August 5, 2011

We've Moved!

We are pleased to announce our move our Walnut Creek main office into new office space! Our new space is located at:

THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY D. SPARKS
2890 North Main Street, Suite 205
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Our Solano County office is still at the same location and available by appointment:

THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY D. SPARKS
918 Merchant Street, Suite C
Vacaville, CA 95688

We've only moved across the freeway, but the new space is larger and more efficient. We're still in semi-move-in mode, but should be completely finished within the next two weeks or so. After that, be sure to stop in for a visit!

Thanks to all our clients for their patience and support over the past two years, and we look forward to continuing to provide outstanding legal services for many years as we keep growing and building our practice.


GARY SPARKS
Attorney at Law

AMY MILLER
Attorney at Law

ANNE WOLF
Paralegal

JANA LONG
Administrative Assistant

Bookmark and Share

August 4, 2011

Can California Divorce Court Force Sale of L.A. Dodgers Despite Federal Bankruptcy Court's Control of the Team?

Jamie McCourt, the highly controversial co-owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, is considering asking the family law divorce court to order all of her husband Frank's business assets sold, including the team, according to a report in the LA Times.

This, of course, brings up the conflict we run into in family law cases -- the authority of the California family court to make orders with respect to marital property, versus the power of the Federal court to control assets contained in a bankruptcy petition. In virtually every case, when the Federal court receives a petition for bankruptcy, an automatic "stay" (or "time out") is placed on the ability of the California state court to make any orders with respect to property and/or debt contained within the petition. This same stay is the same order that stops the creditors' calls to debtors.

Whenever federal law conflicts with California law regarding the same issue, the outcome is generally always the same -- the federal law supersedes California law. This comes from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. However, Ms. McCourt's attorneys are considering asking the family court to order the sale of the parent company that owns/controls the Dodgers, and apparently believe that if a potential buyer comes along who wants to buy the parent company, that the bankruptcy court might just permit the transaction.

The McCourt divorce has given us many juicy stories over the past year, including the takeover of the Dodgers baseball franchise by Major League Baseball. Stay tuned for how this latest development proceeds.

Continue reading "Can California Divorce Court Force Sale of L.A. Dodgers Despite Federal Bankruptcy Court's Control of the Team?" »

Bookmark and Share

November 10, 2010

UK Couple Sues for Right to Civil Union Instead of Marriage

Here's a new twist on the heated debate we have here in California regarding civil unions vs. marriage. The ABA Journal reports that a straight couple in the UK are suing for the right to tie the knot in a civil union rather than in marriage.

Over the past few years here in California, the state has gone from expanding the Family Code to permit same-sex couples to register as domestic partners with the same rights and privileges as spouses, to the Supreme Court determining that marriage for same-sex couples was a constitutional right, to Proposition 8 which amended the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. And the story is still unfolding in the courts. Currently, Proposition 8 has been found to violate the federal constitution on multiple grounds, and an appeal is working its way through the appellate courts.

Gay couples across the country, and around the world, have long argued that they should be entitled to marry, just as straight couples have the right to marry, instead of being forced to settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships. Opponents, led by religious groups such as the Mormon church, strongly oppose this argument and argue that marriage has "always been" between a man and a woman, and that permitting same-sex couples the right to marry would impose rules on churches that violate their dogma. They insist that same-sex couples are offered the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples through civil unions, just under a different name. (Note: although at the federal level, same-sex civil partners are not offered the same marital tax benefits as opposite-sex spouses.)

In this new twist, a straight couple have been denied a civil union in the UK because they are not a same-sex couple. "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners—we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that," says Katherine Doyle. She and her partner, Tom Freeman, argue that a civil partnership under British law is more in keeping with their personal style, even though marriage and civil unions provide the same benefits.

Gay rights activists believe that a win in this case would likely help encourage the right of same-sex couples to wed. Regardless of which side of the argument you support, this will be a fascinating story to watch unfold in the coming months.

Continue reading "UK Couple Sues for Right to Civil Union Instead of Marriage" »

Bookmark and Share

October 31, 2010

Impending California Divorce Does Not Lead to Automatic Kick-Out of Spouse

I find it fascinating when celebrities in the Southland discover that California's community property rules apply to them, too.

Pop diva Christina Aguilera is divorcing her husband, Jordan Bratman. However, she apparently finds herself living in a luxury hotel in Los Angeles nowadays, according to the Daily News. It's not that she doesn't have a house of her own. Far from it. The problem is that her soon-to-be ex-husband still lives there.

Under California community property law, a home acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. Even if the home was acquired in one spouse's name, both spouses have an equal right to possession and occupancy of the home during the divorce proceedings. Only when a divorce becomes final, and the property disposed of, does the obligation to move out apply.

There are exceptions, of course. One spouse might successfully convince the Court to make a pre-trial determination that a house is separate property and not community, in which case an early kick-out order may apply. Or, there might be domestic violence or other harassment which could lead to an order for a spouse to vacate the home (along with a restraining order).

However, there is no law in California that permits one spouse to simply just order or demand that the other spouse vacate the house just because the parties are divorcing, no matter how bad the situation might be.

Seasoned California family law attorneys know that this is the case; however, I have been bombarded in the past two years with motions from opposing parties and their attorneys requesting exclusive use and occupancy of a home without any kind of a showing that there is any violence, harassment or threat of such. Perhaps the stress of our current economic conditions is leading to more of these requests, in that the parties simply cannot tolerate being in the same home together. However, even in poor economic times, there is no authority for the proposition that one spouse has superior rights to possession and/or occupancy of a community home absent extenuating factors.

Continue reading "Impending California Divorce Does Not Lead to Automatic Kick-Out of Spouse" »

Bookmark and Share

August 4, 2010

California Proposition 8 Found Unconstitutional

A California appellate court has just ruled that Proposition 8, the state's recently enacted amendment to ban marriage between same-sex couples, has been found unconstitutional on multiple grounds.

More information to follow once the court's full opinion is released.

Continue reading "California Proposition 8 Found Unconstitutional" »

Bookmark and Share

July 14, 2010

Beware the Urban Legends of California Divorce

Those of us who practice divorce and family law in California for a living frequently hear our clients complain that their spouses have made one sort of threat or another... anything from "you'll never see the kids again" to "I'll make sure this divorce bankrupts you," and so on.

Thanks to San Diego family law attorney Paul Staley for his take on these threats, which he calls "urban legends" because they are frequently believed but mostly not true. I thought I'd share them here with readers of my blog because it is important to understand that these threats are, well... just threats. Keep in mind that there is a big difference between what your spouse says and what the Judge says. And guess which one is more important?

Here are the common urban legends per Attorney Staley:

1. "I'll quit my job before I pay you that much support." Not likely. This is usually an attempt to bluff you into a lower support amount. Ask your attorney whether you should "call" this bluff. Document the statement right away. Write down the date, circumstances and exact words used. Better yet, if the spouse sends this to you by e-mail or, in a letter, save it for use as evidence. argument.jpgJudges do not tolerate this kind of bullying and they can find interesting and painful ways to send that spouse the message.

2. "It doesn't make sense for us to be paying two lawyers; it's just a waste of money that we could otherwise keep. Let's just both use mine." Aside from the obvious conflict of interest here, the spouse making this plea wants to control you and the process by controlling how much advice and information you get. Don't fall for this. Good legal advice and representation may not be inexpensive, but often its value is priceless.

3. "You have no right to take what's mine away from me." Usually refers to a pension earned by the complaining spouse. The error is that it's not just his/hers: earned during the marriage, it belongs to both of you. Your request for half of that is fair and the law entitles you to it.

4. "I'm taking the children to North Carolina (or Texas, or some other place) and filing the case there." If the other parent makes this threat, and actually does move without your permission, it's time to get into Court quickly because they might actually get away with this, at least in part, if you wait too long to do something. There are different rules for which "jurisdictions" can do what, with regard to: children, property, and marital status.

5. "You'll never see the children again." Usually an attempt to get you to stay in the relationship. California law presumes frequent and continuing contact with both parents is a good thing, so this is seldom a legitimate threat.

6. "Your attorney is just running up your bill with all these documents he's demanding that I provide. Call him off." Any family law attorney is going to need to see documents which relate to your and your spouse's financial situation. Otherwise, the attorney can't advise you on what you should expect or demand. Trust your lawyer on this.

7. "You didn't work a day during our marriage, just stayed home and took care of the kids. Hell will freeze over before you get a dime of my retirement." Usually it's a husband who makes this threat, since stay-at-home moms still outnumber stay-at-home dads (about 4-1). A spouse making this threat has no power to make good on it, since the court can and will just order the employer directly to pay the stay-at-home parent.

8. "I'll go to jail before I pay support to you." Jail time is among several tools the judge has available to enforce a support order, but it's seldom necessary. This is a common bluff. For anyone with a paycheck, it's easy enough to extract support involuntarily, but most people just pay it.

9. "I'll only pay support if I know the money is going to the children. I want receipts for everything you spend that child support check on." California law does not require the supported parent/spouse to account to the other for how the money is spent. Period.

10. "If the court finds out how you've behaved, you'll never see the children." i.e., back off or the mud slinging begins. Family court judges aren't outraged by a lot of things your spouse thinks are outrageous: your promiscuity as a teenager, a several-years-past drug habit, infidelity, moderate drinking, etc. These are things which the judge realizes don't reflect poorly on your parenting qualifications, so he/she doesn't take them seriously.

11. "We'll do this like I say, or else...?" This legend is usually capped off with a threat of withholding money in the form of support and, sometimes, less frequently, a veiled or a direct threat of harm. The law exists to ensure justice and fairness as between adversaries of unequal strength, funding and sophistication. Attorneys work diligently to see that the law is applied to their clients' best advantage. This process works. Let it work for you.

12. "I'll litigate you into bankruptcy. I'd rather pay my lawyer than yours so don't expect me to compromise on anything." It is true, many spouses threaten this hoping you will give up and run. While this is unfortunate that people use such tactics, there are legal techniques to stop the spouse from going forward with this threat. A good attorney can push a case forward to trial. The court can sanction a delaying spouse employing these tactics, making them pay your attorneys fees.

Continue reading "Beware the Urban Legends of California Divorce" »

Bookmark and Share

July 8, 2010

Federal Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Found to be Unconstitutional

In two separate lawsuits heard by a federal court in Massachusetts, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 which defines marriage as "between a man and a woman" has today been deemed unconstitutional on two separate grounds.

The federal court held that DOMA interferes with a state's right to define marriage as it sees fit. It further held that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Although this ruling applies only to Massachusetts for now, it could have wide-ranging impact across the country.

In particular, the finding that DOMA violates the equal protection clause will be closely monitored by the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit in California alleging that Proposition 8, the law which defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman, is also unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in that case have argued that the California law is a violation of equal protection because it specifically seeks to exclude a target group of people of whom the voters disapproved.

It is expected that these two rulings will be appealed, but it is uncertain at this time how vigorously the Obama administration will attempt to overturn the court's rulings. Stay tuned, more developments are bound to happen soon.

Continue reading "Federal Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Found to be Unconstitutional" »

Bookmark and Share

June 24, 2010

Hire a Hit Man, Lose Out in Your Divorce

In a story reported by the Associated Press, a bill pending before the California legislature is intended to close a loophole in the state's "no-fault" divorce laws. Under California law, if you are convicted of murdering or attempting to murder your spouse, you cannot collect any financial reward from the divorce proceedings. gun.jpgBut, if you hire a hit man to do it, the law is silent.


"It's just a glaring case where California law as it is now can reward someone who plans vicious murder," said Democratic Assemblyman Marty Block, who introduced the bill, AB2674. "In a way, the current law rewards the spouse for committing this kind of crime against the person they're married to or in the process of divorcing."

The full article appears below:

Calif. bill would target spouses who hire hit men
June 14, 2010|By CATHY BUSSEWITZ, Associated Press Writer

The story behind the legislation reads like a movie pitch.

The wife of a Southern California police detective, distraught because she had lost custody of her children, tries to hire a hit man from the Vagos motorcycle gang to kill him.

Instead, gang members alert police, who disguise themselves as biker thugs and secretly tape a conversation with her, leading to the wife's arrest and ultimate conviction for solicitation of murder.

But later on, in divorce court, she is awarded half the couple's property, even though she tried to have her husband whacked. He then calls Sacramento, determined to change the divorce law.

A bill scheduled to be heard Tuesday in a state legislative committee seeks to close what its author says is a loophole in the state's no-fault divorce code. In part, the legislation will specify that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect financial rewards in divorce proceedings.

The bill was prompted by John Pomroy, a police detective in Pomona, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. His wife collected about $70,000 from their estate after she was released from prison in 2004.

"If you commit arson on your house, you don't get the insurance money. You go to prison and all sorts of things happen to you," Pomroy said in an interview. "But if you try to kill someone that is your spouse, the current law allows you to collect something."

State law says that if spouses are convicted of murdering or attempting to murder their husband or wife, they are not entitled to reap any financial benefits during divorce proceedings. But if they hire someone else to do the dirty deed for them, their victims' assets are not protected.

The bill would amend the law to include husbands or wives who solicit the murder of their spouse.

"It's just a glaring case where California law as it is now can reward someone who plans vicious murder," said Democratic Assemblyman Marty Block, who introduced the bill, AB2674. "In a way, the current law rewards the spouse for committing this kind of crime against the person they're married to or in the process of divorcing."

Divorce laws vary from state to state. In California, a couple's shared assets are generally split evenly during a divorce.

That's the case in most states, said Krystal Callaway Jaime, supervising attorney for the Family Protection Clinic at the University of California, Davis.

"This bill is very, very necessary," Jaime said. "It seems obscure, but this does happen more frequently than people realize."

After being married for a decade, Pomroy said his marriage dissolved when his wife became addicted to pain killers after injuring her foot in a dirt bike accident. She later turned to alcohol, and finally illegal drugs, he said.

He said they separated when she became physically abusive. He lived in the basement of the police department for a month after moving out of the couple's house and later gained custody of their children.

When his wife faced losing the children and her husband's monetary support, she solicited members of the Vagos motorcycle gang living down the street. She said she wanted them to kill her husband while he was on duty, Pomroy said.

"I think she felt like she had to hurry up and get rid of me, because she was going to lose our sons," Pomroy said.

The San Bernardino County district attorney's office said Pomroy's ex-wife pleaded guilty to soliciting others to murder her husband in early 2003.

An official at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla said Pomroy's ex-wife entered the prison in February 2003 and served time until she was paroled in March 2004. She was returned to prison twice since then and is currently on parole, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly but relayed the details of the woman's corrections department record.

Attempts to contact her were not successful.

Michael O'Brien, a Covina-based attorney who represented Pomroy's wife during the trial for solicitation of murder, agreed with the details of Pomroy's story.

But O'Brien said he doesn't believe Pomroy's wife was going to follow through with the murderous plot. He said she was broke, desperate and strung out after years of drug abuse, and couldn't afford to pay someone to kill Pomroy.

"She tried to steal a basket full of groceries for her family and got caught," he said. "She was at the end of her rope when these events took place."

During their separation, their house went into foreclosure and his wife said the cars were stolen, Pomroy said. His bank account, to which she had access, was drained. The only money he had left was in his pension account, and she was awarded half its value.

O'Brien said it was fair that Pomroy's wife got the money because she had supported him during the early years of their marriage by raising the children while he became a police officer.

But Pomroy, who still fears his ex-wife, disagreed.

"This Assembly bill is not going to award me anything retroactively; I'm not looking for that," he said. "I'm just trying to prevent some poor sap in the future who goes through this, to prevent him from losing his assets to somebody that's trying to kill him."

Continue reading "Hire a Hit Man, Lose Out in Your Divorce" »

Bookmark and Share

June 22, 2010

Flat Fee Divorce Comes to Northern California

Click Here For Official Press Release

Bay Area family law practice offers refreshing alternative to traditional divorce billing

Walnut Creek, CA – June 21, 2010 – Divorce is too expensive, fees are too unpredictable, and attorneys pad their bills to maximize profits. At least that’s the general sentiment shared by many divorce clients in California.

According to family law attorney Gary D. Sparks, there is a better way. Attorney Sparks, whose small family law practice has offices in Walnut Creek in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Vacaville just outside the Bay Area, is one of the first Northern California family law attorneys to forsake the traditional “billable hour” model in favor of flat fee (fixed fee) pricing for his clients.

“Many of my clients are concerned about their legal fees,” says Sparks, “and are worried that their family law case will put them into bankruptcy.” He continues, “More importantly, clients lay awake at night wondering how much their next bill will be, or how much that letter, phone call or email will cost. Flat fee billing removes the uncertainty from the process and gives clients the peace of mind and ability to know up front what their case is going to cost.”

Under the traditional hourly billing model, a family law attorney collects an initial retainer or security deposit – generally around $5,000 – and then bills against that retainer for every hour or fraction thereof. Then, some 14-15 hours later when the funds have run out, the attorney will demand to collect an additional retainer from the client. This cycle repeats until the case is complete, typically some $15,000 to $25,000 (or more) later.

On the other hand, under the flat fee model, the attorney quotes the client a fee in advance for the case, and that fee remains fixed for the remainder of the case unless some unanticipated event occurs. But even then, the attorney quotes the client a flat, fixed fee for that additional event. The base flat fee for an uncontested divorce begins at only $950, while the base flat fee for a contested divorce begins as low as $6,000.

Sparks explains, “The client’s base flat fee is based on several factors, including the size of the community property estate and whether or not there are businesses or professional practices to divide. To keep fees as low as possible, the base flat fee is quoted based on the assumption that the case will settle.” However, this is not always the case. “Sometimes a client needs to prepare a motion or defend against a motion and appear in Court. Other times a client may be deposed. Or the parties may need to seek the Court’s assistance with settlement. For each of these events, an additional flat-rate fee is quoted and applies.”

Flat fee pricing for family law cases represents a substantial value for clients and simplifies the process for both attorney and client. But it is important to understand the limitations of flat fee pricing ahead of time to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. Therefore, Sparks provides his clients with a detailed, comprehensive fee agreement that fully explains what is and what is not included.

Sparks concludes, “Clients are grateful that we are able to quote a fee for the case, giving them the assurance of knowing that everything necessary will be done to move the case forward and that the attorney is not doing unnecessary work or otherwise trying to maximize legal fees.”


CONTACT:

Gary D. Sparks
info@sparksfamilylaw.com
The Law Offices of Gary D. Sparks
2950 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
(925) 465-2500 or
(707) 398-6008


###

Bookmark and Share

May 24, 2010

Flat-Fee California Divorce Lawyer - A Refreshing Approach to Family Law

Concerned about your legal fees? You should be. The fact is that working with an California divorce or family law attorney can be expensive. However it doesn’t have to put you or your family into bankruptcy, nor does it have to keep you awake at night wondering how much your attorney’s next bill will be. There is a better way.

INTRODUCING FLAT-FEE (FIXED-FEE) PRICING
I am pleased to announce that we are one of the first Northern California family law firms to offer flat-fee, fixed-rate pricing for both contested and uncontested divorces. Flat-fee billing removes the uncertainty from the process and gives you the ability to know up front and in advance what your case is going to cost.

moneymatters.jpg In many cases, we are able to provide our clients with upfront, fixed fees for their cases. This includes uncontested divorces, basic and contested divorce settlements, and even court-based (litigated) cases in addition to our new online divorce coaching and flat-rate mediation plans. (We continue to offer traditional hourly billing for clients who prefer that option, and for those cases that simply do not lend themselves to fixed fees.)

Flat-fee pricing can provide peace of mind and has many advantages over traditional hourly billing. For one thing, it offers you the predictability of knowing in advance how much our services will cost without having to worry about the expense of each call, letter or email. It gives you the assurance of knowing that everything necessary will be done to move your case forward without the stress of wondering how much your legal bill will be each month. It permits you to be confident that your attorney is not doing unnecessary work or otherwise trying to maximize your legal fees.

OUR SERVICES INCLUDE:
- Consultations and Second Opinions
- Limited Scope Attorney Court Appearances
- Unbundled (A la Carte) Attorney Services – "Attorney Assisted Divorce"
- Uncontested Divorces
- Basic and Complex Divorce Settlements
- Court-based (Litigated) Cases
- Mediation Services
- Online Divorce Coaching
- Paternity, Annulments and Other Family Law Matters

Continue reading "Flat-Fee California Divorce Lawyer - A Refreshing Approach to Family Law" »

Bookmark and Share

Subscribe

Subscribe

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs