California Divorce and Family Law

Wife divorces husband to hold on to assets illegally obtained

In Chicago, a City Councilmen was convicted in the fall 2004 of coordinating an illegal project to buy votes for former Mayor Robert Pastrick's administration in the 1999 primary election by giving away free concrete driveways, patios and sidewalks. He was among a dozen former city officials and vendors convicted of misappropriating more than $24 million in public funds to pay for the concrete and free tree-trimming services used to curry favor with voters.

He fled the country days before his Feb. 25, 2005, sentencing and is believed to be hiding in Greece.

United States District Court Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. sentenced Frank Kollintzas in absentia to 11 years and four months in prison and granted a request by U.S. Attorney Joseph Van Bokkelen to order Kollintzas' assets forfeited to reimburse the city.

Joanna Kollintzas, his wife, objected to the seizure. She filed a petition in state court to dissolve her marriage in order to shelter the family's assets. She obtained a temporary restraining order forbidding the U.S. attorney's office from garnishing the money.

The court ruled this week the government's interest in seizing those assets is superior to Joanna Kollintzas' efforts to preserve them through divorce. Otherwise, spouses could shield property from federal taxation and seizure, Miller ruled.

Miller said the government could seize Kollintzas' investments; 25 percent of his retirement package from the School City of East Chicago School, where he was director of facilities; his city council and teacher's retirement benefits and wages he failed to collect; the cash value of five insurance polices; and cash in six checking and savings accounts. That amounts to over $533,000.

Via the Northwest Indiana Times.

How to deal with a divorce lawyer

Q: My wife and I are contemplating divorce. I have gotten all kinds of advice from family and friends about dealing with my wife and divorce lawyer, but all the advice has been different. I have found tips on the Internet about how to deal with some of the problems that face me, but not about how to deal with a divorce lawyer. Are there any secrets?

A: Dealing with divorce and divorce lawyers is not much different than taking a trip without first plotting out the route. If you go to a matrimonial lawyer without specific objectives or goals in mind, and think he or she can fix it for you, you'll be disappointed. Given a specific set of facts, lawyers are trained to apply the law and advise clients about ways to attain specific goals - or at least some of them.

Here are some basic guidelines:

1. Gather as much of your financial and other information as possible before you go to see your lawyer. This includes tax returns and schedules, financial statements, budget documents, and the like from at least the last five years.

2. Make sure your fee arrangement is in writing, that you understand it before you sign, and that everyone understands how you will pay your bill. Generally, lawyers are not allowed to take a percentage of what is recovered for you in a divorce case, so expect to pay by the hour.

3. Since you won't always need to talk to your lawyer when you have questions, meet and get to know the paralegal or secretary so you can give and get information billed at lower rates.

4. Write out your questions, then make an appointment with the lawyer and take notes about what you're told.

5. If there are billing questions, talk to the billing clerk or the secretary who handles this aspect of the business. The lawyer should be the last resort.

6. Photocopies made at the lawyer's office may cost you 25 or more cents per page, sometimes plus the time of the person making the copies. So, for voluminous copies, consider making your own at copy shops to save money.

7. If you don't understand something, ask. And if you have a problem with the way your lawyer is handling your case, also ask. Don't allow the issue to fester.

8. Your lawyer should keep you reasonably informed about the status of your case by sending you copies of what goes out of the office. Then, you'll be less likely to make emergency calls. Remember: spur-of-the-moment calls just to find out what's going on can get expensive.

9. Don't second-guess your lawyer based on the advice of friends and family. But, if you feel strongly about a point, you are perfectly within your rights to seek a second opinion. Let your lawyer know that you feel this way.

10. Remember that your lawyer works for you. After you have been fully informed and have reviewed your options, you and your lawyer should decide upon a course of action suitable to your situation.

11. Don't be surprised if your case takes time to get resolved. Although everyone is in a hurry to complete his/her case, you will have no control over scheduling issues that can keep your case in limbo for a long time.

12. If your lawyer promises or guarantees you a result, get another lawyer.

From the Fort Wayne News Sentinal.

How much is my divorce going to cost?

As many people know, a divorce can be very expensive, both financially and emotionally. You can try, however, to keep the financial costs down by getting an estimate from your attorney of the total fees or you can work with a lawyer who charges a flat fee.

Michael Sherman at the Alabama Family Law Blog has an excellent post about the virtues of flat fees. I couldn't agree more with his opinion:

What will my divorce cost?

This is a question you should ask your lawyer at the initial consultation. If you are working for a lawyer that charges fixed fees like our firm does (also known as flat fees), then they can tell you exactly what the fee will be. But, even if you are working with a lawyer that charges by the hour they should be able to give you the amount of their hourly rate, the amount of the retainer and a reasonable estimate of the total fees that will be incurred. If they can't or won't then go somewhere else.

In fact, I would not hire a lawyer that is not willing to represent you in a divorce on a fixed fee. I have a strong opinion about fixed fees vs. hourly billing. I am currently putting an article together that will go into this in much more detail, but I will speak very briefly to the issue here.

Why would you hire someone to handle your divorce case that can't quote you a specific, total fee? Many lawyers will say they can't quote a flat fee on a divorce because there are too many variables to accurately estimate a fair fee. That is nonsense. There are many variables involved in building a house, but when you contract to build one, there is a set price established on the front end and agreed to by both parties. If there is unforeseen work needed, a change order is prepared. Simple, effective, fair.

The bottom line is that hourly billing (coupled with the high pressure put on lawyers to bill more hours) places an incentive on a lawyer to engage in protracted litigation. That is not in the client's best interests (particularly in the emotional turmoil of a divorce). Additionally, the client must feel like they are writing a blank check to the lawyer (because they are). Not to mention the fact that with hourly billing you are charged (usually in 6-15 minute increments depending on the lawyer) for every phone call, every e-mail, every meeting, etc. Is that any way to encourage open communication (which is absolutely necessary for effective representation)? Of course not.

I guess you get the point. My advice is not to hire a lawyer that is not willing to work on a fixed fee basis. I realize that is a controversial statement. It is one with which many of my fellow lawyers would vigorously disagree. But, I have been working on a fixed fee basis for over 10 years. I have been doing it exclusively for about 3 years. My clients love it because it takes away an unknown factor, it allows open, regular communication, and they never receive a $150 bill for a 30 minute phone call. I love it because I can focus less on tracking my time and more on resolving my clients problems (not to mention there are no such things as accounts receivable in my office).

Rebound Marriages No More Likely to End in Divorce

Many self-help books and well-meaning friends and relatives offer this advice to newly divorced friends: Don't marry on the rebound. Don't rush into or commit to a serious relationship prematurely. Wait until you are good and ready.

However, according to new research by Nicholas Wolfinger, associate professor in the University of Utah's Department of Family and Consumer Studies, "There is no relationship between 'the rebound marriage"—that is, a marriage that quickly follows on the heels of the end of another—and divorce. Rebounding into a second marriage is no more or less likely to increase the chance of another divorce than if a person waits a longer period of time.”

Wolfinger, author of Understanding the Divorce Cycle: The Children of Divorce in Their Own Marriages, published last year, notes that counseling against a rebound marriage, which, he says, “is intuitive” to most people, perpetuates the myth that marriages will end if one or both parties marry soon after a divorce.

“If you rush into a new relationship, others usually interpret it as you are not ready or that you are overly eager or that you haven’t searched long enough for a new partner. He will present his findings this week at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, in Los Angeles.

For the study, Wolfinger measured new relationship formation from the time the person remarried or started living with someone who eventually became their spouse. “Many second marriages are preceded by cohabitation,” he says. “You can understand the rationale—‘Let’s live together first’ or ‘Let’s not go through the fancy white dress wedding.’

Many factors that put first marriages at risk—lower levels of education and coming from a divorced family—are also challenges the second time around. “Second marriages have a number of additional factors working against them—the difficulties step kids represent as well as the fact that the second marriage is a population that has shown its willingness to get divorced. They have done it once and, in essence, they are willing to do it again,” he says.

Wolfinger says research indicates that many of the disruptions associated with divorce, like residential mobility, take place within a year or two. Much of the clinical literature on divorce, however, Wolfinger notes, “is vague in how long emotional recovery takes. It is safer to say different people recover at different rates,” he says.

From Physorg.com.

Ridiculous lawsuit of the day: Man filing for divorce sues dating site for discrimination

John Claassen wants a date so badly he's suing for one.

He's taking eHarmony.com to court, because the popular online matchmaker refused to find him the perfect mate.

Why? Because he is married.

Technically, Claassen, 36, says he is legally separated. But that's not good enough for eHarmony, which says it is in the business of matching singles "free of relationship commitments." That puts him in cyber-dating limbo.

"Most people don't file a suit to get a date," Claassen said Friday after filing a civil rights suit last week in Alameda County Superior Court. "If I had my druthers, I'd be divorced by now. I'm emotionally in a different state than I am legally," the 36-year-old Emeryville lawyer said.

Claassen alleges eHarmony is discriminating against him on the basis of his marital status. He and his wife of eight years separated last May, and he expects the divorce to be final within two months. When he reached marital status on eHarmony's online compatibility profile, he responded truthfully: "legally separated."

But eHarmony says its policy is clear: No marrieds need apply.

Citing California civil code, section 51, Claassen alleges eHarmony, based in Pasadena, is breaking state law because it is denying him access to its matching service based on marital status. He seeks $12,000 in civil penalties.

In its defense, the cyber love-finder cites customer surveys and focus group testing that show a vast majority of its potential users want their matches to be divorced, widowed or never married at all.

EHarmony customer service explained to Claassen in an e-mail that "we have to create rules based on what's best for most people, most of the time." And they welcome him back ... "once your divorce is final." But Claassen isn't waiting.

He is "miffed."

"After taking two hours to fill out their online profile," he said, "a message popped up at the end saying they would not find me a match."

Laugh out loud at the article in the Contra Costa Times.

Some States Rate Child Care Facilities To Boost Quality

Although California has not decided to begin rating child care facilities, other states, such as Pennsylvania and Colorado,  have begun offering a kind of Zagat guide to child care.

Just as if they were restaurants or hotels, child-care concerns are being assigned star ratings by state regulators. Both child-care centers and family child-care homes, where a sitter takes several children into her home, post the ratings on front doors or walls and sometimes in advertising. The ratings are fast becoming the linchpin for states' drive to raise child-care quality.

"It's the most significant step in improving quality that we've seen in years, and it has absolutely caught fire across the country," says Steffanie Clothier, child-care program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver. "Over the last several years, it has gone from a few states designing new systems, to half the country looking at" doing so.

The ratings systems evaluate facilities on such criteria as low child-adult ratios, teacher credentials, curriculum, group size, and the safety and richness of the environment. Some of the criteria have been linked in research with better outcomes in children. Most states rate both child-care centers and preschools.

The state ratings help fill an information gap. In the past, the primary gauge of quality has been accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, a nonprofit professional group in Washington, D.C., whose seal of approval is regarded as the gold standard by parents, educators and facilities. But NAEYC accreditation can take years to attain; only an estimated 8% of U.S. child-care centers and preschools have earned it. While many states use NAEYC standards in setting top criteria, the tiered state rating systems provide information about facilities working their way up to accreditation.

The ratings "give parents tools they have lacked in the past," says Linda Smith of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies in Arlington, Va., a nonprofit group of 800 child-care agencies that have put the rating systems to work. These agencies, findable at www.ChildCareAware.org, make the ratings available by phone or on the Web.

Child-care officials urge parents to use the star ratings as a basis for questioning providers. If a center is rated lower because of some flaw a parent doesn't care much about -- for example, a lack of up-to-date toys or books -- but ranks high on traits the parent values, a lower rating might not be a problem.

There's evidence the ratings systems are improving quality. In Oklahoma, the first state to set up a rating system, 58% of all child-care slots in the state are in facilities rated in the top two tiers, up from 30% in 2003. In Tennessee, where provider participation in star ratings is mandatory, 50% of facilities have earned a top rating, up from 30% in 2002. At the same time, numbers of low-ranked facilities are shrinking.

To Kathi Caber of State College, Pa., who last year moved her two-year-old son from an unrated child-care center to one with a high star rating, the difference is startling. While her son used to cry daily upon leaving for child care, he now looks forward to going and is learning fast from trained teachers using a planned curriculum. "When I look at the difference," Ms. Caber says, "it's night and day."

Subscription needed at the Wall Street Journal.

Supreme Court rules police search is not allowed when only one spouse consents to search

The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both of the partners present agree to let them in.

The 5-to-3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.

The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had said police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.

Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives or boyfriends and girlfriends keep police nationwide busy; in Washington, for example, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved allegations of domestic violence.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since joining the court, said the ruling's ''cost" would be ''great."

Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court had previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday's decision.

Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant surrenders a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts said. ''The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.

The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived, she told them where they could find cocaine.

For more about the ruling, go to the Boston Globe.

Millionaire stays jailed on contempt in divorce case after 11 years

A millionaire jailed for more than a decade for contempt in his divorce case continues to block efforts to trace his missing assets and should remain jailed, a three-judge panel ruled.

H. Beatty Chadwick, 68, is believed to hold the record for time served in a U.S. civil contempt case.

He was jailed in 1995 for allegedly hiding $2.5 million in overseas banks during a bitter divorce. Since then, a series of judges have told him he could go free once he tells the court what happened to the money, but Chadwick hasn't budged, the judges said.

Chadwick, a former corporate lawyer, maintains he lost the money in an overseas investment. Experts say it would now be worth more than $8 million.

In the latest ruling in the meandering case, a three-judge Delaware County panel concluded that the most recent court-ordered financial probe did little to resolve questions about the money. Chadwick, while claiming cooperation, did not give investigators full power to follow the money trail overseas, the judges said.

"Defendant Chadwick's lack of cooperation undermined the entire investigation, invalidating any conclusions or recommendations," the judges wrote in their ruling last month.

The ruling kicked aside the recommendation of a retired judge who believed Chadwick was being cooperative and should be released.

In contrast, the presiding judges found little change in Chadwick's stance.

Chadwick's lawyer, Michael Malloy, said Tuesday he will appeal. He said that lawyers for Chadwick's ex-wife, painter Barbara Jean "Bobbie" Chadwick, did not rebut their expert testimony. She now lives in Maine under a different name.

Read it all in the Arizona Republic.

Divorce bill pulled off committee calendar

A hearing on a bill that would require a judge to redact a couple's financial information from divorce court records was postponed Tuesday by the author.

Aides to the Assembly Judiciary Committee said Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, requested that the bill be removed from the committee's agenda. A new hearing date hasn't been set.

Supporters say the legislation would protect privacy and prevent identity theft, but opponents see it as a threat to open courts. Under Murray's bill, the financial information would have to be edited out of the records if one of the spouses requested it.

From the Ventura County Star.

Financial records redaction bill gets a hearing today and newspapers are against it

SB1015 will come before the Assembly Judiciary Committee today for a hearing.

As you may remember from my previous post , the bill concerns what financial records can be disclosed for public inspection in divorce or legal separation cases. In the Assembly summary's language, the bill says that a family court "shall order redacted" from public review "the parties' financial assets, liabilities, income or expenses" and addresses of residences.

It should come as no surprise that newspapers around California are against the bill's passage. For example, the Orange County Register  has an editorial in today's edition against SB1015.

Newspapers want access to the financial records of newsworthy individuals who may be in the middle of a divorce. It is just one reason that wealthy individuals and celebrities are opting for private divorces.

The Daily Breeze takes a look at the controversy.