California Divorce Lawyer Blog

Divorcing parties in California sometimes have a habit of playing fast and loose with the facts and not properly disclosing information regarding their incomes, expenses, assets and debts to their spouses. Consider this a big warning shot across the bow.

The recent trend by the California courts to be more critical of whether divorcing parties have fully complied with their disclosure obligations makes one principle perfectly clear: when in doubt, disclose. While it is frequently done in other areas of law, the California family courts will not tolerate individuals who try to "hide the eight ball" during dissolution proceedings. And this is true for cases that settle as well as cases that go to trial. A party cannot knowingly and intelligently settle a case when s/he is not fully informed of the facts. Neither can the court render a proper trial decision when the Judge is not fully informed of the facts.

In re Marriage of Feldman, a 2007 appellate case, has suddenly brought the issue of disclosure to the forefront in California divorce proceedings. Mr. Feldman, a successful businessman, failed to disclose to his Wife a number of substantial financial transactions, along with his formation of multiple new companies, despite her repeated requests for the information. The trial court was deeply troubled by Mr. Feldman's lack of candor, and ordered him to pay his Wife $140,000 in attorney fees and $250,000 in sanctions for his failure to disclose the facts.

The Feldman court made it clear that the penalties for failure to disclose can be severe and immediate. The other party does not need to show that s/he has been harmed, nor does s/he have to wait for trial to ask the court to penalize the non-disclosing party.

California Family Code §§2100-2113 define each party's disclosure obligation as a mandatory, affirmative and ongoing duty. In layman's terms, this means that each party must voluntarily provide full, accurate and updated information regarding his/her complete financial condition. A party must disclose every asset and every debt, along with complete details regarding his/her income from all sources and monthly expenses. And, each party must voluntarily update that information anytime there is a material change.

While it may be tempting to consider hiding important financial information from your spouse, the potential consequences for failure to disclose are much more severe than the benefits. It simply is not worth the risk. Remember -- when in doubt, disclose.

For more information about disclosure obligations or other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

Posted by Gary D. Sparks | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: General Divorce

Bookmark:

Thank goodness California doesn't require a showing of marital fault to grant a divorce the way that New York state does. You need only look at the now-infamous YouTube divorce case to understand why.

For those of you who missed it, British actress Tricia Walsh-Smith lashed out at her Broadway-mogul husband Philip Smith in a tearful and furious video that she posted on YouTube. In her video, Mrs. Smith trashed her husband and his family, made embarrassing claims regarding the couple's intimate life, and even called his office while filming to repeat those claims to his stunned assistant.

Apparently, Mr. Smith wanted to divorce his wife and enforce a prenuptial agreement whereby he would pay her a large sum of money and she would have to move out of their luxury New York City condominium. This didn't sit real well with Mrs. Smith, who contested the divorce on the grounds that there was no marital fault to justify the divorce.

In New York, there must be marital fault for the Court to grant a divorce. If there is no fault, the couple must live separate and apart for a year, at which time they can apply for a no-fault divorce. In marital fault states, Courts can divide the couple's property unequally to compensate the party deemed not to be at fault. Or, Courts can refuse to grant the divorce, which can have the consequence of negating a prenuptial agreement.

California, on the other hand, requires no showing of fault whatsoever. In fact, the Family Code specifically forbids the introduction of any evidence intended to show fault. As long as one of the parties believes that the marriage is irreparably broken, and that irreconcilable differences exist that prevent the marriage from being saved, the family Court will grant the divorce. And, the Court will equitably divide the couple's community property between them. As a result, there are no Court battles about who is at fault or who should get more property because of that fault.

Oh, and in case you're wondering... the Manhattan judge hearing the Smiths' divorce case blasted Mrs. Smith for conducting what he called a "calculated and callous campaign to embarrass and humiliate her husband." He then granted Mr. Smith's request for the divorce on the grounds of cruel and unusual treatment. You can read more about the story at CNN or at Reuters.

For more information about no-fault divorce or other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

Posted by Gary D. Sparks | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: General Divorce

Bookmark: