.jpg)
Fwd: California Supreme Court Holds Marital Separation
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, i.e., that they had established separate residences with the
requisite 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 or to be acquiring
>> community assets) if they still 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 bright line rule was needed, and
>> so they came down in favor 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.
>>
>>
>
>
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, i.e., that they had established separate residences with the requisite objectively evidenced intent, even though they continued to literally share one roof."Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725Confidentiality: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] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> 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.iv dir"ltr">Sincerely,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] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> 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 or to be acquiring
community assets) if they still 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 bright line needed, and so they came down in favor 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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
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 or to be acquiring
> community assets) if they still 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 bright line rule was needed, and
> so they came down in favor 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.
>
>
>
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.(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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.