Opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce

Opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce
Opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce.

Opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce is the topic of this blog post.

Opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce is very important and any opposition to an OSC for contempt in California family law should be filed and served at least nine (9) Court days before the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

If you have been served with an order to show cause for contempt in California the first thing you should do is to carefully review the order to show cause and supporting affidavit to determine what grounds for opposition exist.

Grounds for Opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce.

Possible grounds for opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce would include situations where the alleged child support arrearages first became due more than three (3) years ago. Therefore any child support amounts that are alleged to be owed that became due more than three (3) years ago are barred by the statute of limitations found in Code of Civil Procedure § 1218.5(b) which states in pertinent part that, “If the contempt alleged is the failure to pay child, family, or spousal support, the period of limitations for commencing a contempt action is three years from the date that the payment was due”.

And if you were truly unable to pay the child support or comply with another Court order and can prove that by a preponderance of the evidence you should not be held in contempt.

Other possible grounds could include a case where the other party is alleging that you violated a Court order other than an order to pay support. In that case any alleged violations that occurred more than two (2) years ago are barred by the statute of limitations found in Code of Civil Procedure § 1218.5(b) which states in pertinent part that, “A contempt action to enforce any other order made under the Family Code must be brought within two years “from the time that the alleged contempt occurred.”

You may also be entitled to what are known as “Jackson credits” towards any alleged child support arrearages for the period of time that the minor child or children physically resided with you as you are considered to have directly discharged your support obligation to the minor children.

Your opposition should contain a declaration stating the facts that support your affirmative defenses including any exhibits that support your affirmative defenses.

Remember that the party that filed the order to show cause for contempt must prove to the Court that you are guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. However you are only required to prove your affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail in Court.

Sample opposition for opposing an OSC for contempt in a California divorce for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of an 11 page sample opposition to an order to show cause for contempt in a California divorce containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service can see below.

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+Fathersrights

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce

Opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce
Opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce.

Opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce is the topic of this blog post.

All documents and supporting evidence for opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce must be filed and served least nine (9) Court days before the hearing unless the court has ordered otherwise. The opposition documents should be served by personal service, overnight mail or a courier service that provides overnight delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

Any party served with a request for attorney’s fees in a California divorce should carefully review the request and supporting documents to determine if the moving party has met the burden of proof required to obtain an award of attorney’s fees.

Grounds for opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce.

Common grounds for opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce include that,

(1) The moving party has failed to meet their burden of establishing a need for the other party to pay for their legal representation;

(2) The moving party has failed to meet their burden of establishing that the relevant financial circumstances of the parties justify a need-based attorney’s fees award;

(3) The amount of attorney’s fees requested is excessive, and

(4) The moving party has failed to submit sufficient information to determine the nature and value of the attorney services rendered.

Several California Courts of Appeal have stated in published decisions that the party requesting an award of attorney’s fees in a California divorce has the burden of establishing the need for the other party to pay for their legal representation.

Family Code section 2032 states in pertinent part that need-based attorney fees awards, even those sought under section 2031, be based (among other factors) on the parties’ relative financial circumstances.

Family Code section 2030 permits the trial court to order payment of attorney fees and costs as between the parties based upon their “ability to pay” and their “respective incomes and needs” in order to “ensure that each party has access to legal representation to preserve all of the party’s rights.” See Family Code, § 2030(a).

The trial court may award attorney fees under section 2030 “where the making of the award, and the amount of the award, are just and reasonable under relative circumstances of the respective parties.” See Family Code, § 2032 (a).

A recently published California Court of Appeal decision stated that Family Code sections 2030 and 2032 are intended to prevent a party from litigating the other side out of the case by taking advantage of the substantial difference in their incomes.

The same principles that apply to a motion for attorney’s fees in an civil action in California also apply to a request for attorney’s fees in a California divorce as Family Code § 210 states that, “Except to the extent that any other statute or rules adopted by the Judicial Council provide applicable rules, the rules of practice and procedure applicable to civil actions generally, including the provisions of Title 3a (commencing with Section 391) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apply to, and constitute the rules of practice and procedure in, proceedings under this code.”

The case law in California regarding civil actions states that a party may oppose a motion for attorney’s fees on the ground that the requested fees are excessive. A party seeking an award of fees is not necessarily entitled to compensation for the value of attorney services according to his or her own notion or to the full extent claimed.

The California Supreme Court has stated that an attorney fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.

Sample opposition for opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce for sale.

Attorneys or parties that would like to view a portion of a sample 12 page opposition for opposing a request for attorney fees in a California divorce containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+Fathersrights

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be the Voice of Every Child who has None — Peace Not Pas

[The following is written by an anonymous contributor] Easter Sunday, April 22nd, 1973. I saw my father for the very last time, when I was aged three. He travelled down to South Jersey to see me. I heard him knock on the door. My mother shushed me to my bedroom. I peeped through my Mickey Mouse […]

via To be the Voice of Every Child who has None — Peace Not Pas

I wanted to share this very moving article

MP finally champions anti-alienation cause — Peace Not Pas

We were pleased to see Andrew Brigden, UK MP for North West Leicestershire championing the anti-parent alienation cause at Westminster recently. Of course, we are committed to and fully support all actions intended to bring this social pandemic to an end. So we’re very happy to relay Andrew’s comments: “Our family courts system has many […]

via MP finally champions anti-alienation cause — Peace Not Pas

If more politicians in the United States would address the issue of parental alienation it would be possible to enact some much needed family law court reforms.

What if there was a way to explain the harm done to an alienated child. — Karen Woodall

Readers might be in interested in this you tube talk. The work done by this man (Ronald P Rohner) has led to a paper by Professor Bill Bernet and colleagues in which they investigate whether there is an objective measure of psychological splitting. Psychological splitting is seen in severely alienated children. This work is so […]

via What if there was a way to explain the harm done to an alienated child. — Karen Woodall

That will be very good news if they can develop a way to measure the amount of psychological splitting in alienated children.

No More Frivorce Rape: English Judge Says Paying Women After a Divorce is Ludicrous — The New Modern Man

It seems Anglo men finally have an advocate in the form of Britain’s most senior family court judge. The most senior family court judge, Sir James Munby has called for the abolition of male slavery and forced wealth transfer payments to women brought on by the divorce-industrial complex. In a speech to lawyers given just […]

via No More Frivorce Rape: English Judge Says Paying Women After a Divorce is Ludicrous — The New Modern Man

It is about time that a member of the judiciary spoke out about the absurdity of requiring men to pay spousal support to women after divorce.  This is not the 1950’s any more and treating women like they are all “Suzy Homemaker” is ridiculous.  I would not be surprised if Sir James Munby retires very soon, either of his own volition, or due to intense pressure from the women’s lobby.

Why more married women want breast enhancement surgery

Why more married women are having breast enhancement surgery.
Why more married women are having breast enhancement surgery.

More married women are having breast enhancement surgery as part of the divorce process.

An article in the Telegraph states that more married women are having breast enhancement surgery as part of the divorce process.

“For most couples caught up in a divorce the prospect of dividing the property or making arrangements for the children are more than enough to worry about.

But for surprising numbers of British couples one seemingly unlikely expense is being viewed as an essential part of the separation process – plastic surgery.

Divorce lawyers have noticed a marked increase in seperations involving significant expense on cosmetic surgery including cases where the wife spends a significant slice of the initial settlement on treatments such as liposuction and breast enhancements.

One such firm, JMW Solicitors, based in Manchester, says it now handles dozens of such cases every year.

The firm, which handles about 300 separations annually, calculates that between five and 10 per cent of its caseload over the last three years involved cosmetic surgery.”

Read more of the entire original article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11303843/Breast-enhancement-becoming-a-divorce-essential.html

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

About Fathers Rights.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating several digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+Fathersrights

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.