California Divorce Guide: Community Property Laws |
||||
Community Property Laws Links for community property laws . . .
Divorce Library
Community vs. Separate Property
... Community vs. Separate Property Legal Center: Who Owns What COMMUNITY VS. SEPARATE PROPERTY by Aaron Dishon , Esq. California is one of nine states that embrace the law of community property. ...
http://www.californiadivorce.info/legal.property.communityvsseparateproperty.htm
Community Property
... Community Property Legal Center: Who Owns What COMMUNITY PROPERTY by Aaron Dishon , Esq. General Information Generally, community property and obligations are those acquired during marriage and prior to separation. They could include assets acquired after ...
http://www.californiadivorce.info/legal.property.communitypropertygeneral.htm
How Your Property and Debts are Divided during Divorce
... during Divorce Legal Center: Who Owns What HOW YOUR PROPERTY AND DEBTS ARE DIVIDED by Aaron Dishon , Esq. As a general rule, all community property and community debt is split evenly (50-50) between the spouses upon dissolution. This of course does not mean the house ...
http://www.californiadivorce.info/legal.property.dividingassetsanddebts.htm
Today's Article from the Divorce Library MOVE-AWAY CASES: You Can’t Just Pick Up And Move Any Longer. This past year, 2004, has seen significant change in the area of "move away" law. In recent years, under the case Marriage of Burgess, the "primary custodial parent" had the presumptive right to re-locate to a different geographic area with the minor children. However, under a recent California Supreme Court case, in Marriage of LaMusga (pronounced “La Moo-shay”), has re-interpreted the former law and made it more difficult for parents to relocate with the children, whereas the parent who objects to such a move is afforded a significant opportunity to fight such a move on the basis that such a move would be detrimental to the minor children. Whereas prior to LaMusga the custodial parent was frequently allowed to move, under this new interpretation the non-custodial parent now can often stop such a move. Under LaMusga judges have the "widest possible discretion" in considering a parent's request to re-locate with the minor children. Under the new standard if the non-custodial parent can prove a "significant detriment" to the move the court must apply the best interest standard in determining whether custody should be changed to the parent who remains. In a significant departure from prior case law, the court can consider the move itself as creating a "significant detriment" that would trigger a best-interests determination as to which parent should have custody in light of the move. In deciding whether to grant the move the court is required to consider the following factors:
The practical implication of the LaMusga decision is that the parent seeking to prevent the move will seek to present evidence that the move itself would be significantly detrimentalto the best interests of the minor child. It is likely that litigants will request a 730 child custody evaluation to seek to present psychological evidence showing the impact such a move would have on the child and the child’s relationship with the non-moving parent. If you live in Southern California, and would like advice about community property laws or other family law or estate planning issues, please setup an initial divorce consultation today.Would you like to know more about community property laws?
The attorneys of the Law Offices Of Aaron
Dishon, in Irvine, California are experienced
professionals that will guide you through
the divorce process and help you get the
results you deserve. Mr. Dishon is a
Certified Family Law Specialist.
Related Topics:
Resource Links
|
3 Law Offices of Aaron Dishon, Inc. - All rights reserved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Certified Family Law Specialist *State Bar of
California Board of Legal Specialization |
|||