.jpg)
"phony" wedding--bad faith?
Yes, I believe that is her issue. She was particularly incensed that the phony wedding was announced on Facebook and they even registered as newlyweds with Macy's. But that hardly seems like "bad faith" in a Chapter 13 context.
>
> David:
>
>
>
> It seems to me that you haven't figured out what the question is yet. Is the judge upset that new G/F's income was not included on the schedules? That's a different issue, of course. Pat's comments are correct.
>
>
>
> Vernon L. Ellicott, Esq.
>
> Certified Family Law Specialist
>
> California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization
>
> A Bankruptcy and Family Law Firm
>
> Law Offices of Vernon L. Ellicott
>
> 100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 147
>
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-8125
>
> (805) 446-6262 Phone
>
> (661) 222-2922 Phone
>
> (805) 446-6264 Fax
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information from the LAW OFFICES OF VERNON L. ELLICOTT that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, or by telephone at (805) 446-6262, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments and all copies of any kind, without reading them or saving them in any way. Thank you.
>
>
>
> A bad day on the bike is better than a good day on the golf course.
>
>
>
dbcommons
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:29 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: "phony" wedding--bad faith?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Pat: According to the divorce attorney, they are legally divorced and just fighting over support and equalization payments. The bk judge seemed most upset by the fact that debtor and girlfriend are living together and held a phony ceremony (I realize that they are clearly not married under CA law) so girlfriend's income cannot be included in the bankruptcy (other than contributions towards household expenses, which seem to have been quite conscientiously kept separate) or for determination of support in the divorce case.
>
> From what she said, I believe the judge's objection was the last one you suggested below.
>
> As I said earlier, from my perspective that just seems like prudent planning and not any kind of bad faith, but I've now spent hours looking for something on point and have found absolutely nothing to put into the requested brief.
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com , "Patrick T. Green" wrote:
> >
> > David:
> >
> >
> >
> > I assuming they did not get a bifurcated judgment which granted single
> > status to the parties while reserving property division issues, and
> > therefore the parties are still married.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not sure what points of law the judge wants briefed, so I will address
> > those that should matter: is the client married to the woman he is living
> > with or the one who is complaining.
> >
> >
> >
> > The validity of a marriage and therefore the existence of the marriage is a
> > matter of state law. CA Fam Code 300 et seq addresses the steps necessary
> > to be validly married in CA.
> >
> >
> >
> > A second "marriage" with or without a license, does not terminate the
> > original marriage, but the attempt to marry again is void ab initio, not
> > voidable. CA Fam. Code 2201(a)(1). As a void marriage, nothing can be
> > done by anyone, including a judge, to make it a marriage.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no common law marriage in CA. Eldon v. Sheldon (1998) 46 Cal.3d
> > 267, 275. Even if there was, it would not trump the bigamy statute.
> >
> >
> >
> > Avoid using the term ex-wife if he is still married. She is his wife. Your
> > judge may already be confused by this.
> >
> >
> >
> > I cannot divine what your judge thinks is bad faith. That he is not yet
> > divorced? That he is cohabiting with someone while still married to another
> > woman? That he and his current girlfriend chose to have some kind of
> > commitment ceremony while the wheels of justice turned ever so slowly in the
> > family law court?
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> >
> > Patrick T. Green
> >
> > Attorney at Law
> >
> > Fitzgerald & Green
> >
> > 1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
> >
> > Pasadena, CA 91106
> >
> > Tel: 626-449-8433
> >
> > Fax: 626-449-0565
> >
> > pat@
> >
> >
> >
:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of
> > dbcommons
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:14 AM
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] "phony" wedding--bad faith?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Client in Chapter 13 has been in divorce proceeding, still not concluded,
> > for about 3 years. Moved in with new girlfriend a year or so ago. They had a
> > well-publicized "wedding ceremony" (allegedly for the benefit of his
> > children) although they did not get legally married (no license) because new
> > gf wanted nothing to do with the divorce. Maintain separate checking
> > accounts, household contributions, etc. There is an equalization payment
> > owed by client to ex.
> >
> > Subsequently filed Ch13 for client and ex-wife objected that new "wife" not
> > contributing. Judge (RR) seemed incensed at this and wants the issue
> > briefed. From my perspective, client's conduct represented fair and
> > reasonable divorce planning, and also appropriate planning for a bankruptcy
> > (although that did not come until later). But I am having a devil of a time
> > finding anything at all on point.
> >
> > Would greatly welcome your thoughts and suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks, David Commons
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
David:
It seems to me that you haven't figured out what the question is yet. Is the judge upset that new G/F's income was not included on the schedules? That's a different issue, of course. Pat's comments are correct.
Vernon L. Ellicott, Esq.
Certified Family Law Specialist
California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization
A Bankruptcy and Family Law Firm
Law Offices of Vernon L. Ellicott
100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 147
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-8125
(805) 446-6262 Phone
(661) 222-2922 Phone
(805) 446-6264 Fax
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information from the LAW OFFICES OF VERNON L. ELLICOTT that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, or by telephone at (805) 446-6262, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments and all copies of any kind, without reading them or saving them in any way. Thank you.
A bad day on the bike is better than a good day on the golf course.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks Pat: According to the divorce attorney, they are legally divorced and just fighting over support and equalization payments. The bk judge seemed most upset by the fact that debtor and girlfriend are living together and held a phony ceremony (I realize that they are clearly not married under CA law) so girlfriend's income cannot be included in the bankruptcy (other than contributions towards household expenses, which seem to have been quite conscientiously kept separate) or for determination of support in the divorce case.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
David:
I assuming they did not get a bifurcated judgment which granted single
status to the parties while reserving property division issues, and
therefore the parties are still married.
I am not sure what points of law the judge wants briefed, so I will address
those that should matter: is the client married to the woman he is living
with or the one who is complaining.
The validity of a marriage and therefore the existence of the marriage is a
matter of state law. CA Fam Code 300 et seq addresses the steps necessary
to be validly married in CA.
A second marriage with or without a license, does not terminate the
original marriage, but the attempt to marry again is void ab initio, not
voidable. CA Fam. Code 2201(a)(1). As a void marriage, nothing can be
done by anyone, including a judge, to make it a marriage.
There is no common law marriage in CA. Eldon v. Sheldon (1998) 46 Cal.3d
267, 275. Even if there was, it would not trump the bigamy statute.
Avoid using the term ex-wife if he is still married. She is his wife. Your
judge may already be confused by this.
I cannot divine what your judge thinks is bad faith. That he is not yet
divorced? That he is cohabiting with someone while still married to another
woman? That he and his current girlfriend chose to have some kind of
commitment ceremony while the wheels of justice turned ever so slowly in the
family law court?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Client in Chapter 13 has been in divorce proceeding, still not concluded, for about 3 years. Moved in with new girlfriend a year or so ago. They had a well-publicized "wedding ceremony" (allegedly for the benefit of his children) although they did not get legally married (no license) because new gf wanted nothing to do with the divorce. Maintain separate checking accounts, household contributions, etc. There is an equalization payment owed by client to ex.
Subsequently filed Ch13 for client and ex-wife objected that new "wife" not contributing. Judge (RR) seemed incensed at this and wants the issue briefed. From my perspective, client's conduct represented fair and reasonable divorce planning, and also appropriate planning for a bankruptcy (although that did not come until later). But I am having a devil of a time finding anything at all on point.
Would greatly welcome your thoughts and suggestions.
Thanks, David Commons
The post was migrated from Yahoo.