Orange County Divorce Lawyer Blog

A famous, and horrific, Orange County murder from two decades ago is back in the
news as a child custody and visitation case, according to the Associated Press. As the news agency reported this week, Kristine Cushing, an Orange County woman who killed her two daughters as they spelt in 1991, has reconciled with her husband. This development places Trisha Conlon, John Cushing's second ex-wife, in the terrible position of knowing her sons will be spending custody and visitation time with a woman who killed their half-siblings.

According to the news agency, John Cushing worked to conceal his reconciliation with his first wife from Conlon, presumably well-aware that she would not approve of the couple's two sons spending time with Kristine. The deception continued over several years and when Kristine became aware of it she went to court seeking a modification order concerning the children. The agency reports that Washington authorities recently ruled against Conlon on the grounds that the boys have been spending time with Kristine Cushing since 2008 with no apparent ill-effects and that Kristine is not technically guilty of a crime in the 1991 slayings, having been found not guilty by reason of insanity (the case is being heard in the Seattle area, where John and Kristine Cushing now live).

From the perspective of an Orange County family law attorney this case highlights how difficult and technically complex the modification of a California child custody and visitation can sometimes be.

Skilled professional counsel is especially important in cases that are both complex and emotionally charged. It is particularly important in the face of apparent setbacks to consider whether every possible legal avenue has been explored, especially when a parent can make a strong case that the best interests of the child are at stake.

AP via The New York Times: Woman who killed kids at center of custody fight

Diandra Douglas suffered another legal setback this month in her effort to claim a share of ex-husband Michael's earnings from the film Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. When last we left Diandra and the legal system, her attorneys were arguing before a New York court that Michael Douglas' earnings from the sequel to his Oscar-winning performance in 1987's Wall Street are subject to California's community property laws, despite the couple having been divorced for more than a decade.

According to the celebrity-watching website Monsters and Critics, however, a Manhattan judge "rejected her request to overturn his original ruling (of) last year." In doing so he reaffirmed his original opinion that if Diandra's case is to be heard at all it should be in California, where the couple's divorce was finalized back in 2000. The website quotes Diandra's attorneys vowing to appeal the decision.

As I noted when originally discussing this case last year, Diandra's claim does not amount to a demand for a California post-settlement modification. It turns instead on an essentially philosophical question: what, artistically speaking, is the relationship of a sequel to its original? The original Wall Street film was made during the Douglas' marriage. Therefore, under California's community property laws, Diandra is entitled to a piece of any ongoing income Michael makes from the film: residuals and royalties, for example.

The question is whether a sequel is a new and distinct work of art or whether it is, artistically speaking, a continuation of the original. If the former, then the new film is a piece of post-divorce Michael Douglas work and, therefore, not subject to community property rules. If, however, it is the latter (similar, say, to re-issuing the original film on Blue-Ray, a technology that did not exist in 1987) then the income would be subject to community property rules. It is a fascinating legal question - but one which this case has not resolved, since the New York court, in effect, punted the issue back to California without addressing the substance of Diandra's claim.

Viewed another way, the case is a reminder of an important role Los Angeles and Orange County divorce lawyers fill for clients. As legal experts, family law specialists can offer clients invaluable assistance in understanding the often arcane world of the law. Deciding on one's approach is one of the most important decisions anyone makes when beginning a legal process. It is also the place where experienced legal advice is most valuable.

Monsters and Critics: Diandra Douglas loses appeal to get ex-husband Michael's money

There is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that the difficult economy of the last few years has led to a rise in requests for post-settlement modifications in Orange County, elsewhere in California and nationwide. Last week the New York Times ran a modification story with a twist: it is linked to the Bernie Madoff scandal.

Bernard Madoff's historically huge ponzi scheme has, of course, left an extraordinary number of high-profile victims in its wake, from Hollywood stars to local charities and the New York Mets. The sheer size and duration of his fraud has guaranteed that it will make its way back into the news again and again for many years to come.

According to the Times, the basics of the Madoff-prompted modification case are these: when Steven Simpkin and his wife Laura Blank divorced in 2006 "they agreed to split their considerable wealth equally." In dividing up their assets, valuing cash versus real property, Simpkin kept, among other things, the couple's account with Madoff (this may partly have been a matter of convenience as, the paper notes, it was held in his name). After Madoff's fraud was exposed - and accounts held with him became worthless - in late 2008 Simpkin filed suit demanding that his ex-wife "turn over millions of dollars that she had received in their settlement to make up for the substantial losses he had sustained in the fraud." Needless to say, Blank sees the situation differently, and the Times reports that the case is attracting considerable attention nationwide. As the paper notes, the court ruling will only, strictly speaking, impact New York's divorce laws, "but a decision by the influential (NY Court of Appeals) could influence how judges interpret laws in other states.

One might argue that Simpkin's investment account dropping to zero is not Brand's problem. Presumably if the family home she got in the settlement lost value when the real estate bubble burst she could not seek to get money back from him. But, as the paper notes, the issue is not necessarily that clear cut. The Madoff account was fraudulent from Day One, though neither spouse knew that at the time. With that in mind Simpkin is demanding a modification under a doctrine known as "mutual mistake." The idea is that since both spouses were honestly mistaken when they valued the account the settlement should be retroactively rebalanced. For her part, Blank is arguing, in effect, that enough time elapsed between the settlement and the exposure of Madoff's fraud that the doctrine should not apply, especially since her ex-husband continued to add to his Madoff account for many months after the settlement.

From the perspective of an Orange County divorce lawyer it is undeniable that this case is worth watching closely. Divorce law is, of course, governed by states and California is different from New York in a number of key respects (notably, by being a community property state). But the potential for an important precedent remains.

The New York Times: Madoff Victim Seeks a Divorce Do-Over

In another attempt to obtain her share of the monies from Michael Douglas' film, "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps", Diandra Douglas is seeking court relief to obtain said monies in a New York City court house. It was previously decided that a New York court did not have jurisdiction to make a ruling on Diandra's claim. However, Diandra's lawyers are once gain reviving the lawsuit in New York City asking said court to reconsider its ruling.

With Diandra looking on, Michael's lawyer noted his recent fight with throat cancer and said his ex "should be ashamed of herself" for seeking more money when she's gotten more than $51 million from him in the divorce and her stake in some earnings afterward. Meanwhile, Diandra's lawyers brought up his recent purchase of a $5 million-plus home near New York and his children's private schools.

Leaving court, Diandra Douglas lamented the "mudslinging" she felt was directed at her.

"I've always behaved as a lady, and I always intend to do so in the future," she said. "I think the facts speak for themselves."

Michael Douglas wasn't at court. His lawyer, Marilyn B. Chinitz, said his ex-wife's claim was meritless, and "she ought to get the message and move on."

Diandra insists on pursuing her claim in New York despite the fact that the parties are to litigate the matter in Santa Barbara County, California. Diandra claims that it would be difficult for her to travel back and forth from California to New York and requests the matter be heard in New York. Diandra makes these claims despite owning a home nearby in California.

These types of post-judgment issues after finalization of a divorce can always creep up many years later. When the parties involved acquire such a large community estate, it is always best to have a prenuptual agreement in place so your assets are protected. This is why hiring an Orange County or Los Angeles County divorce lawyer is imperative.

Contact an Orange County divorce lawyer for more information.

Source: Michael Douglas' Ex Revives NYC Bid for Movie Cash

Unless you have been living under a rock, you might have heard all the publicity surrounding the halting of production of "Two and a Half Men," child custody and visitation issues surrounding Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller and the most recent Los Angeles County restraining order filed by Brooke against Charlie.

In the documents in support of Brooke's request for a temporary restraining order, she asserts that Charlie told her that he wants the $20,000 per month he pays in child support paid back to him. Afterall, Charlie is no longer receiving the $1.2 million per episode paycheck now that he burned his bridges with the creator of the show.

From an Orange County child support attorney's perspective, the obligor/payor cannot simply request that the funds be paid back to him. The formal way to do same would be to file an Order to Show Cause for a modification of child support. That way, the obligor will have an opportunity to obtain retroactivity to the date of the filing of the Order to Show Cause pending the hearing. By filing the appropriate legal paperwork, the moving party can set forth the facts that warrant a reduction in child support (i.e loss of income).

Given the rumors that John Stamos will likely be replacing Charlie Sheen's character on "Two and Half Men", it looks like Charlie may be out of a job, for now. If that is the case, it would not be a bad idea for Charlie to file a request for a downward modification in child support. Only time will tell.

For more information on how to modify an existing child support order, contact an Orange County child support attorney for more information.

Source: Charlie Sheen Seeks Reimbursement of Child Support After Losing TV Salary

If at first you don't succeed... try again in California. That appears to be the approach Michael Douglas' ex-wife Diandra is taking after a New York judge threw out her suit seeking half of the actor's earnings associated with the film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

As my colleague, Winiviere Sy, noted in a post last month, the former Mrs. Douglas - whose split with the actor was finalized way back in 1997, went to court in New York seeking a post-judgment modification. The crux of her claim is that because the couple's California divorce settlement entitles her to 50% of any money Douglas earns from movies he made while they were married, as well as 50% of his proceeds from any "spinoffs" from those films, she is entitled to half his income from the new "Wall Street" film. The movie, released last September, is a sequel to 1987's "Wall Street", for which Douglas won a Best Actor Oscar. Douglas plays the same character, financier Gordon Gekko, in both movies.

A key aspect of last month's dismissal in New York was the fact that it came on jurisdictional grounds. Diandra had sought to bring the issue before a New York court because both she and Michael now live there. Without taking any position on the merits of Diandra's claim, however, the judge threw out the case because, he said, it belonged in a California court, not a New York (the couple's divorce was originally concluded here in California). Now, according to the New York Post, Diandra is actively shopping for Southern California family law attorneys as she seeks to revive the case, probably in Los Angeles.

As an analysis by the Today Show noted, setting questions of jurisdiction aside, the case will turn on the question of whether a "sequel" and a "spinoff" are the same thing. Diandra says they are. Michael says they are not. The distinction is important because the couple's California divorce settlement has provisions for dividing assets from "spinoffs" but, apparently, says nothing about "sequels".

It is too early to say how successful Diandra's arguments will or will not be once they reach a Los Angeles or Orange County family court. What is certain is the important role careful legal work will play in the outcome - a reminder of the important role that finding the right Orange County divorce lawyer plays in any family law case.

New York Post: Diandra takes her case west

Today on NBC: Douglas' ex wants to cash in on 'Wall Street 2'

Monsters & Critics: Michael Douglas' ex-wife taking Wall Street cash battle to California