Welcome to our Blog This weblog is intended primarily for the members of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists. Please keep in mind, though, that it can be read by members of the public and is thus neither private nor confidential. If you would like to create a new post in our blog, please email the ACFLS webmaster, Bonnie Riley. Anyone may comment after supplying their email address (which will not be posted with the comment) and waiting for a moderator to approve. Enjoy!
Blog contributors, login here. |
Here are some more photos: these are all of the seminar itself, mostly in the Mojave Learning Center, so please be tolerant of suboptimal lighting, etc. Many thanks again to Dawn Gray, Leslie Shear, and Debra Frank, who shared their own photos, as well as to Vince Jacobs, who took my camera into the learning center when I was working the table out in the hall.
Please drop me an email if you recognize someone who was not named. I would like to thank Linda Moon especially for identifying some Orange County attorneys I did not recognize in the last batch of photos.
Stay tuned, pictures of the Saturday dinner at Le Vallauris will be next!
 Swine flu cases are turning up in California, Texas, Kansas, and New York. Lawyers have a “tough it out” ethic, that often sends us into the courtroom when we are sick. But during the current public health emergency, the White House advises that staying home when sick is a matter of personal responsibility.
I hope that Supervising and Presiding judges around the state will provide leadership during this public health emergency. Lawyers and litigants shouldn’t be afraid to stay home if they have flu symptoms — and Courts should take responsibility for preventing the spread of contagion.
This warning has personal resonance for me, because I was hit with serious sanctions (later revoked) during the last flu epidemic (I’ll tell that story below), and because I have several medical conditions that make flu particularly risky for me. Apart from the risks to our own health, and the risk of contagion, sick lawyers are not performing at our best, and our clients deserve our best.
We should use our list-servs and other lawyer-to-lawyer networking to find coverage, cooperate with symptomatic lawyers to continue hearings, advise sick clients to stay home, and expand use of telephonic appearances during this public health emergency. Courts should make sure than bench officers are aware of the risks, and that they adapt continuance policies during this emergency. No lawyer or litigant should have to worry about sanctions or adverse consequences from decisions not to risk spreading the virus, or decisions to act to protect our own health.
Continue reading Flu Symptoms? Please Stay Home From Court
Here is the first batch of photos from last weekend’s Spring Seminar in Palm Springs. They show some of Friday’s activities, including: Spring Seminar committee breakfast meeting in the hotel, preparation for the seminar, Board meeting, and evening reception. (You can click on the first picture and use the arrow keys above to move through the photos, or you can click on the “slideshow” button and run them that way.) Thanks to Dawn Gray, Leslie Shear, and Debra Frank for sharing their photos. If you recognize anyone in the pictures who has not yet been identified (or if you see I have spelled someone’s name incorrectly), please email me using the link in the left sidebar, and I will edit the slideshow to add or correct the person’s name. We should be getting a few more photos from various sources, so check back now and again. I hope to get Saturday’s and Sunday’s pictures (including our elegant dinner at Le Vallauris) uploaded tomorrow or Friday, and stay tuned for Dawn Gray’s report on the weekend’s events, which will soon be posted on the website.
I have attended many seminars since I was admitted in 1978, but never one of this quality. The organization was impeccable and the presenters were excellent. I rarely look forward to spending a weekend sitting and listening to speeches. This weekend was definitely an exception, and I look forward to next year’s program. I also appreciate the interaction with other CFLS attorneys throughout the State. Thanks much to everyone who made this happen.
Marriage of Brooks and Robinson (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 624
Decided by the First District on December 16, 2008
Holding: The marital residence was W’s separate property because H consented to title being taken in her name alone at the suggestion of their real estate agent, even though he made the down payment from separate funds and the parties purchased the property during marriage.
What is the problem with Marriage of Brooks and Robinson? On March 25, 2009, the California Supreme Court not only denied review in Marriage of Brooks and Robinson (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, but also denied the requests of several attorneys and legal organizations to depublish it. As a result, it is the “law of the land” for the foreseeable future. This article will discuss the issues that formed the basis of so many requests that the court depublish the opinion. What is the problem with Brooks and Robinson?
Summary of the facts: After the parties married, they purchased their family residence. Their real estate agent (!!) recommended that title be taken solely in W’s name because it would be Continue reading Hot Off the Press: Marriage of Brooks and Robinson
 President Joe Bell and President-Elect Leslie Ellen Shear at the ACFLS Spring Seminar, Palm Springs.
 Yesterday the California State Bar issued a press release announcing that it obtained orders from the Los Angeles County Superior Court restraining a chain of document preparation services from operating in Los Angeles. The press release reports, “Prosecutors in the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel said advertisements in flyers distributed by Hernandez’s agents strongly suggested legal expertise by using such phrases as “experts,” “help in the law,” “modification (specialists),” and “assistance in all types of family issues.” Once in the door, clients were offered legal advice on their problems.”
It happens more often than you might think. A potential client approaches me about taking over/making changes to/creating his or her website. When I ask where it is hosted or who the domain registrar is, I’m confronted with the deer-in-the-headlights look, and the client tells me the former webmaster, who has stopped returning calls and emails, has that information. Here’s a useful article by a colleague in Arizona about how to avoid getting into this situation: When your webmaster takes a leave of absence, permanently.
In addition to what Kelley says, I would add that you need to tickle your credit card’s expiration date if you have set either your domain name registration or your web hosting to autorenew using that card.
Marriage of Padgett, 2009 WL 765951
Decided by the First District on March 25, 2009
Holding: A nonemployee spouse who does not perfect a Domestic Relations Order prior to the employee spouse’s death loses the rights to any benefits after his death where the trial court only reserved jurisdiction over the pension benefits in the parties’ dissolution judgment. The court reversed the trial court’s entry of a DRO nunc pro tunc.
Summary of the Facts: H and W-1 were married for 13 years, during which H participated in the Automotive Industries Pension Plan. It provides a survivor’s benefit of half of the monthly pension benefit the employee spouse would have received if he had retired immediately before his death. Their 1988 dissolution judgment reserved jurisdiction over the division of Plan benefits but did not adjudicate W-1′s interest therein. It simply provided that “(t)he court shall reserve jurisdiction over husband’s pension plan.”
Continue reading Hot Off the Press: Marriage of Padgett
Quoting from an AP article from Des Moines by AMY LORENTZEN: On Friday, April 4th, the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation’s heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed. The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. “We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” the Supreme Court wrote. Iowa lawmakers have “excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.” To issue any other decision, the justices said, “would be an abdication of our constitutional duty.” The Iowa attorney general’s office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.
I wonder what effect this will have on the California Supreme Court’s determination of the Prop 8 challenge??
|
|
