.jpg)
Registered Domestic Partners and Bankruptcy
No
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:41 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Registered Domestic Partners and Bankruptcy
Question: Without starting a political debate; is there any authority to file registered domestic partners as married under the theory that under California Law they have the same rights obligations etc. as spouses?
Fam C 297.5.
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits, and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either partner to seek financial support from the other following the dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
I have read Peter Livelys excellent work in the Balas & Morales Case; the Memorandum of Decision by a plurality of our Judges, the US Trustees motion to dismiss its own appeal, the Debtors response to the motion and the US Attorney Generals 2/23/11 statement re DOMA litigation. As I understand it Balas and Morales were married during that very short window here in California for same sex persons to marry.
Based on Balas & Morales, clearly married same sex spouses can file a joint bankruptcy petition here in the Central District with a very low risk the joint filing will be challenged by the US Trustee.ties for joinder of cases by registered domestic partners. Those clients opted for separate chapter 7s. As a sidebar, my research at the time indicated that under California Law the exemptions for registered partners are treated the same as a married couple because of Family Code 297 et seq; so I divided the exemptions which fortunately worked out because they each owned 50% of their exempt property. Also if partners are not registered, they have separate exemptions under California law.
Although it makes no practical sense to file two petitions for registered partners with long established joint interests and obligations, I don declare under penalty of perjury that they are married.t I dont see a path for joint filing by registered domestic partners who are not married somewhere, somehow.
Does anyone have any different conclusion or authority for a different conclusion?
Best Regards
Larry Webb
Law Office of Larry Webb
484 Mobil Ste 43
Camarillo, Ca 93010
805-987-1400
Email Webblaw@Earthlink.net
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Question: Without starting a political debate; is there any authority to
file registered domestic partners as married under the theory that under
California Law they have the same rights obligations etc. as spouses?
Fam C 297.5.
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections,
and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or
any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon
spouses.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding
nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations, court
rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision or source of
law governing the rights, protections, and benefits, and the
responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered domestic partners in
this state, as effectuated by this section, with respect to community
property, mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, the right in
particular circumstances of either partner to seek financial support from
the other following the dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and
duties as between the partners concerning ownership of property, any
reference to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of
registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
I have read Peter Livelys excellent work in the Balas & Morales Case; the
Memorandum of Decision by a plurality of our Judges, the US Trustees motion
to dismiss its own appeal, the Debtors response to the motion and the US
Attorney Generals 2/23/11 statement re DOMA litigation. As I understand
it Balas and Morales were married during that very short window here in
California for same sex persons to marry.
Based on Balas & Morales, clearly married same sex spouses can file a
joint bankruptcy petition here in the Central District with a very low risk
the joint filing will be challenged by the US Trustee. A couple of years
ago (prior to Balas) I prepared points and authorities for joinder of cases
by registered domestic partners. Those clients opted for separate chapter
7s. As a sidebar, my research at the time indicated that under California
Law the exemptions for registered partners are treated the same as a married
couple because of Family Code 297 et seq; so I divided the exemptions which
fortunately worked out because they each owned 50% of their exempt property.
Also if partners are not registered, they have separate exemptions under
California law.
Although it makes no practical sense to file two petitions for registered
partners with long established joint interests and obligations, I dont see
any way around F22A block 2 Filing Status; they just cant declare under
penalty of perjury that they are married. There is a good argument for
joinder of cases after filing, but I dont see a path for joint filing by
registered domestic partners who are not married somewhere, somehow.
Does anyone have any different conclusion or authority for a different
conclusion?
Best Regards
Larry Webb
Law Office of Larry Webb
484 Mobil Ste 43
Camarillo, Ca 93010
805-987-1400
Email Webblaw@Earthlink.net
The post was migrated from Yahoo.