“Over My Dead Body"

I knew the title of this piece would catch your attention. No I am not self-eulogizing, just wanted to share with you all the attitude I have seen in some of the less rational family law litigants. Many of them simply will not budge when it comes to the minutest concessions to there soon to be ex-spouse, adopting the rigid 'over my dead body' approach. In fact, many of them will select an attorney strictly on the basis of who is more likely to fight, fight, fight, regardless of how irrational the position is being taken. They judge their attorney candidates based on naive assumptions that he or she will fight it out until the bitter end, giving no quarter. Well folks, family law proceedings are not analogous to arm wrestling championships. When all the dust has settled, there has to be rationality to the position you are taking and equally important, the court needs to feel that you are not the cause of the problems by your inflexible rigidity.

It is often said about family law hearings (take Orders to Show Cause for example) that no one wins every issue, nor do they lose every issue. Quite frankly, that makes sense. After all, the family law court is a court of equity, which means, a court of fairness. Many times the judge who has been particularly hard on one party at the prior hearing appears to go easier on that party at the next hearing. While that rule of thumb is not always the case (such in instances where you have been so irritating, uncooperative, or committed such heinous acts that it is all the judge can do to not telegraph his disdain for you), it generally rings true. Remember, these judges hear thousands of these cases each year. They have heard every story out there. They are so familiar with your script of "I am an Angel and My Ex, the Devil" that little you can say on that account is going to cause them to deviate from the general notion that the truth lies somewhere in between.

The above principles are particularly important in cases of domestic violence where the stakes are quite high and the court knows that it is not out of the realm of possibility that someone may have alleged domestic violence charges on their ex as a means of hopefully gaining more child support, child custody and spousal support. This is a dangerous game to play, and imagine how the judge will perceive you if it turns out that it was a trumped up claim of domestic violence where none really existed. Now, none of this is to suggest that there are not serious examples of brutal inhumane domestic violence. However, recognize that before you blindly push that as an issue, remember that your ex will also fight, and you will have to go through long and arduous hearings. Those hearings can be quite grueling, not to mention expensive.

While I do not mean to harp on the DV case, I do want to get back to the title of this piece, "Over My Dead Body". It is always amazing to me when people utter those four dreaded words when their attorney or even the court asks them to make a concession. I got news for you folks, while judges do a wonderful job of displaying impartiality and remaining poker faced when all others in the court room are either rolling their eyes or falling asleep, they do offer hints as to where they are leaning on an issue and do make suggestions. They do not take too kindly to those who disregard their sage pearls of wisdom, and being human, may take that into account come time for decision. I know that you are all thinking, "gees is he suggesting that we cave in at all times?" Well, no he is not. What I am suggesting is that you would be well advised to pick and choose your battles. It is likely not every issue will be decided in your favor, therefore, have in your mind points/positions that you are willing to concede and those that you wish to fight. The court will take stock of you as a person, pass judgment on your reasonableness (or lack thereof) and that may factor in on 'close call' issues wherein you want the benefit of the doubt.

Remember, clever attorneys may let it be known to the court (particularly when it comes down to the time of assigning responsibility for attorney fees) that this entire four or five day hearing was over a minute detail, a detail that the court may find petty, and inconsequential to the big picture issues. Judges are human, how do you expect they will feel having to listen to the parties and their attorneys drone on for hour after hour, knowing that just a little give and take would have solved the problem. I can tell you, they will not be amused. A judge who had an affable disposition at the start of the proceedings who has now turned sour is probably that way because the parties and their silly battle of wills has angered him. One thing for certain, an angry judge is not what you want and the transformation is most assuredly something for which you do not want to be rightly saddled with blame. Furthermore, while allocation of attorney fee responsibility is typically judged by who has the better ability to pay, that is not always the case. If the court determines that the massive five day trial over who gets an extra four to six hours a week of child custody, the living room furniture and the pet cat snuggles, was on your shoulders, even if you are not the higher earner and not in the best position to pay fees, you may find that your attorney's request for fees from the other side is denied. Worse still, you could be assessed a portion, if not all, of the other side's fees.

Moral of the story, use common sense. Like a hat and coat at a fine restaurant, check in your 'over my dead body' approach at the front door. If you need the assistance of an attorney, the Glendale Divorce Attorneys at Dabbah & Haddad, APC are here for you. Please contact us or submit a case evaluation form, and we will contact you.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

What Type of Divorce is Right for You?

If your marriage is over and you are facing divorce, you should know that you have options. It is possible to approach divorce in several different ways and it is important to choose the best type of divorce to suit your particular circumstances. At the Law Offices of Dabbah & Haddad, APC, our practice is focused exclusively on divorce and family law matters. Our attorneys are experienced in all aspects of all types of divorce. A knowledgeable Glendale divorce lawyer with our firm can help you choose the best type of divorce for your situation, guide you through it, and protect your rights and interests throughout the process. There are difficult decisions to be made in every divorce, and we can provide guidance and sound legal counsel. No matter which type of divorce you choose, our firm can increase the chances that the ultimate terms will be in tune with your best interests.

The best type of divorce for you will depend entirely on your circumstances. If you and your spouse can agree completely on all major issues involved, then uncontested divorce is the most economical and fastest route to take. If you are not in complete agreement with your spouse on some or all of the issues but would still like to avoid a lengthy legal battle, collaborative divorce may be the best option for you. With this approach, each spouse hires a specialized lawyer to act as a mediator in the proceedings, and both parties agree in advance to keep their divorce case out of court. A distinct advantage with both of these options is that control of the terms of the divorce remains with the parties instead of the court.

Another alternative solution is mediation, which is faster than traditional divorce and less adversarial, with a higher rate of compliance by both spouses in the future. Unlike collaborative divorce, the parties can still go to court if they cannot agree through mediation. In some instances, even with the help of an experienced Glendale divorce attorney, the parties cannot reach an agreement on major issues. In that case, the only remaining option is traditional contested divorce. Our firm can provide you with high quality representation and dedicated advocacy in any type of divorce.

Contact our firm for a dedicated and experienced divorce lawyer.

What If I Can No Longer Afford Child Support?

Life can be unpredictable, and circumstances at the time of a divorce are often subject to change. Perhaps you lost your job or had to take a cut in pay or your hours of employment have been reduced. If your income in no longer adequate to pay court-ordered child support, you need the assistance of a Glendale divorce attorney. At the Law Offices of Dabbah & Haddad, APC, we have helped many clients get the modifications they were seeking in child support, spousal support, child custody, and visitation matters. Our firm has the skill and experience to help you present your case to the judge in the best possible light. 

We are well-versed in divorce and family law, and we can inform you of your rights and responsibilities, guide you through the process, and look out for your best interests from start to finish. As with any post-divorce modification, the burden of proof is on the petitioner in child support matters. You will need to present a well-documented, convincing case to the judge as to why your child support payments should be modified. The stronger your case is, the more likely you are to receive the change you need. Our seasoned divorce lawyer can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.

Although your income may have been drastically reduced, it is important to continue making your court-ordered payments in the full amount until you get approval from the court for a modification. Child support modifications are not retroactive. If the court approves a lower amount for child support, that change will not be effective until the new order approving the modification is issued by the court. If you have lost your job or suffered a serious setback in your financial circumstances, do not wait to contact our firm. We may be able to help you petition the court for a modification. Delay could be costly!

Contact us for compassionate and effective representation in your child support modification.

Is There Any Advantage to “Striking First” in a Divorce?

Frequently, I am asked whether it is best to strike first, that is, serve the opposition, or wait to be served. Clients want to know whether there is any tactical advantage, and whether the court will view them in any more favorable light. They want to know if there is any savings in holding off and waiting to be served. Unlike chess or martial arts where it is often said that waiting for your opponent to strike first is the best move, in family law, while there is no real advantage in terms of being given the moniker "petitioner" or "respondent," there are several other considerations to take into account—in particular, two issues that are relevant to everyone these days: time and money.

Choosing the proper venue can actually save you time, and consequently money. To illustrate, some courts are grossly understaffed with maybe one or two judges hearing 20-30 cases on a daily basis. If you are in a smaller venue, say Burbank, as opposed to downtown Los Angeles, you might find that even the best intentioned court simply does not have time to get to your matter, resulting in your worst nightmare, a continuance. Yes dear friends, continuances, which are often blamed on attorneys trying to delay things, are probably more likely the result of the court simply running out of time.

Continuances can be quite disturbing for family law litigants particularly when there are issues of extreme moment, such as in child custody disputes, hearings related to child or spousal support, or, where pertinent discovery issues prevail and you need to get orders for attorney fees and costs in order to pursue your rights. If you are in a venue which is generally well staffed (due to budgetary cutbacks and the horrific California state deficit the notion of a “well-staffed courthouse” is becoming a pipe dream) then you are certainly more likely to get your case heard in an expeditious fashion.

Venue selection is also important in terms of your and your lawyer’s commute to the courthouse. If you have an attorney you particularly like and want to hire that counsel, then it is best to know that his/her office is reasonably proximate to the courthouse that you contemplate using. That will also save you time and money. If your attorney is known to the court as someone who is prepared and competent, then that is also to your benefit. Of course the cynical out there may deliberately try and select the venue that is least suitable to their soon to be divorced ex-spouse, and I will not comment on that, other than to say, it does happen. 

What can be gleaned from all of the above is the following: if you are sure that you want to get divorced or if you are certain that you have issues that must be addressed by the court (child custody, child support, spousal support, restraining orders, discovery, etc.) then very little is really to be gained by waiting to see if the other side wants to file. If you are uncertain about what you would like to do, then you shouldn't be filing in the first place. While the old saying goes he who laughs last, laughs best, in family law it could be modified to he who files first, picks home.

If you would like to discuss your case with an experienced divorce lawyer in Glendale or Burbank, contact the Law Offices of Dabbah & Haddad, APC.

What Happens to the Family Home in a Divorce?

"Mi casa es su casa." Those of us familiar with basic Spanish immediately recognize that this endearing greeting is typically made to welcome visitors upon entering Latin homes. This cultural expression of warmth basically translates to "My house is your house." In family law, however, this expression is filled with legal ramifications; typically, during the end days of a marriage where divorce seems likely. A family home carries with it the emotions of its inhabitants, their joys, sorrows, elations, and tragedies. For some, breaking the family home umbilical cord, as it were, is too difficult. For others, their entire success and achievement is tied into their family home as a symbol of how they have thrived.

"Who gets the family home?" "Will I keep my home?" "What can you do to protect my home?” and so on and so forth, are the typical statements and questions posed to us family law practitioners. Essentially, all of these questions are really asking, "How will my property be distributed?" Sometimes it is fairly easy to determine what will happen to the family home. For instance, where husband and wife have bought the property after marriage, as a married couple, and they are both on the paperwork (deed, and bank mortgage note), the general rule will be that the soon to be divorced couple will share a 50/50 interest in the family home. Moreover, whatever equity remains in the family home, will be shared equally.

At this time, I can hear you all snickering, "Equity? Is he serious? Has he not heard of the housing crisis, subprime loans, and painful ARMS (no not your upper extremities, but those pesky adjustable rate mortgages). Doesn't he know that I refinanced and pulled out so much from my home that there is nothing left?” All right, to all of you shaking your head about equity, I hear you. Let's just suppose, for the sake of this discussion, that there is still equity remaining, or that you were one of those intelligent people who did not build a Buckingham Palace style estate, but actually had a home within your budget, with a reasonable mortgage, and that you did not consider your family home to be an insatiable cash cow.

In other words, you have equity. Now, however, you wonder what is going to happen to that equity? We have already said that the case where you and your ex have purchased the home together, the call is fairly simple. But what if you purchased the home prior to marriage, on your own, and you are the only one on title? Your initial answer might be something to the effect, "Well duh, it’s mine, and mine alone. My ex cannot claim it. I am the one bought it many years before I even met him/her." Are you correct? Not necessarily. What if you are the partner in the marriage who has been told by your ex "Don't bother coming after my home. You are not on title and you have absolutely no right to it." Is your ex correct? Not really.

Family Law courts are courts of equity (fairness). They try and do things with that fundamental fairness concept in mind. Fairness can take into account the value the community (meaning husband and wife) have had in reducing the mortgage, even if the property was clearly purchased prior to marriage. There are interesting family law cases which give rise to complicated formulas used to access what your monetary interest in a home you never purchased might be, simply by virtue of the fact that a portion of the mortgage was paid during the time you and your husband/wife were married.

Therefore, simply not being on title, or not being on bank loan documents, should not necessarily dissuade you from thinking you do not have a right to a portion of the equity in the family home. This can be an important issue to consider particularly if there are monetary issues in your case, which will require negotiation and leverage on your part. It is certainly worth your while to present your case for the family home to an attorney before naively or innocently signing away your rights to something that may have monetary value to you. Rest assured that the person owning the property is most likely well aware of your rights (whatever they are letting on to you) as they have more to lose.

While your entitlement to the family home may not exactly turn into "my home is your home," it might turn into something akin to "your home is your home, however, don't forget about me." Should you be interested in discussing your individual situation, please do not hesitate to contact our offices to schedule a consultation with one of our Glendale divorce attorneys.

The Potential Consequences of Seeking an "Early Divorce"

"I just want to be done with it," is often the first thing I will hear from prospective and current divorce clients. Typically, they want to know how soon they can get divorced. Maybe they feel that something magical will happen when they utter those anticipated words, "I am single again." Perhaps they have a partner whom they have promised to marry as soon as they legally can, or maybe they are seeking rapid closure—perhaps to buy a home, move out of state or change careers. All of the reasons stated above have their own merits, but it is equally important that the eager to be single person consider what the court will require to give you your early divorce. By “early divorce” I am referring to a divorce in advance of the parties resolving all remaining issues in their divorce.

By way of background information, typically the earliest one can even be eligible to be divorced is six months after the other side, the party served with the divorce papers, has acknowledged service of process (assuming they have timely done so and are not in default or subject to a potential default judgment). The problem is that some people believe that once they are legally divorced that they do not have any obligations to their ex-spouse, other than the child and/or spousal support obligations. This is not necessarily true. There are many things that the court will require you to maintain in place if you are the party seeking the early bifurcation (that is, divorce and restoration of single status), particularly if you are the bread winner or higher wage earner.

One common issue arises with regard to maintaining medical insurance for your spouse, who without your coverage, would be left with no medical insurance. The issue arises because once you are divorced and single status restored, most medical insurance plans, that is, the typical group health care plan, will not allow you to continue to cover someone to whom you are not legally married. So the early divorce seeker will be required to do something about this problem. Moreover, your soon to be ex-spouse will not be too eager to agree to an early bifurcation of marriage because of the insurance issue (or various other reasons for that matter), which puts you in the position of having to bring a Motion for Bifurcation of Marriage hearing, where each side makes his and her case.

Experienced practitioners opposing you will want some sort of assurance that their client will continue to be covered for medical insurance to give you your bifurcation. They may want you to provide a private plan (which is expensive) or finance COBRA (which allows your soon to be ex-spouse to stay on your group health care plan for a limited period of time while he or she explores private insurance). Generally speaking, both options are more expensive than simply allowing your ex-spouse to remain on the policy of group health care. Family Code Section 2337 requires that the insurance issue be addressed and maintained as a precondition for bifurcation.

There are a host of other concerns and ramifications to seeking an early divorce. While none of them alone should dissuade someone motivated from getting an early divorce from so doing, the issues are certainly something that you should discuss with your attorney so that you can make an informed decision. Your lawyer will know that you just want to be done with it, but there are always degrees of done, and unlike a good steak, in this instance it is better to be, pardon the expression, “well done.” 

If you have questions about seeking an early divorce, or the consequences of doing so, contact the Law Offices of Dabbah & Haddad, APC.