THE LAW OFFICES OF

ANTHONY J. ROBINSON

  (626) 797-5001

We are members of:

Web Resources:

In Memory of 09-11-01

Lest We Forget

JUNE 2002: "But I Ain't Got No Kind of Money, Honey:"

        Given the fact that June is traditionally the month for weddings,   we thought that it is fitting to have a family law article.  This may not be romantic, but neither are the divorce statistics which tell us that within three years, more than half of these marriages  will end up in divorce.  This is a very sobering fact that everyone should be aware of.

        We get calls all the time from people who lack funds  to hire a lawyer. Many tell us that their ex-spouse or soon to be ex-spouse could easily afford an attorney because they either make very good money or have property.

        Usually it is through no fault of their own that these people don't have the funds to hire their own lawyer. Either they are out of work, never worked or lack the skills necessary to earn a comparable wage with the other party or they are  spending all they have available just raising their kids. Obviously this situation is not fair. 

        This articles tells you how you can even the playing field.

OCTOBER 2002: "I Heard it Through the Grapevine and Other Rumors:"

        Sometimes a song conveys ideas better than mere words alone ever could.  Marvin Gays' hit song "I heard it through the Grapevine" is one of those songs. It deals with a man who heard a rumor that his girlfriend was going to dump him. It talks about how he feels dealing with that rumor and how hurt he is because of it. In case you are wondering what I am leading up to, it has to do with misinformation or rumors. Something that you heard or read through the grapevine or on the internet.

        This article is written to bring many people up to date on a common problem plaguing the internet by people with political agendas.

NOVEMBER 2002: "Scummy Men and the Women Who Love Them:"

        This Article has to do with a common family law dilemma: He's a Bastard, but I love him anyway!   A good friend of mine called me the other day and presented me with a problem that I see afflict many of my female clients.  The problem is best defined as  "what do you do when someone that you love has betrayed your trust?" Typically I will get a call from someone in tears, out of their mind with grief, asking for help and information. When I get through the tears, I usually find  that what they really want is for me to tell them how they can best restore the trust that their beloved has destroyed.  The truth is that once the trust has been destroyed, it is almost impossible to rebuild.  This article tells you why.

Article for January 2003:  Where Did It All Go Wrong?

        This article deals with the single most often asked question that we get from family law clients. Why did my relationship fail and why does he or she hate me so much? You may even wonder why I would even bother to post such a question on this site. The answer to that question is easy.  If I can get one person who reads this article to understand what they are doing to themselves, then maybe I can help them stop making mistakes that they will regret for the rest of their lives. I believe that each of us already know why our relationships fail we just don't like to admit it to ourselves.

Article for March 2003: How Can We Help You When You Can't Even Face the Truth?

        Once again we are dealing with one of our favorite themes on this site, which is "How do I know when it is time to throw in the towel?" You know the problem, you have seen it and maybe even experienced it yourself. A cheating lover or spouse.  You know that you should leave, but you want to be fair. The fact that he wasn't fair with them while sleeping with his current floozy is somehow lost on these women.  While this problem isn't necessarily limited to women, the vast majority of people who suffer this type of self-imposed indecision are women. They drive their families and girlfriends crazy with questions calculated to confirm their irrational belief that they shouldn't rush to judgment. After all "isn't he presumed innocent until proven guilty?"  Let me answer this question.  No, he isn't. This isn't a court of law, it is a court of common sense. Use it.

Article for April  2003:  Epstein, Watts & Jefferies Credits & The Brown Formula 

        Almost every family law case that comes up involves some sort of reimbursement or allocation issue.  I have seen people who were unaware of these laws  become very angry when they learned what these cases were going to do to their part of the booty from their divorce.  Most people don't understand that the basic rule regarding these types of cases is that a post separation payment made on a community debt or to support a community property asset, without a valid court order to do so, is basically considered a gift and not subject to reimbursement. There are exceptions to this axiom. Read the Article to learn more.

Article for June 2003:  Moore/Marsden and More.

        This month's article deals  with the Moore/Marsden Rules, so this month you will get Moore/Marsden and More.  While this article can be very dry, it is very important reading for those people trying to understand how to allocate the appreciation in one partner's separate property to the community.  We have had so many requests for this article that we have also made it a permanent part of our Family Law Section.

May 2004: Article for May 2004: Can One Attorney Represent Both Parties?

        This particular question confounds laymen and lawyers alike. The question presented is: Can an attorney represent both parties in a legal dispute? Typically this situation arises  in a divorce case and the motive for even considering this option are the evil twins,  greed and revenge. The Chinese are reputed to have a saying that goes "One who sets out on revenge should first dig two graves. One for his victim and one for himself." I would strongly suggest that any of you who are considering allowing the other party to totally control the negotiations to give this adage considerable thought.  You have to understand that litigation is not a profit making undertaking. One way or another, It is going to cost you money. The scale of economy favors the proactive and not the slothful.

        Usually one party thinks that they will allow the other party to get an attorney to do the paperwork. Their soon to be ex, usually points out how much money they could both save by using one lawyer. Implicit in this suggestion, is  the concept that the attorney in question is going to be fair to both parties by "just following the law."  He or she is just going to prepare the papers and not take sides. If you believe that, I have some swamp land that we need to talk about.

August  2004: Article for August  2004:  Together Again, Don't We Ever Learn Anything?

        In November 2002 I wrote an article dedicated to a friend of mine who had been fleeced by her husband to the tune of around $25,000.00. I recommended divorce, but she hesitated. When I asked why she would want to stay with such a cad, she answered meekly, “Because I love him.” I was flabbergasted. This was not the first time I had heard a woman claim that her love for him overshadowed everything. What it really meant was that she was a weak woman, who felt that she would not be able to get a good man to lie in her bed, so she was forced to settle for this piece of human crap.

        In July of 2004 my friend called me again to tell me that her husband had finally left her. She was bawling her eyes out because he had deserted her. Between sobs and tears she also mentioned that since she had talked to me in 2002 he had gambled away a total of $85,000.00 of her money. What I found amazing was that she still wanted him back. What in the wide, wide world of sports was she thinking? Why would a normal, well-adjusted woman want a thief in her bed? The answer to that question is very convoluted and hard to understand. The reason for this is because she really doesn’t understand her “need” to love him.

        After she found out what he had done, she couldn’t sleep. Not because he had stolen her blind, but because he left. In other words, she was willing to allow him to steal her blind as long as he was willing to stay with her. I cannot believe that someone as intelligent as she is, would think like this.

        She now spends every waking hour calling each and every friend that she has in her phone book to lament her loss. Eventually, her friends will mention that losing him really wasn’t such a bad thing. She will pretend to not even hear what they have said. She is acting like he was the best thing that had ever happened to her and can’t accept the thought of a day without him. It is sick. In time her friends will stop listening and begin to become unavailable. You can’t blame them, who would want to listen to this crap every single day. I wouldn’t, that’s for sure.

        Those of you with similar situations may benefit from reading these two articles. They are an eye opener.

August  2009: Article for August  2009: What the Hell is a Putative Spouse?

      The Putative marriage issue ordinarily arises when the parties are terminating their relationship or when one partner dies, and a dispute ensues, which  develops over the validity of the marriage. A determination is important where support is at issue or property rights must be determined. After all if you don't own anything what is there to fight over?  The putative spouse issue commonly arises where one party obtains an illegal "divorce" in a foreign jurisdiction, such as Mexico. The "divorced" party, believing his or her marriage to be legally dissolved, then marries a new spouse. Should the new couple subsequently file for dissolution of their marriage, the putative marriage issue may arise if either party claims that the second marriage was not valid because the Mexican divorce was not a legally recognized divorce, which it isn't. Which is why you should never believe the  bride or groom's representation that all is alright. It is better to take the advice of the old carpenter and "check twice and cut once."

        The putative spouse issue may also arise where a party dies and is survived by a spouse to whom he or she is not legally married because the decedent was still legally married to another person. A putative marriage issue develops if the legal spouse claims survivorship benefits from the decedents estate, or if the defendant in a wrongful death or loss of consortium action challenges the validity of the marriage. Of course, it is likely that the surviving spouse, at the time of death of the decedent, will be unaware of the invalidity of the marriage. Although no California Court has decided whether a cause of action for loss of consortium may be brought by a putative spouse, one court has stated that it would be anomalous to deny a cause of action for loss of consortium to a putative spouse who is otherwise eligible to seek damages for wrongful death. [Ledger v Tippet (1985, 2^nd Dist) 164 Cal App 3d 625, 210 Cal Rptr 814]

Top of Page

                                                        Send mail to AJR@ANTHONYJROBINSON.COM with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2002-2005 Law Offices of Anthony J. Robinson.  Any unauthorized duplication or reproduction of any and all contents are in violation of all applicable laws.  Last modified: February 10, 2010 Version 2.00