Source: http://www.stewjenkins.com/blog.html
Timestamp: 2020-01-19 11:20:44
Document Index: 79588588

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4062', '§ 4325', '§ 4325', '§ 4325', '§ 425', '§ 425', '§ 12652']

Home Contact Us Estate Planning Real Estate Cases of Interest Blog
Municipal Law * Estate Planning * Real Estate Serving the San Luis Obispo County since 1978
BE VERY CAREFUL IF YOU ARE TEMPTED TO GO JUDGE SHOPPING
by Stewart D. Jenkins on 11/17/15
During the more than 36 years I have practiced law folks who have tried to handle their cases by themselves, and some who have struck out represented by other lawyers, have asked me to take over their cases after they have lost at one or more preliminary hearings.
Frequently these folks have concluded that they, or their prior lawyer, didn’t present all of the evidence, or didn’t argue the law properly. Usually the TEN [10] DAY PERIOD that they had following entry of a ruling or an order to set a hearing asking the Judge to reconsider based on new evidence, or new law, that was not available at the hearing they lost has passed by the time these folks have made their way to my office [See California Civil Code or Procedure, Section 1008]. This may leave them in a situation where they are stuck; where their only remedy is an expensive Petition to the Court of Appeal for a Writ or in some rare situations an expensive filing of an Appeal of the Superior Court’s interim decision.
A litigant is very, very, rarely privileged to disqualify a Judge after the Judge decides matters at a hearing. Sometimes, though, changes in judicial assignments, judicial retirements, or other factors come together in a way where a different Superior Court Judge (who may have a slightly different approach) causes folks to ask their lawyer, or their new lawyer, to ask the new Judge to overrule the Judge that they struck out with earlier in their case.
There are some instances where this is possible; though clients need to know that “generally, one trial judge may not reconsider and overrule an interim ruling by another trial judge” in the same case.
An experienced attorney can help a client in appropriate cases convince a second Judge to backtrack and make a different ruling; but only if he or she can develop evidence and arguments taking advantage of the few narrow exceptions to the general rule. Competent Counsel may be able to demonstrate in a Family Law Proceeding that “facts have changed” or “further evidence and law” now mandate a different outcome. If facts exist, an attorney can help client’s prove in a divorce, paternity, custody or support matter the other party tricked the first Judge into making the wrong decision by presenting fraudulent, perjured or mistaken evidence. See In re the Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 190 Cal.Rptr. 436, 441-442.
Care and good judgment are critical in deciding whether to try to get a second Judge to overrule an earlier decision by the first Judge. Financial sanctions and attorney’s fees are generally the “reward” for litigants who try, but fail, to convince a second Judge that Judge number one was all wet when ruling against them. Parties in any civil suit, particularly in legal separation, dissolution, parental relations or support cases, are well advised to steer away from the attempt to convince a second Judge that an earlier Judge was wrong without professional representation and advice from an experience competent attorney.
Child Support – should it include Child Care Costs and the Cost of Travel to Visits in California?
by Stewart D. Jenkins on 05/21/15
California dictates factors that a Judge must calculate in Child Support cases in a complex matrix of statutes in its Family Code. Nevertheless, there are factors that a custodial or visiting parent can argue to increase or to decrease the amount of child support to be collected or paid.
For instance Family Code § 4062 requires on request a Judge order that “Child care costs related to employment or to reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills” be paid by a parent. The focus is on employment now, or in the future. In litigation over child support Judges cannot avoid ordering payment of child care costs; unless those costs are unrelated to the custodial parent’s current of future employment. Occasionally a visiting parent can take advantage of this statute.
On the other hand, Judges have the choice of how to apportioning travel for visiting between the parents. This is a discretionary decision. So these kinds of expenses may, or may not, be used to increase or decrease the amount of support paid by a visiting parent. Generally a Judge is looking for extraordinary travel expenses. Costs equating with an ordinary commute that a parent might incur for work are not the kind of expense a Judge is likely to consider to reduce a visiting parent’s support, or to increase a custodial parent’s support if the custodial parent is providing the transportation. Travel from Ohio to California for visits may make a clearer case for an adjustment in support, depending on other circumstances.
An experience family law lawyer can help you review and prepare the kind of evidence need to help a Judge make a favorable decision on these kinds of child support issues.
Spousal Abuse and Spousal Support. When is one a defense against the other?
by Stewart D. Jenkins on 10/03/14
In an opinion issued September 10, 2014, the California Second District Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Mary from a Superior Court order terminating her non-modifiable spousal support 7 years after Judgment had been entered ordering her husband to pay her for life. Of real importance to the case was the fact that Mary’s husband had agreed to the non-modifiable support to pay Mary, and had stipulated that she was permanently disabled in 2004.
The California Legislature had adopted a new statute [Family Code § 4325] effective in 2002, however, which dictated that if one spouse was convicted of committing domestic violence against the other within five years before either filed to dissolve their marriage, that this fact raised “a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that any award of temporary or permanent spousal support” should not be made to the abusive spouse.
Mary had raised a number of defenses to applying the statute to terminate her spousal support. For instance, she had been convicted in 2000, two years before the new statute went into effect. The Court rejected her ex post facto argument – holding that requiring an abused spouse to pay a convicted abuser would be “unconscionable,” would “unjustly enrich” the abuser, would “force victims of abuse to remain dangerously entangled in the abuser’s web of violence and intimidation,” and would require “the abused spouse to finance his own abuse.”
Mary argued in various ways that her husband could not make a motion to terminate support he had agreed to pay two years after the law went into effect, and 10 years after he had signed the agreement to entry of Judgment requiring him to pay. The court held that the right of an abused spouse to be free from, or to be freed from, paying support to their abuser was so important a public policy right that it could not be waive. The fact that Mary’s husband had never asserted that right before did not deprive him to assert it now [Mary’s husband had argued he did not know about existence of a statute allowed him to avoid supporting his abusive spouse]. The Court reasoned that because it was against public policy to require a victimized spouse to pay support to a convicted abuser, it did not matter whether the Husband knew or did not know he had a right to oppose support or to terminate support whether agreed to or whether ordered.
Does this affect dissolution of marriage between every victimized spouse from a convicted abuser? Yes, but the case leaves open one potential exception that has yet to be defined by either the Legislature or by any Court case. And that Family Code § 4325 sets up a “rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof” that a convicted abuser should never receive spousal support. None of the Appellate Courts that have address when facts or circumstances might rebut or overcome the presumption.
Just as every case turns on unique facts, and every family navigates different circumstances, ultimately situations triggering a Family Code § 4325 will depend on careful analysis, full presentation of evidence, and insightful lawyering. For all the facts of Mary’s case, you can look up In re the Marriage of Kelkar (2014) ___ Cal.App.4th __, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 905
Stop lawsuits brought to muzzle your freedom of speech
by Stewart D. Jenkins on 10/10/13
The Anti-SLAPP motion. CCP § 425.16.
Each of us grows up in the United States knowing that engraved on our DNA is an inalienable right to speak, publish, and participate in local, state and national government. This is much more than voting, writing a letter to the editor or commenting on an internet newspaper article. So many aspects of citizen involvement are interwoven into the basic idea of Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition that many pages would be needed just to catalog how it affects every aspect of American life. From running for office to reporting a crime, it forms the basic fabric tying our democratic-republic together.
But powerful officials and individuals, who vigorously guard their own positions, sometimes do so by abusing the courts to take rights of free speech and free press away from those whose ideas or influence they fear. Lawyer shorthand for these kinds of noxious lawsuits is to describe them as SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Candidates, Office Holders and Government Contractors sometimes sue investigative journalists, news media, election opponents, churches, activists or whistleblowers for such things as defamation, libel, slander, invasion of privacy to try to keep them from uncovering or reporting on corruption.
But California law contains a powerful antidote. In 1992 the legislature found that there had been “a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech” and petition and “that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.” In doing so California enacted Civil Code of Procedure § 425.16 authorizing someone victimized by a SLAPP suit to immediately ask the court to throw the case out because it stems from an “act of [of the defendant] in furtherance of the [defendant]’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” This statute protects statements made at official meetings, to administrative agencies, at court, and reports to law enforcement. It protects statements made in any public forum about an issue of public interest. And it protects “any other conduct” furthering your exercise “of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” BUT, the motion is not self-actuating. The person sued must bring the motion within 60 days of being served with the complaint (so don’t delay finding a lawyer to help you with the motion or your chance to bring it will be lost). Hearing on an Anti-SLAPP motion is also very quick, usually less than 30 days after the motion is filed. These are fast paced defenses. Success is dependent on presenting factual evidence that the suit arises from an act of free speech, press, or petition in connection with a public issue. And succeeding in the Anti-SLAPP motion also depends on undercutting several exceptions allowing plaintiffs to preserve the lawsuit in particular instances. To save defendants from expense and delay, there is an automatic stay in the statute against plaintiffs taking depositions (or other discovery) while the motion is pending. Exceptions to the discovery stay, and defenses of the stay, must be carefully and zealously addressed in these expedited motions to strike.
Anti-SLAPP motions are one of the best tools to protect your Constitutional rights. They are professionally rewarding for Constitutional lawyers. But they are not simple, not the right tool in every free speech case, and should be brought by experienced attorneys. Happily the Legislature has made it easier for you to get help defending your freedoms. To motivate experienced lawyers to protect your rights to free speech, press and petition rights the Legislature mandated that courts shift “the financial burden of defending against so-called SLAPP actions on the party abusing the judicial system.” See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, at 1136. If you win your Anti-SLAPP motion, "Absent special circumstances rendering the award unjust, an attorney fee award should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent …." Ketchum, above, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1133. In short, California’s Anti-SLAPP motion is designed to dissuade the powerful from SLAPPing journalists, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens with lawsuits to muzzle their freedom of speech, press, or petition by making those who abuse the court system pay legal fees and costs for the journalists’, whistleblowers’, or citizens’.
Do Mothers & Fathers have equal rights in Paternity Cases?
by Stewart D. Jenkins on 08/27/13
by Stewart D. Jenkins
Do mothers and fathers have equal rights in Paternity Cases? Yes, but a father’s rights to paternity must be earned.
In California an unwed father does not have any statutory right to assert rights to custody, visitation, or even to prevent the adoption out of a child unless he has first established a parental relationship with the child that gives him (and the child) a constitutional due process and equal protection right to continue or further develop that relationship between father and child under the 14th Amendment.
For an unwed father's relationship to “ripen into a constitutional right” he must prove that he promptly came forward and demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities. The mere existence of a biological link does not merit constitutional protection. The U.S. Constitution only will supersede California statutes to protect the unwed father’s relationship if that father has actively developed the parental relationship by actually stepping up to participate in the rearing of his child and act toward the child as a father.
This rule of law is best stated in a 6-1 California Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Stanley Mosk in 1995 entitled Adoption of Michael H., 10 Cal.4th 1043, 1052.
Qui Tam Actions [a suit in the name of the King]
by Stewart D. Jenkins on 08/26/13
Private Citizens rewarded when they recoup funds fraudulently charged and paid by local governments. The California False Claims Act.
Unscrupulous individuals and companies that dupe Cities and Counties into paying out false claims submitted, or collude with government officials to keep public funds from being charged or collected lawfully, can cost local governments millions of dollars. In a Qui Tam suit, Treble Damages and other penalties can be recovered. Where political or other factors prevent the prosecuting attorney in a City or County from bringing suit to recover the ill-gotten gains, California authorizes a private citizen can sue on behalf of their local government; and the successful private Qui Tam plaintiff shares not less than 25% and not more than 50% of the recovered funds as a reward for his or her trouble. A successful private Qui Tam plaintiff is also entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses against the defendant(s).
Gov. C. § 12652.
However, where a local government has declined to sue, and the private Qui Tam plaintiff fails to win, the defendant may seek an attorney’s fees and costs award in some circumstances.