This one is a bit complicated so follow along:

“Security freeze” law allowing California consumers to prevent dissemination of their credit reports, which contained excessive restrictions and that was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff credit reporting agency who provided consumer credit reports to landlords and property managers, was not invalid on its face; although statute violated plaintiff’s free speech rights by preventing dissemination of information contained in public records, it was conceivable that statute would validly apply to restrict dissemination of fraudulent misrepresentation in a credit report. U.D. Registry, Inc. v. State, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 647.

So, there was a credit reporting firm who specialized in reporting eviction actions on credit reports given to landlords and property management companies. They were told not to give out those credit reports if the consumer requested them not to. They said their right of free speech was violated. The court said yes, it was, but the court did not want them giving account potentially false information.

The reason this can happen is that an eviction action can take longer than the 60 days after filing in which the matter is “sealed.” If you are the tenant, and you get an award in your favor, against the landlord, you could have still had an eviction reported due to it’s filing – not the outcome. While other lawsuits can be entered upon filing, the legislature want eviction actions entered only after disposition.

Tags: Legal News // Add Comment »

The clerk of the court can not refuse to file a document simply because there is a pending application for fee waiver. Lezama-Carillo v. Miller, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 671

Tags: Legal News // Add Comment »

The court upheld that imputing a 3% rate of return on a $2.9 million stock portofolio, rather than the acutal 1.6% it made, was not abuse of discretion; 3% was reasonable amounted supported by common knowledge and common sense, and thus was more accurate reflection of value of assets.

Their decision was based on:

The “earning capacity doctrine” for determining child support embraces the parent’s ability to earn from capital as well as labor; just as a parrent cannot shirk his parental obligations by reducing his earnings capacity through unemployment or underemployment, he cannot shirk the obligation to support his child by underutilizing income-producing assets.
In re Marriage of Schlafly, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 398

Tags: Family Law and Domestic Partnership in CA // Add Comment »

An order modifying child custody or visitation is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with the precise measure being whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the “best interest” of the child. Niko v. Foreman, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 398

Tags: Family Law and Domestic Partnership in CA // Add Comment »

First the legislature says:

Presumed fathers, like mothers, usually have a statutory to veto adoption by withholding consent regardless of what the court believes to be in the child’s best interest. Cal.App. 4 Dist 2007

and

An unwed father who has no statutory right to block a third party adoption by withholding consent may nevertheless have a constitutional right to do so under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby to preserve his opportunity to develop a parental relationship with his child, provided he proves that he has promptly come forward and demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities. West’s Ann.Cal.Fam. Code section 7611.

Then there’s the exception, as usual

Even if man who is not presumed fatherfiles petition to establish paternity of child subject to adoption proceeding, adoption will proceed over this objection if either mother or party seeking to adopt child successfully petitions for termination of his parental status. Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2007

Additionally,

An unwed father seeking to block a third party adoption cannot compensate for his failure to promptly come forward to offer support by attempting to assume his parental responsibilities many months after learning of the pregnancy. In re Adoption of Arthur M., 57 Cal.Rptr. 3d 259

Tags: Family Law and Domestic Partnership in CA // 1 Comment »

This case, decided in 2007, and confirmed at the appellate level explain the division of stock in a California divorce:

The in-kind division. After considering the economic consequences to Tim and Nina from the various alternatives, the court exercised its broad discretion to divide in kind the 50,511 shares of CGC stock that Tim and Nina purchased during their marriage. This in-kind division–the preferred approach under California law–was well within the bounds of reason. Nina will receive half of what the marital community actually acquired and owned, as California law requires. Nina and Tim will each receive what they contractually agreed to when they purchased the stock. And if CGC redeems Nina’s stock pursuant to its valid stock restriction agreement, the $23.5 million payment to Nina will reasonably approximate CGC’s growth during her marriage, and will be based on a formula price that comports with California valuation standards, that governs all CGC shareholders, and that applied when Nina and Tim purchased the stock.

What the wife asked for:

In contrast, the court would have abused its discretion had it adopted Nina’s approach: Force Tim to take all the stock and–on the basis of a valuation methodology unsupported by any authority and contrary to California law–make an equalizing payment representing half of the next sixteen years of presumed dividends and formula-price appreciation. Among other improprieties, Nina’s speculative methodology assumes that *2 Tim will work at CGC ten more years and then fully retire–proving that what Nina impermissibly seeks is a portion of Tim’s projected postseparation earnings based on his projected postseparation work. And her methodology fails even ignoring its legal flaws: “To force upon [a husband] the requirement that he continue to work for many more years in order to realize his share of the community property [i]s unjust and unreasonable, particularly where [the] wife [i]s allowed to receive and enjoy her share immediately.” ( In re Marriage of Rives (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 138, 156 ( Rives).)

No, wife’s don’t get to bite off a chunk of the future earnings of ex-husbands! Ladies, if you want it, stay married. (BTW I’m a woman and still don’t agree with it.)

Excerpted from In re Marriage of Nina RITTER, Respondent and Appellant, v. Timothy 2007 WL 1685963 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Tags: Family Law and Domestic Partnership in CA // 1 Comment »

I sat in on some traffic cases in the Simi Valley courthouse in Ventura County California recently and was shocked at the fines for various traffic infractions. For instance: Coasting thru a stop sign: $152; being in the HOV only lane of a on-ramp when the meters are on: $429; ignoring a red arrow: $352; driving without insurance: $531; driving on the right shoulder: $152; commercial vehicle in restricted left lane: $481 but he had multiple previous offenses. It would have been cheaper for the person without insurance to pay for a year of insurance than the fine.

Also in the courtroom, there was a huge sign explaining the minimum costs/fines for driving under the influence: $1801 fine, $1055 court fee, 3 years probation, 48 hours in jail or 5 days of work release, and Alcohol School Level 1. Folks, you could take a cab from Santa Barbara all the way to Los Angeles airport for less than this. Don’t DRINK and DRIVE!

Tags: Legal News // Add Comment »

Thank you for visiting my blog where I will regale with stories of the unbelievable and stupid things that happen in the world of law.

Tags: Legal News // Add Comment »

I will be updating this at least once a week so be sure to come back often and see what’s new.

Tags: Legal News // Add Comment »