Wanted to get some constructive inputs (for and against) related to changing California policy related to considering fault when dividing inheritance assets during a divorce. Family Code §770(a) (2) states Separate property of a married person includes All property acquired by the person after marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent. The bequest, devise, or descent verbiage describes the various ways (i.e., will, trust, intestacy) to inherit property. This now characterizes any property acquired by inheritance, regardless if received during the marriage, as separate property. Unfortunately divorce does not discipline partners for infidelity. Right now a majority of the states have opted for no-fault divorces over fault divorces. A no-fault divorce does not have to prove a partner behaved poorly in order to be granted a divorce nor is that behavior taken into consideration during the division of assets/property judgment. All that is necessary is to pick a reason for a divorce that is recognized by the state (i.e., "incompatibility," "irreconcilable differences," or "irremediable breakdown of the marriage"). Example, Judy has been happily married for twenty years and has three children. Judy receives an inheritance of $500,000 from her mothers death. Judy puts the money into the bank under her own name and draws interest. In year three of her marriage to Charles, Judy takes $200,000 from her inheritance and purchases the family home with cash. During years four through six Judys infidelity desires start to consume her and she ultimately begins cheating on Charles with multiple partners. This blatant disregard of their wedding vows results in their divorce. Judy is entitled to retain the $300,000 plus interest along with the $200,000 house as separate property. The result of Judys infidelity leaves Charles and his three children without a home. In no fault states it doesnt matter why you broke up. Having the ability to send a message allows a moral victory and punishment for the people who broke their vows. Sending a message is the key. People have a tendency to think before they act if they understand the punishment before they commit the infraction. Therefore, amending Family Code §770(a) (2) to include fault would close this loophole. I firmly believe people should not be given a pass to flourish in their stupidity because they believe their windfall of money should be magically connected to their zipper.
"Judy is entitled to retain the $300,000 plus interest along with the $200,000 house as separate property." Since the inheritance was kept in a separate account the money would be hers. If she took out $200,000 and bought the family home outright, I believe that Moore-Marsden applies. http://www.mortgagefit.com/know-how/mooremarsdenrule.html Good info on how to calculate it.
This usually happens when the genders are reversed. But in your example, this Judy would have to pay child support to the custodial parent, Charles. So he will not go without a home. The better question is that why is it commonly allowed in credit request forms of all kinds, to include received child support as part of personal income of custodial parent. That is what should not be allowed, since that money is the "children's", not the custodial parent's.
This usually happens when the genders are reversed. But in your example, this Judy would have to pay child support to the custodial parent, Charles. So he will not go without a home. The better question is that why is it commonly allowed in credit request forms of all kinds, to include received child support as part of personal income of custodial parent. That is what should not be allowed, since that money is the "children's", not the custodial parent's.
I like Texas law. No fault divorce is allowed. Property is typically split 50/50. Alimony (or spousal maintenance) is calculated on disparity of income. Child support is either on top of Alimony or it is subtracted from Alimony if the biggest bread winner has custody. We also have at fault divorce, which weighs heavily against the cheater. It cost my ex $250k in Alimony. She still got half of possessions. Cheating cannot be considered when assigning custody.
@Texan Do you realise you just replied to a thread from eleven years ago!? That's impressive. How do people even stumble over such ancient threads to reply to in the first place? I've never understood how it happens.
LOL! I responded to a different divorce thread and I wondered what else there was. I didn't notice the date.
California is a "community property" state. "California is a community property state, meaning that a marriage or registration of domestic partnership makes two people one legal “community.” Any property or debt acquired by one person during the marriage or partnership is seen as belonging to the community, and not the individual that accrued it." Slam dunk! https://www.irwinirwin.com/separate...unity property,the individual that accrued it.
It should be. It should not be the deciding factor but it is a factor. A child needs a devoted parent. If you have, for the sake of argument, 2 parents who are in every other way equal outside of one cheated and the other didn't, the best interest of the child is to be with the person who has show fidelity to family. Right now I have a buddy who is a kind, faithful, gainfully employed health nut dad divorcing a morbidly obese cheater who destroy her family and filed for this divorce so that she can be with her "boyfriend" and continue her chronically unemployed alcoholic binging and his actual lawyer told him for reasons that he should not pursuit custody so he did not. No fault is so socially destructive and yet, to bring it back would on balance I think, cause wives to stay with husbands for horrible reasons other than that they wish to be part of the commitment they made to him. Or, as was done historically, lie about him to get out of the marriage and potentially cause an innocent husband even more egregious harm.
The reason for "no fault" was to curtail senseless fights draining family assets and parents using kids as weapons, yet the end result is the same. The divorce often causes the kids to be used as pawns The option to go to court is still there. California was a leader in "no fault". You can drown in lawyer's tears. Welcome, BTW!
This is the problem with no-fault divorce laws. This is a topic that has received plenty of discussion and criticism in the past, all the way up to the early 1990s. I can guarantee you though that there is slim chance the law is ever going to change back in a state like California. Their views have become very "progressive" over the last several decades. Keep in mind that California was the first state in the U.S. to enact no-fault divorce law, in 1970.
