Actor Michael Douglas and his first wife Diandra finalized their Southern California divorce a decade ago, but she now insists their California family court settlement entitles her to half of his profits from a movie that hasn't even been released yet. According to the New York Post, Diandra has filed suit in a New York court seeking half of the money Douglas will receive from "Wall Street 2", a sequel to his 1987 Oscar-winner. The movie is scheduled to premier in September.

According to the celebrity website PopEater, Diandra's claim is based on a clause in the couple's California divorce settlement giving her half of the proceeds from work Douglas did during the couple's marriage. Since Douglas plays the same character in the new movie that he did in the original, she is asserting that the forthcoming film fits the settlement's definition of "residuals, merchandising and ancillary rights".

According to the Post, Douglas' lawyers have filed papers claiming that a "sequel" is not the same thing as a "spinoff". Were the new film the latter, they say, she would have a case; but, they argue, it is the former - and that means she is not entitled to a cut. Douglas' lawyers are also arguing that California family court is the proper venue for the suit since the couple were divorced in the state. Diandra's attorneys say they filed in New York because that is where both of the ex-spouses now live.

This case highlights the fact that unexpected issues that can arise long after the fact in an Orange County divorce settlement. National media have recently highlighted cases of other long-divorced spouses (though, to be fair, not movie stars) seeking to renegotiate their settlement agreements because of changed economic circumstances. Such situations are moments when having an experienced Orange County divorce lawyer in your corner is of the utmost importance. A Los Angeles or Orange County family law attorney can help identify areas in your settlement that may become problems in the future, and can suggest ways to avoid trouble.

PopEater: Michael Douglas' Ex-Wife Wants a Piece of His 'Wall Street 2' Money

New York Post: Michael Douglas' ex-wife greedy for his 'Wall Street 2' $$

Blogging about other people's Southern California divorces is one thing, but your own? While it is still being adjudicated? Say what you will, author Justine Musk is taking an unusual approach to negotiating her Los Angeles County divorce settlement. The real negotiating is, of course, taking place behind closed doors involving Southern California divorce lawyers. Musk, however, has used her blog to lay down a marker about what she wants and to defend it in public. The case of Musk and her husband, billionaire investor Elon Musk, is especially interesting because, as Reuters reports, Justine's demand for a stake in Elon's latest venture - the Tesla electric car company - may complicate plans for the company to go public.

According to LA Observed the couple have been married eight years and have five children. Elon Musk is a co-founder of PayPal. Justine Musk is a successful novelist, specializing in supernatural thrillers. LA Observed, quoting her blog, says she is demanding a 10 percent stake in Tesla, as well as five percent of another Musk venture, Space X. She also wants $6 million in cash, the couple's house, child support and alimony... and a Tesla Motors Roadster (retail price: $109,000).

Reuters reports that Justine Musk's demand for a stake in Tesla Motors as part of her California divorce settlement "could complicate plans... to take the company public and retain $465 million in U.S. government funding to launch a mass-market electric car named Model S." The news agency reports that lawyers for both spouses did not return calls seeking comment.

The case highlights an aspect of Orange County and other Southern California divorce proceedings that is not often publicized: the post-marital agreement (which is less well-known, at least to the public, than are prenuptial agreements). Justine contends that the agreement she signed shortly after the couple wed is "extremely harsh" and has asked the California divorce court to throw it out. An initial ruling favored Justine, but that is being appealed. If the lower court ruling stands she would be entitled to half of Elon's assets under California's community property laws.

Your marital affairs do not have to involve stakes of this sort to be complex and emotionally draining. Consulting with an Orange County divorce attorney is an essential early step in the often complex task of untangling a couple's affairs and making sure you get the settlement you deserve.

Reuters: Tesla stake on the table in CEO's divorce dispute

LA Observed: Author blogs her divorce from billionaire

The Los Angeles Dodgers 2010 season got off to a rocky start yesterday with an 11-5 loss to the Pittsburgh Pirates (here in Orange County, the Anaheim Angels had a better opening Day - winning 6-3). As the players settle in for a long summer of baseball, however, uncertainty hangs over the team in the form of the California divorce proceedings of owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie.

News of the couple's impending Southern California divorce broke just as the 2009 season was winding down, and has been an unfortunate feature of California baseball talk throughout the winter. As the players prepared for Opening Day, Los Angeles divorce court officials say a date has been set for the divorce trial. According to ABC News, the couple's case is scheduled to be heard in a California divorce court beginning August 30. The network, quoting a court official, reports that the trial is expected to last 11 days.

According to the Associated Press, Jamie McCourt is seeking temporary spousal support of $1 million per month. Frank McCourt's lawyers say he can't afford that because much of his money is tied up in real estate (and, therefore, is relatively illiquid). They have reportedly offered Jamie $150,000 per month.

According to media reports the Dodgers are likely to be a key issue in the McCourt divorce. Frank McCourt says a marital agreement signed in 2004 gives him sole ownership of the team. His lawyers contend that takes the franchise out of the mix in any computation of California community property. Baseball fans have spent the winter wondering if the struggle over ownership will leave the Dodgers front office essentially adrift as the 2010 season progresses - particularly if the divorce proceeding lead, one way or another, to the team being put up for sale.

On a more mundane level, debate over the marital agreement highlights the complexities that accompany any California divorce - complexities that underscore the need for an experienced and detail-oriented Los Angeles or Orange County divorce lawyer. This is true regardless of how large or small a settlement you hope to negotiate. Navigating the California family court system is never easy. Having a skilled Orange County divorce attorney on your side can, however, smooth the journey, even as it helps assure that you get everything you deserve as part of the negotiation of an Orange County divorce settlement.

ABC News.com: August trial slated in McCourt divorce case

AP at Huffington Post: McCourt divorce: Jamie McCourt seeks nearly $1 million per month

Today, I read a report concerning two elderly Connecticut sisters squabbling over lottery winnings won by one of the sisters, Rose Bakaysa, and another brother. Turns out that Bakaysa and her brother won a $500,000 lottery jackpot back in 2005. Younger sister, Theresa Sokaitis, claims that Bakaysa violated a notarized contract they signed almost a decade earlier to split all future winnings. However, Bakaysa claims the two broke off the deal during a 2004 fight over a few hundred dollars. Sokaitis acknowledged the rift but believed that contract was still in place. You can read more about the story here. A New Britain Superior Court Judge is expected to issue her ruling in the next few months.

From an Orange County divorce attorney perspective, this report got me thinking about the effect of one spouse concealing lottery winnings from the other spouse during a divorce proceeding. Back in 2001, a Los Angeles County trial court ruled in a dissolution proceeding that lottery winnings concealed by wife during the proceedings to her ex-husband, constituted fraud. Marriage of Rossi, 90 Cal.App. 4th (2001).

The Court of Appeal affirmed said ruling. The court found that the funds used to purchase the lotto ticket were from a community property source and that wife's claim that same was a gift was not credible. The trial court found that wife intentionally failed to disclose her lottery winnings in the marital settlement agreement, the judgement and in her declaration of disclosure. She also intentionally consulted with a lottery commission as to how she could deprive her hsuband of a share of the prize, used her mother's address for all communications with the lottery officials and did not disclose samd throughout the divorce.

Continue reading "The Effect of Lottery Winnings in a California Divorce" »

It is not uncommon for the court to order a liquidation of a community property asset and provide said funds to the supported spouse or apportion it between the parties. Many times a hearing to determine how much support one party pays to the other could be delayed until the forensic accountant finalizes the cash flow report available for support, among other reasons.

As an example, it was reported today that Jamie McCourt will receive $1.4 million to cover her expenses until next month's hearing on spousal support. The $1.4 million comes from the liquidation of an investment account in the names of Frank and Jamie McCourt. The agreement also provides Jamie McCourt with access to additional funds -- in an unspecified amount -- from the couple's joint investments.

When Frank and Jamie McCourt filed for divorce in October, she asked for $320,967 per month if she were reinstated as the Dodgers' chief executive officer and $487,634 per month if she were not. The court denied her request for immediate reinstatement.

Continue reading "McCourt Divorce: Liquidating a Community Asset to Maintain the Status Quo" »