FAMILY LAW

Two prominent Silicon Valley figures were married for a period of a little over nine years. They had one child. The court had ruled that the prenuptial agreement was valid, there was no community property to be divided as all assets, including earnings, were deemed the respective party’s separated property. The disputed issues included child support, permanent spousal support, reimbursement under Family Code § 2640 for separate property contributions to sperate property during the marriage; and a prior multi-million judgment entered against the husband and his management company during the marriage and prior to separation and its implications relating to his request for long term spousal support and child support.

Two men were in a domestic partnership for nine months; however, the parties lived together for more than two years before entering into the formal registered domestic partnership. Petitioner was a hair stylist and a retail associate. Respondent was employed as a Director at a cruise line and earned six figures per year plus bonuses. When the dissolution of the registered partnership was filed, Respondent was employed at a technology firm. Petitioner made claims for real property, as well as respondent’s stock options at his firm, a signing bonus, and 401k. Respondent alleged that practically all of Petitioner’s community property claims were against Respondent’s separate property acquired well before the parties registered as domestic partners.

Parties entered into a Stipulation and Order agreeing to a temporary parenting plan with equal timeshare of their daughter and temporary child support and temporary spousal support to Petitioner, as well as shared add-on child related expenses such as school fees and extracurricular activities. The parties also agreed to an equal advance from their joint brokerage account. There were several significant issues outstanding, which included claims for spousal support, reimbursement claims, student loans, community property real estate leasehold interest in retaining a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco, and attorney fees. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement on all issues during the Mandatory Settlement Conference.

This case involved a long-term marriage of more than twenty-five years. Respondent worked for the SF Fire department and had been retired for several years. Petitioner worked in retail but was recent furloughed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Disputed issues included long term spousal support and termination date, community property division, and Watts Charges and Epstein credits. The parties also did not agree with the community portion of checking, savings and investment accounts and stock options since the parties had been separated for more than six years. Through hard bargaining and with very capable family law counsel, the parties reached a settlement. MSC was conducted remotely using Zoom technology.

This was a short-term marriage and the parties had no children during the marriage but had children from a previous marriage. Petitioner worked as a nurse at a hospital. Respondent worked for a high tech company. In the past, Petitioner made more money than Respondent; however, he was working fewer hours due to a work-related injury. During the marriage , substantial funds were deposited in the Petitioner’s retirement account; however, he was claiming that his community contributions should be offset against Respondent receiving income from two rental units in the Ukraine and her event planning business. From his earnings, Petitioner wanted to terminate his spousal support obligation. Respondent claimed that Petitioner could work more hours and her income had not increased since the last court hearing, that her event planning had closed due to Covid-19, and that there is no market for separate rental properties given the economic condition in the Ukraine. The parties reached a full and complete settlement. The settlement agreement was put on the record and the party’s marital status was terminated.

Served as Arbitrator in a Family Law matter. In that capacity, I conducted several preliminary arbitration proceedings and made determination of the scope of the arbitration to that of the pending dissolution proceedings and made orders requiring the parties to comply with all preliminary disclosure requirements under the Family Code. I also served as discovery referee. At the request of the parties and with a separate engagement, I served as mediator to resolve certain disputes governing the rights of privacy and sealing of records relating to trade secrets and custody matters. All these issues were resolved through my role as mediator. All other issues regarding claims of breaches of the post separation agreement and the validity of the counterclaims were decided in arbitration and awards were made following highly contentious proceedings.