Affordable Family Law Attorney Chico Oroville

Affordable Family Law Attorney Chico Oroville

Friday, August 7, 2015

Most Attorneys are Not Affordable for Mainstream Litigants-- We Know It and so Does the State Bar

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/avvo_founder_tells_lawyers_to_get_rid_of_upl_if_they_want_innovation_and_to/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=navigation&utm_campaign=most_read

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/accessJustice/2010%20Improving%20Rural%20Report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf  (Documenting lack of legal resources in CA rural areas)

... [t]he legal profession is concerned about the 'unauthorized practice of law', he said, but that keeps innovators out. Meanwhile, he said, four out of five low-income litigants are unrepresented; 7.5 million people have asked questions on Avvo; and 34 percent in a survey said lawyers have nothing to offer society. Britton who is ceo of avvo, said the solution is for lawyers to “get rid of UPL” and partner with experts in other fields. (avvo is a privately funded site which sells advertising, website services,marketing,and legal consultations by the minute; supposedly is used to help clients find answers to legal questions and to find lawyers they can afford; however, it is pretty much like Yelp to us, but with ads...plus if the states were to allow unauthorized practice of law, then we really wouldn't need attorneys so much, since anyone could act as an attorney for someone else-- if that was the case, they could expand that to any profession which would seem ludicrous. Also, we believe that legal consultations of 15min only by phone are dangerous in many instances, normally because if it was that easy to explain, the person likely wouldn't even need to call in first place....  ) 
“As lawyers, we contribute to society, but it’s not about us; it’s about the legal consumer,” he said. “We need to understand what they need and innovate for them.” (that's the avvo guy talking in the quote and we think he wants to innovate all right, to become richer, not so much to help anyone.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------...continuing the State Bar post from ABA:
Alex Gulotta
Alex Gulotta
Bay Area Legal Aid Executive Director Alex Gulotta spoke about the “complex maze” of public interest and pro bono groups faced by people of modest means. He advocated creating a single “point of entry” for each part of the country, where people seeking justice can be helped more efficiently. He also advocated bringing those resources to bear on municipal courts, which are often not prioritized by legal aid organizations.
Lisa Foster
Lisa Foster
Lisa Foster, director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Access to Justice, followed with a speech that related a 1962 speech (PDF) to the ABA by Robert Kennedy to today’s conditions. In 1962, Kennedy had told the assembled ABA members that minorities, the poor and non-native English speakers often don’t get the same representation as the advantaged, she said. Fifty years later, the same could be still be said about the poor, she said. The problem is exacerbated by lack of adequate funding for public defenders in many states, and the fact that financial bail is often set without regard to the defendant’s means—creating de facto debtors’ prisons.
Carolyn Kuhl
Carolyn Kuhl
Presiding Judge Carolyn Kuhl of the Los Angeles Superior Court illustrated the high pro se load in Los Angeles with photos of long lines in hallways, at help desks and even wrapped around the outside of the building. Her court has the largest caseload in the country, she said, and about half of all cases have at least one unrepresented litigant. In family law, it’s 80 percent. She suggested getting rid of procedural rules that lengthen and complicate the process, and having litigants use a TurboTax-like form to guide them through basic filings. The court has already implemented a version of the latter, with an avatar to guide people through online traffic-ticket filings.
Gregory Coleman
Gregory Coleman
Gregory Coleman, immediate past president of the State Bar of Florida, said his state bar was initially scared of organizations like Avvo and LegalZoom. But the two million hours of pro bono work donated in Florida last year “barely made a dent,” he said. And after studying the issue, he realized that Avvo sends work lawyers’ way. The trouble in Florida is partly the slowness of changing the rules, he said: the state’s lawyer advertisement rules were written in the time of rotary phones, and change is a slow process.
Barbara Madsen
Barbara Madsen
The final speaker was Chief Judge Barbara Madsen of the Supreme Court of Washington. Starting in the mid-1990s, she said, Washington state “tried everything” to address a flood of pro se litigants and a rise in unauthorized practice of law. It was not enough, she said, so the state bar association decided that “maybe not every single problem needs to be solved by a lawyer.” That’s how Washington’s limited license legal technician program was born, she said, and the state bar has moved from grudging acceptance to embracing it.
“Innovation will continue with or without us, so we need to get in the driver’s seat,” she said. “We need to get on that bandwagon to change the profession before it runs us over. And I believe that, given the statistics I’ve heard, maybe we’ve already been run over.”

Access to Justice Commission Publications:

If you would like to receive a hard copy or full report/brochure of any of the following below, please contact Frank Monti at frank.monti@calbar.ca.gov       http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/accessJustice/2010%20Improving%20Rural%20Report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Duty of Disclosure, How Far Will the Court Go?

Duty of Disclosure

The operative word in any divorce case in California is “disclosure”. Divorcing spouses have an affirmative duty to each other to promptly and fully disclose all assets and liabilities in which one or both of the parties may have an interest during the dissolution proceeding. Disclosure requirements are mandatory and not dependent upon the other party seeking information through discovery. This obligation is a continuing obligation that starts at the commencement of the dissolution proceeding and terminates only when the assets are divided.
In Family Code Section 2100, the California Legislature has specifically referred to this disclosure requirement as paramount, not only for divorcing parties, but for the State as well, in order to ensure fairness in the divorcing process.
The statutory scheme for these disclosure responsibilities and obligations between spouses was laid out by the legislature in the early 1990’s. Family Code Section 721 defines the relationship between the spouses as a fiduciary one akin to individuals in a confidential relationship with the highest duty of good faith and fair dealing between them. 
In a dissolution proceeding, this fiduciary relationship between spouses is implemented in part through Family Code Section 2103, which requires the parties to make full, accurate and complete disclosure of all assets and liabilities that may impact the other party from date of separation until the assets are distributed. 
The mechanism in which these disclosures are made are through the preliminary Declaration of Disclosure (PDD–Family Code Section 2104) and the final Declaration of Disclosure (FDD– Family Code 2105). This disclosure obligation is ,per Family Code Section 2100, an ongoing obligation that requires the party to update and augment their disclosure.
Until 1992, Civil Code §5125(e) characterized the standard of care between husband and wife as to their management and control of community property during marriage, and separation, in less than clear terms.  
It had been described as somewhat above the good faith dealings of a confidential relationship but not quite as high a level of care as a fiduciary relationship.  (See In re Marriage of Reuling (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1428, 28 Cal.Rptr. 272.)  The pre-1992 version of Civil Code §5125(e) stated that the duty of good faith was to be “in accordance with the general rules that control the actions of persons having a relationship of personal confidence as specified in Civil Code §5103, until such time as the property has been divided by the parties or by a Court”.
There was a statutory change effective January 1, 1992 with current Family Code §721 and §1100(e) essentially replacing Civil Code §5125.  A fiduciary standard replaced that of the good faith standard previously enunciated by the code.  The case of In re Marriage of Varner (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 128 at page 141, the Court noted as follows:
“Section 721 provides, in relevant part, that “in transactions between themselves, a husband and wife are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relationships with each other …”.  This standard has been applicable to spouses during a marriage and prior to separation; by the various statutory amendments in 1991 and 1992 this standard has been extended to apply to spouses between the times the parties separate and the time the marital property is divided.”
The recent case of In re Marriage of Palmer and Hokanson 98 D.A.R. 12967, while discussing the issue of attorneys fees is most interesting for what appears to be an implied approval of the use of Family Code §1101 in post-Judgment situations, and if so, is a significant expansion of the law.
Palmer appears to confirm the unwritten assumptions that extend this concept of fiduciary relationship even past the time that the parties are no longer husband and wife.
In Palmer, a judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on December 20, 1994.  The judgment provided that the family residence was to be “sold as expeditiously as possible and for the best price reasonably obtainable”.  The wife continued to occupy the residence.  In January, 1995 a broker contacted by the wife recommended listing the property for $499,000.  Wife, however, insisted that the property not be listed until June, 1995 and then at the amount of $529,000.  
The house ultimately was not sold until June, 1996 and during which time wife took the property off the market several times, refused a lock box and listed the house at a price above that which the broker suggested was appropriate.  In April, 1996 husband filed an ex parte application asking that the house be put up for sale at $454,000.  Husband alleged that per Family Code §1101.1, by delaying the sale of the home his ex-spouse had breached her fiduciary duty toward him and that same resulted in an impairment of his community property interest in the home.  Husband sought damages and an award of attorneys fees.  The house ultimately sold for $430,000.
The Court determined, after hearing, that the provisions of Family Code §1101 applied, and further found that the wife’s post-judgment dilatory tactics did in fact fall within the breach of the fiduciary duty concept of Family Code §1101.  The Appellate Court noted that Family Code §1101(g) makes an award of attorneys fees mandatory where the moving spouse successfully shows that the other spouse has breached their fiduciary duty.
The fact pattern presented by Palmer is commonplace:  after a judgment ordering an immediate sale of the family home the “in-spouse” drags his or her feet in marketing the residence, perhaps to hang on to the last vestiges of the marriage or perhaps for economic reasons; meanwhile, the “out-spouse” has lost, at least for a time, the use of his or her share of the equity in the residence.
However, the Palmer court does not inform how Family Code §1101 applies to this fact pattern, and does not even pose the question:  Does the Court retain jurisdiction to order payment of damages under §1101 after judgment has been entered characterizing and dividing the parties’ property? 
Family Code §1100 states that the fiduciary duty continues “until such time as the assets and liabilities have been divided by the parties or by a court.” Since following entry of judgment ordering immediate sale of the residence, the parties’ ownership converted to tenants-in-common by operation of law (In re Marriage of Dorries (1984) 16 Cal.App.3d 1208; 207 Cal.Rptr. 160), hadn’t the property “been divided” so that the parties no longer had a fiduciary duty toward one another?
The Palmer case thus raises the question of just how far “beyond the break-up” this fiduciary duty extends with regard to the sale of a family home or other asset?  One must remember that the fiduciary duty is being applied towards two individuals who are no longer husband and wife, and who may in fact have remarried.
The Palmer case involved a judgment that ordered a “forthwith sale” (the family home was ordered to be sold as expeditiously as possible).  However, Family Code §3802 gives a judge discretion to order a deferral of the sale of the family residence until the youngest child reaches the age of 18, or graduates high school and is not yet 19, whichever first occurs.  (In re Marriage of Horowitz (I) (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 368 held that the Court cannot defer the sale of a family residence, as a form of additional child support, beyond the age when the youngest child reaches the age of majority.)
During the period of time that the family residence is subject to a deferred sale order, Family Code §3809 grants to the family law court jurisdiction to determine any issues that arise with respect to the deferred sale of the home, including but not limited to the maintenance of the home and the tax consequences as to each party.  
Now, Palmer extends that jurisdiction far beyond enforcement and implementation, to include a potential for imposition of sanctions of up to 100% of the asset many years after the dissolution is otherwise final (Family Code §1101(g)(h)).
 Does the failure of the “in-house spouse” to inform the “out-house spouse” of the existence of termites constitute a breach of the fiduciary obligation?  Is the failure to promptly replace the hot water heater with the top of the line brand, as opposed to a less expensive model, result in a breach of the fiduciary duty?  And what if the “in-house spouse” (and probably teenage children, in the case of a deferred sale of the home) are sloppy, so the house does not “show” well to potential buyers?
The order between the parties with regard to the deferred sale should specify the respective parties’ responsibilities for the payment of the cost of routine maintenance and capital improvements (Family Code §3806 provides for same).  While Family Code §3809 reserves jurisdiction to determine any issues that arise with respect to the deferred sale of the home including but not limited to the maintenance of the home and the tax consequence of each party, it would appear that Family Code §1101 adds an additional avenue for redress.
Formerly, these omissions by the “in-house spouse” and their economic impact on the “out-house spouse” might simply have amounted to a credit and offset issue between the parties, which clearly falls within the contemplated reserve jurisdiction of Family Code §3809.  The stakes however, now appear to have been raised, as these omissions may constitute a breach of the fiduciary duty under Family Code §1101 allowing for additional remedies (Family Code §1101(g)(h)).
blog attorney note: with real property, holding a property too long could have basically two outcomes: the market climbs sharply, or possibly declines sharply. Post judgment/order, failure to sell while the market is LOW will likely not result in loss of equity--but failure to sell when the market is doing well (assuming one could have done so) --may be a problem. Out of spite, it is possible that some clients would purposely cause the spouse to lose equity, even while the other spouse loses out as well. 
In truly cringeworthy cases, some spouses will do anything to get back at the other spouse, even if it includes causing financial harm to oneself.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Wasting of $$ Via Extravagant Spending, Excessive Borrowing+More

Dissipation, Non Disclosure or Hiding Assets

Dissipation of marital assets – the wasting of money through extravagant spending, gambling or excessive borrowing or fraudulent conveyance to third parties – is the most common form of economic misconduct in divorces. Very often, a spouse contemplating a divorce hides assets that might be included in the distribution in the property settlement. Secretion of assets works to the disadvantage of the wife because in many marriages the husband manages the money.

Courts look with disfavor on the dissipation, and some consider it serious marital misconduct. Bad behavior that is seen as an economic fault can significantly influence the judge’s discretion in an equitable division of marital assets. Judges deal with dissipation after the fact via unequal distribution of the remaining marital assets in favor of the victim party. The most common way is to treat the dissipated assets as marital property, and then distribute what has been dissipated as that party’s share of the marital pie. For instance, an alienated spouse who squandered marital assets in the casinos may find the losses negatively credited to his or her share of the marital estate.

In dealing with dissipation, courts balance the competing goals of preventing dishonest or reckless expenditure of marital funds against reasonable use of marital funds for legitimate purposes. 

Generally, a dissipated asset may be considered marital property if 1) the asset is lost; 2) the loss happened upon and after the breakdown of the marriage; 3) the guilty spouse controlled the asset when it was lost; and 4) the loss was not incidental to a valid marital purpose. Loss can take many forms. Dissipation includes concealment and conveyance of assets through acts that are reckless and negligent but not necessarily intentional.

Dishonest spouses very often reduce the marital estate by conveying assets to friendly third parties. Sometimes these schemes become quite complicated and require a forensic accountant who can analyze financial records for evidence of dissipation and secretion.

 Sometimes, a court orders a rescission of a fraudulent conveyance of assets, which in effect restores the property or assets to the marital estate.

The Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA) and case law govern recissions of fraudulently conveyed property. 

Expenditures or loss associated with a valid marital purpose are more problematic. No court has made a definite ruling of the meaning of this phrase, but valid marital purpose would be when one partner spends marital assets on routine living expenses, business expenses associated with a marital business, reasonable maintenance, or payment of taxes on marital property.

The court values dissipated marital assets as of the date that they were dissipated. This is particularly important as it pertains to investment or retirement accounts, so if one spouse cashes out, the court values the investments based upon on the date they were sold, not based upon what they might have turned into had they remained invested.

Note by Attorney: this is a general article and not intended to be legal advice for any particular or specific case, or for any case in CA for that matter. Your own specific case facts should be given to your personal attorney for discovery/fact purposes so your attorney can formulate specific action for you. Due to the non disclosure rules in CA, if your spouse has improperly caused the community to lose assets, you should see an attorney immediately, especially if you never knew about the fact until now. 

Divorce without Court Litigation?

Divorcing without court litigation is possible if the parties can work out a stipulation.

It is possible that if the parties know their rights but can agree on key terms, it may be
possible to not incur legal expenses that could continue for a year or more.

Attorney has worked on cases to settle them without court litigation for reasonable cost.
Many cases will not work out like this when one spouse has tried to take advantage of the
other, or non disclosure has transpired. And those cases where the support may be too high
for the other party, tend to go to litigation.

But if you are one of the families that have decided you will not go to court, then an agreement
is always helpful if the parties understand exactly what they are doing.
If you are interested in avoiding litigation, or even if you intend to pursue litigation, contact attorney
to find out how much you can save, as attorney's fees are probably one of the lowest in the county.
In addition, attorney may perform some legal cases or certain hearings for a flat fee. Call today to see
if attorney can work out the best plan for you.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Family Law Moves to New Chico Courthouse Soon!

   
1775 Concord Avenue
Chico, CA
(530) 532-7002NEW BUTTE NORTH COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN CHICO (*B)

New Chico Courthouse to open March 23


Feb 26, 2015 5:15 PM by News Staff
The new Butte County Courthouse in Chico is scheduled to open 3/23/15.
The new courthouse, located in southeast Chico off Bruce Road and East 20th Street, will handle civil and north county traffic cases. Family and juvenile dependency cases will also be transferred over from Oroville.
The 65 million dollar courthouse is the only project in California that fell under Senate Bill 1407, a bill which funds courthouse projects, in part, from fines and fees. "This project is not paid for locally by Butte County," Butte Superior Court Executive Officer Kimberly Flener said. "It is not part of our general fund, it comes from those funds specifically dedicated for courthouse construction.
The courthouse broke ground in May 2013 and will replace the Chico Courthouse on Oleander Avenue and the closed Paradise Courthouse. The courthouse on Oleander will close on Friday, March 20 and operations will transition to the new facility on Monday, March 23 

Friday, January 16, 2015

test

Top Family Law Lawyers in Butte County, CA | FindLaw - Find a Lawyer

lawyers.findlaw.com › Family Law › California

Results 1 - 20 of 100 - ... firms at FindLaw. Find top Butte County, CA Family Law lawyers and attorneys. ... Family Law Lawyers Serving Butte County, CA (Chico).

Chico Family Law Lawyers - Justia

https://www.justia.com/lawyers/family-law/california/chico

Claimed Lawyer ProfileSocial Media. Mr. Maria Amaya. ChicoCA Family Law Lawyer. Geoff A. Dulebohn, Esq. ChicoCA Family Law Attorney. Carolyn J. Chan. ChicoCA Family Law Attorney. Norman Jenkins Ryker III. ChicoCA Family Law Lawyer. Valerie Ann Miller. David Mikel Howard. Leslie James Hait.

Family Law Attorneys in Chico, California with Reviews & Ratings - YP ...

www.yellowpages.com › Chico, CA

Results 1 - 30 of 151 - Find 151 listings related to Family Law Attorneys in Chico on YP.com. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for the ...

Butte County Family Law Attorney | California Divorce Lawyer

www.rykerlaw.com/

At our ChicoCalifornia, law office you can get the effective representation you need and the sense of urgency you deserve. Family law and divorce attorney ...

The Law Office of Christina LaPointe - Chico Lawyers

www.chicolawyers.com/christina-lapointe/

My name is Christina LaPointe and I have been practicing law since 2008, focusing primarily on Divorce and Child Custody issues. I passed the California Bar ...