Reply-To: Vicki Temkin
X-Original-Return-Path: Vicki Temkin
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Maybe the parties would have to file for legal separation if they stayed in the same residence for the children or for economic reasons.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I was corrected and I wanted to share it with the community. Footnote 7, page 24:
>
> "Under the facts presented by this case, we have no occasion to consider, and expressly reserve the question, whether there could be circumstances that would support a finding that the spouses were living separate and apart,isite objectively evidenced intent, even though they continued to literally share one roof."
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> It is a fascinating read if you are interested in the development of community property law. If you're not interested, then what you need to know is the law requires either actual separate residences (with an intent of at least one party not to rekindle the relationship) OR dissolution of the marriage.
>>
>> Those who would like to "stay together for the kids" should obtain a legal dissolution of their marriage and may continue to live under the same roof.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Michael Avanesian, Esq.
>> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
>> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
>> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
>> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>>
>> Confidentiality: This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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 herein.
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:31 AM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>> [Attachment(s) from Mark J. Markus included below]
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> The attached decision was issued the California Supreme Court yesterday. There has been great debate in the California bankruptcy community about whether or not a married couple may be deemed to have separated (and so no longer to have community income live under the same roof. This is not a rare issue, because many couples have to stay together for extended periods of time after they decide to end their relationship because of economic limitations. In the past, bankruptcy courts have looked at such things as whether the estranged spouses moved into separate rooms, etc. The California Supreme Court decided that a of true physical separation. This decision will reverberate in the bankruptcy world for years to come.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arnold H. Wuhrman
>>>
>>> SERENITY LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
>>>
>>> www.SerenityLLS.com
>>>
>>> 41667 Ivy Street, Suite F-6
>>>
>>> Murrieta, CA 92562
>>>
>>> Tel. (951) 304-3720
>>>
>>> Fax (951) 848-9340
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: In accordance with Section 528(b)(2) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, readers of this message are advised that SERENITY LEGAL SERVICES is a DEBT RELIEF AGENCY whose services may include helping people file for relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ******************************************
>>> Mark J. Markus
>>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>> Mailing Address Only:
>>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
>>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist- The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 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.
.jpg)
Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association
phpBB Messaging Board
NOTE: If you are looking for our Website, please goto bklawyers.com