.jpg)
Family law-related question
Some judges require a legal separation -- Victoria Kaufman.
Welcome to my hell. (JK...kind of...) I only have 2 cases left and one
poor guy is going through this "variations on separation" theme and the wife
is sharing NONE of her assets but I guess if they get divorced she will have
to so it is a big mess!
1489 E. Colorado Blvd. #207
Pasadena, CA 91106
(626) 507-8090
"Bankruptcy, Michael, is nature's do-over. It's a fresh start, a clean
slate."
"Like the witness protection program!"
"Exactly."
2010/3/3 Mark J. Markus
>
>
> No, that much I do know. I'm not sure what a legal separation
> accomplished that the stated intent of the two parties doesn't.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
> On 3/3/2010 12:09 PM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>
> ps: Mark - I'm no Family Law expert, but wouldnl't a legal separation be
> necessary to establish that debts are now separate property? Assuming
> that's true, since that's not present here, I'd guess that moving away and
> back together didn't re-transmute anything.. it's all debt of the
> community. [update without edit: went back and researched it -- Family Code
> 771 says it's "parting of ways with no present intent to resume marriage..."
> *Marriage of Hardin* 38 CA4th 448 (1995). At least one case says not
> "separated" under Sec. 771(a) where one moves out and conduct doesn't seem
> to match. *Marriage of von der Nuell*, 23 CA4th 730 (1994).
>
> As an aside, according to *Marriage of Norviel*, 102 CA4th 1152, 1162
> (2002), physical separation is an indispensible threshold, but as David
> says, separate dwellings are not essential (*Norviel* at 1163-64). I
> gather you'll be arguing the facts according to factors and standards set
> forth in *Norviel* and those that follow it.
>
> Hale
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Hale Andrew Antico [mailto:bk.lawyer@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:51 AM
> *To:* 'cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com'
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> Won't the OUST be concerned about this, since two "single-household"
> separated spouses living together would each qualify for Chapter 7 at
> $45k/yr salary where together at $90k/yr for 2-person household they
> wouldn't? If I was OUST, I'd ask for evidence, and living together, with all
> utility bills going to the same address, etc, short of gov't inspection
> seeking a "War of the Roses" or Brady Bunch line drawn down the middle of
> the house, I'm not sure how debtors would prove that they live together but
> are somehow separated.
>
> Hale
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *David A. Tilem
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:51 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> No. Spouses can be "separated" and still living under the same roof.
>
>
> *David A. Tilem*
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist** *
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
>
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:58 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
>
>
> If spouses who were separated (living apart) for over a year, intending
> to divorce, move back in together for financial reasons, are they then
> considered still "separated"? Are debts incurred by one spouse while
> living apart still community debts? (in other words, does moving back in
> with each other re-transmute the community)?
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of
> Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the
> use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
Some judges require a legal separation -- Victoria Kaufman.Welcome to my hell. (JK...kind of...) I only have 2 cases left and one poor guy is going through this "variations on separation" theme and the wife is sharing NONE of her assets but I guess if they get divorced she will have to so it is a big mess!
-- Amy Clark Kleinpeter1489 E. Colorado Blvd. #207Pasadena, CA 91106(626) 507-8090"Bankruptcy, Michae
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
You're referring to the non-filing spouse's debts, or the debtor's
transfers to spouse?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
On 3/3/2010 5:32 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
>
> No question about that one. I would absolutely, positively list them
> - as disputed.
> *David A. Tilem*
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist**^* **
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:26 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> In my current case, that isn't an issue. They're both unemployed and
> have been for over 6 months. My concern is intraspousal transfers and
> whether I have to list debts incurred by the non-filing spouse over
> the past couple of years while they were ostensibly separated.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web:http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means athttp://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/09/debt-relief-agencies-definition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
> On 3/3/2010 11:50 AM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>> Won't the OUST be concerned about this, since two "single-household"
>> separated spouses living together would each qualify for Chapter 7 at
>> $45k/yr salary where together at $90k/yr for 2-person household they
>> wouldn't? If I was OUST, I'd ask for evidence, and living together,
>> with all utility bills going to the same address, etc, short of gov't
>> inspection seeking a "War of the Roses" or Brady Bunch line drawn
>> down the middle of the house, I'm not sure how debtors would prove
>> that they live together but are somehow separated.
>> Hale
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
>> *On Behalf Of *David A. Tilem
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:51 AM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>>
>> No. Spouses can be "separated" and still living under the same roof.
>> *David A. Tilem*
>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist**^* **
>> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
>> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
>> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
>> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
>> Specialization.
>> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
>> *On Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:58 AM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>>
>> If spouses who were separated (living apart) for over a year,
>> intending
>> to divorce, move back in together for financial reasons, are they
>> then
>> considered still "separated"? Are debts incurred by one spouse while
>> living apart still community debts? (in other words, does moving
>> back in
>> with each other re-transmute the community)?
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
>> this means at
>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/
>> )
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
>> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
>> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
>> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
>> the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
>> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
>> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
>> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
>> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
No question about that one. I would absolutely, positively list them - as
disputed.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Mark J. Markus
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:26 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
In my current case, that isn't an issue. They're both unemployed and have
been for over 6 months. My concern is intraspousal transfers and whether I
have to list debts incurred by the non-filing spouse over the past couple of
years while they were ostensibly separated.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw. com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
http://bklaw.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hale:
Debts are not "separate property".
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Hale Andrew Antico
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:09 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
ps: Mark - I'm no Family Law expert, but wouldnl't a legal separation be
necessary to establish that debts are now separate property? Assuming
that's true, since that's not present here, I'd guess that moving away and
back together didn't re-transmute anything.. it's all debt of the community.
[update without edit: went back and researched it -- Family Code 771 says
it's "parting of ways with no present intent to resume marriage..." Marriage
of Hardin 38 CA4th 448 (1995). At least one case says not "separated" under
Sec. 771(a) where one moves out and conduct doesn't seem to match. Marriage
of von der Nuell, 23 CA4th 730 (1994).
As an aside, according to Marriage of Norviel, 102 CA4th 1152, 1162 (2002),
physical separation is an indispensible threshold, but as David says,
separate dwellings are not essential (Norviel at 1163-64). I gather you'll
be arguing the facts according to factors and standards set forth in Norviel
and those that follow it.
Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
It's a question of proof, but the law is clear that they can be separated
and still live in the same house.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Hale Andrew Antico
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:51 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
Won't the OUST be concerned about this, since two "single-household"
separated spouses living together would each qualify for Chapter 7 at
$45k/yr salary where together at $90k/yr for 2-person household they
wouldn't? If I was OUST, I'd ask for evidence, and living together, with all
utility bills going to the same address, etc, short of gov't inspection
seeking a "War of the Roses" or Brady Bunch line drawn down the middle of
the house, I'm not sure how debtors would prove that they live together but
are somehow separated.
Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I don't believe it would be necessary to reflect the transfer in SOFA #10.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Mark J. Markus
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:28 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
Thanks, David. If one spouse transfers money to the other under this
scenario, is that something that should be listed in SFA #10 or is this just
"ordinary support" between them? (there's also a child living with them)
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw. com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
http://bklaw.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
No, that much I do know. I'm not sure what a legal separation
accomplished that the stated intent of the two parties doesn't.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
On 3/3/2010 12:09 PM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>
>
> ps: Mark - I'm no Family Law expert, but wouldnl't a legal separation
> be necessary to establish that debts are now separate property?
> Assuming that's true, since that's not present here, I'd guess that
> moving away and back together didn't re-transmute anything.. it's all
> debt of the community. [update without edit: went back and researched
> it -- Family Code 771 says it's "parting of ways with no present
> intent to resume marriage..." _Marriage of Hardin_ 38 CA4th 448
> (1995). At least one case says not "separated" under Sec. 771(a)
> where one moves out and conduct doesn't seem to match. _Marriage of
> von der Nuell_, 23 CA4th 730 (1994).
> As an aside, according to _Marriage of Norviel_, 102 CA4th 1152, 1162
> (2002), physical separation is an indispensible threshold, but as
> David says, separate dwellings are not essential (_Norviel_ at
> 1163-64). I gather you'll be arguing the facts according to factors
> and standards set forth in _Norviel_ and those that follow it.
> Hale
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Hale Andrew Antico [mailto:bk.lawyer@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:51 AM
> *To:* 'cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com'
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> Won't the OUST be concerned about this, since two
> "single-household" separated spouses living together would each
> qualify for Chapter 7 at $45k/yr salary where together at $90k/yr
> for 2-person household they wouldn't? If I was OUST, I'd ask for
> evidence, and living together, with all utility bills going to the
> same address, etc, short of gov't inspection seeking a "War of the
> Roses" or Brady Bunch line drawn down the middle of the house, I'm
> not sure how debtors would prove that they live together but are
> somehow separated.
> Hale
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *David A. Tilem
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:51 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> No. Spouses can be "separated" and still living under the
> same roof.
> *David A. Tilem*
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist**^* **
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of
> Certification
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:58 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> If spouses who were separated (living apart) for over a year,
> intending
> to divorce, move back in together for financial reasons, are
> they then
> considered still "separated"? Are debts incurred by one spouse
> while
> living apart still community debts? (in other words, does
> moving back in
> with each other re-transmute the community)?
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
> this means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the
> law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The
> information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If
> you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy,
> distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with
> requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S.
> tax advice contained in this communication (or in any
> attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot
> be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In my current case, that isn't an issue. They're both unemployed and
have been for over 6 months. My concern is intraspousal transfers and
whether I have to list debts incurred by the non-filing spouse over the
past couple of years while they were ostensibly separated.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
On 3/3/2010 11:50 AM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>
>
> Won't the OUST be concerned about this, since two "single-household"
> separated spouses living together would each qualify for Chapter 7 at
> $45k/yr salary where together at $90k/yr for 2-person household they
> wouldn't? If I was OUST, I'd ask for evidence, and living together,
> with all utility bills going to the same address, etc, short of gov't
> inspection seeking a "War of the Roses" or Brady Bunch line drawn down
> the middle of the house, I'm not sure how debtors would prove that
> they live together but are somehow separated.
> Hale
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *David A. Tilem
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:51 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> No. Spouses can be "separated" and still living under the same roof.
> *David A. Tilem*
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist**^* **
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark J. Markus
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:58 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Family law-related question
>
> If spouses who were separated (living apart) for over a year,
> intending
> to divorce, move back in together for financial reasons, are they
> then
> considered still "separated"? Are debts incurred by one spouse while
> living apart still community debts? (in other words, does moving
> back in
> with each other re-transmute the community)?
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="windows-1251"
By declaration. There testimony is still admissible evidence.
Nancy Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
ps: Mark - I'm no Family Law expert, but wouldnl't a legal separation be
necessary to establish that debts are now separate property? Assuming
that's true, since that's not present here, I'd guess that moving away and
back together didn't re-transmute anything.. it's all debt of the community.
[update without edit: went back and researched it -- Family Code 771 says
it's "parting of ways with no present intent to resume marriage..." Marriage
of Hardin 38 CA4th 448 (1995). At least one case says not "separated" under
Sec. 771(a) where one moves out and conduct doesn't seem to match. Marriage
of von der Nuell, 23 CA4th 730 (1994).
As an aside, according to Marriage of Norviel, 102 CA4th 1152, 1162 (2002),
physical separation is an indispensible threshold, but as David says,
separate dwellings are not essential (Norviel at 1163-64). I gather you'll
be arguing the facts according to factors and standards set forth in Norviel
and those that follow it.
Hale
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.