Hi. I’m Jason Castle. I’m a partner at Jaburg & Wilk. My practice areas focus on family law and criminal defense. Prenuptial agreements have grown in popularity over the last few years. Prenuptial agreements are agreements that become effective at the date of marriage. They’re very broad in what they can cover.
One example of that is a social media clause which is also fairly new and growing in popularity. A social media clause in your agreement would negotiate prior to the marriage how social media will be utilized during the marriage and in the event of a divorce. You can outline, for example, what can and cannot be posted on social media websites. You can also determine who is going to control photos and information that is recorded during your marriage.
I recently wrote an article about couples that have engaged in private moments and recorded them on film or camera, and the concerns that arise at the point of a divorce when one of the parties decides to post that information on the Internet for the world to see. In the event that you’ve thought of this beforehand and you had a social media clause, you could preclude that, and you could also include sanctions and methods for you to remove the materials from the Internet once it does occur.
By: Jason Castle
Hi. I’m Jason Castle. I’m a partner at Jaburg & Wilk. My practice areas focus on family law and criminal defense. Prenuptial agreements have grown in popularity over the last few years. Prenuptial agreements are agreements that become effective at the date of marriage. They’re very broad in what they can cover.
One example of that is a social media clause which is also fairly new and growing in popularity. A social media clause in your agreement would negotiate prior to the marriage how social media will be utilized during the marriage and in the event of a divorce. You can outline, for example, what can and cannot be posted on social media websites. You can also determine who is going to control photos and information that is recorded during your marriage.
I recently wrote an article about couples that have engaged in private moments and recorded them on film or camera, and the concerns that arise at the point of a divorce when one of the parties decides to post that information on the Internet for the world to see. In the event that you’ve thought of this beforehand and you had a social media clause, you could preclude that, and you could also include sanctions and methods for you to remove the materials from the Internet once it does occur.
By: Jason Castle
It is a general rule that an Arizona court must equitably divide all of the spouses community property and debts, without regard to marital misconduct when it enters its final decree of dissolution of marriage. The term equitable is a concept of fairness, depending upon the facts of a particular case.
Consistent with this fairness concept, the court may not order the sale of a community marital residence during the pendency of a divorce proceeding absent an agreement of spouses, a separately filed and consolidated partition action, or circumstances which demonstrate that the residence is at risk of being foreclosed, and neither spouse has the ability to void the foreclosure to preserve existing equity in the residence.
An equitable division of community property is not necessarily or presumptively an equal division of community property. Having said that, an equal division of community property and debts by a court in a divorce proceeding generally will be the most equitable result. However, there sometimes are circumstances that exist which lead a court to unequally divide community assets or debts because the judge determines it is equitable or fair to do so. The court may consider excessive or abnormal expenditures by a spouse, such as those to support gambling habits or drug addiction during marriage, for example.
The court also may consider a spouse’s destruction, concealment, or fraudulent disposition of community, joint, or common property in it’s division of community assets and debts. These particular matters often are referred to as waste, and can result in the court making an unequal division of community assets or debts.
By: Kevin Park
It is a general rule that an Arizona court must equitably divide all of the spouses community property and debts, without regard to marital misconduct when it enters its final decree of dissolution of marriage. The term equitable is a concept of fairness, depending upon the facts of a particular case.
Consistent with this fairness concept, the court may not order the sale of a community marital residence during the pendency of a divorce proceeding absent an agreement of spouses, a separately filed and consolidated partition action, or circumstances which demonstrate that the residence is at risk of being foreclosed, and neither spouse has the ability to void the foreclosure to preserve existing equity in the residence.
An equitable division of community property is not necessarily or presumptively an equal division of community property. Having said that, an equal division of community property and debts by a court in a divorce proceeding generally will be the most equitable result. However, there sometimes are circumstances that exist which lead a court to unequally divide community assets or debts because the judge determines it is equitable or fair to do so. The court may consider excessive or abnormal expenditures by a spouse, such as those to support gambling habits or drug addiction during marriage, for example.
The court also may consider a spouse’s destruction, concealment, or fraudulent disposition of community, joint, or common property in it’s division of community assets and debts. These particular matters often are referred to as waste, and can result in the court making an unequal division of community assets or debts.
By: Kevin Park
I’m Kathi Sandweiss. I’m the Chair of the appellate practice section at Jaburg and Wilk.
You can appeal basically any final judgement, and that means you can appeal a dissolution, but it’s not as if you’re no longer divorced. You’re not appealing the fact of the divorce. What you’re appealing typically is about money. It can be about something else, but typically somebody will appeal a distribution of property, for example. And a lot of times that will go back to what the lower court determined was the value, for example, of a business. And the value of that business will then impact how your property is distributed.
One of the basic errors that someone alleges in the divorce decree, in the dissolution decree is that a business was not valued properly. So, that goes back to a dueling expert standard. My expert witness, say, valued my art practice at $300,000. Your expert witness valued my business at $500,000, and that’ll determine a lot of how much money is distributed to each party. The problem with it is you’re looking at credibility of witnesses, and you don’t want to be in the position of asking the higher court to determine that there was a factual error because that’s a much tougher standard on appeal.
By: Kathi Sandweiss
I’m Kathi Sandweiss. I’m the Chair of the appellate practice section at Jaburg and Wilk.
You can appeal basically any final judgement, and that means you can appeal a dissolution, but it’s not as if you’re no longer divorced. You’re not appealing the fact of the divorce. What you’re appealing typically is about money. It can be about something else, but typically somebody will appeal a distribution of property, for example. And a lot of times that will go back to what the lower court determined was the value, for example, of a business. And the value of that business will then impact how your property is distributed.
One of the basic errors that someone alleges in the divorce decree, in the dissolution decree is that a business was not valued properly. So, that goes back to a dueling expert standard. My expert witness, say, valued my art practice at $300,000. Your expert witness valued my business at $500,000, and that’ll determine a lot of how much money is distributed to each party. The problem with it is you’re looking at credibility of witnesses, and you don’t want to be in the position of asking the higher court to determine that there was a factual error because that’s a much tougher standard on appeal.
By: Kathi Sandweiss
A person can get a legal separation the way he or she can get a divorce. All they have to do is file a petition for legal separation. And the only difference between a legal separation and a divorce in the final analysis is that in a legal separation, obviously you don’t get a divorce. Now, when people come to us we actually advise against it, except in very special cases.
For example, I had a case once where a 55-year old couple were splitting the blanket and were in complete agreement that they should have a legal separation because the wife had cancer and the husband was a top executive for Motorola.
Motorola has an outstanding medical plan and so she couldn’t get that kind of coverage if they were to get a divorce because insurance companies are not going to ensure anybody after the divorce. She couldn’t continue to carry his insurance. She could have what we call COBRA, it’s an expensive temporary application for a short period of time, but that’s one reason why obviously you’d decide to have a legal separation. Could be religious. Catholics, they often don’t want a divorce.
Only in special situations do we advise it because they don’t work out, unless it’s something serious like that. They’re going to come back in less than a year probably and tell the judge they want to change it to a divorce. But, it’s one of the things people can always come talk to us about and have up front information before they start trying to make decisions.
By: CD Owens
A person can get a legal separation the way he or she can get a divorce. All they have to do is file a petition for legal separation. And the only difference between a legal separation and a divorce in the final analysis is that in a legal separation, obviously you don’t get a divorce. Now, when people come to us we actually advise against it, except in very special cases.
For example, I had a case once where a 55-year old couple were splitting the blanket and were in complete agreement that they should have a legal separation because the wife had cancer and the husband was a top executive for Motorola.
Motorola has an outstanding medical plan and so she couldn’t get that kind of coverage if they were to get a divorce because insurance companies are not going to ensure anybody after the divorce. She couldn’t continue to carry his insurance. She could have what we call COBRA, it’s an expensive temporary application for a short period of time, but that’s one reason why obviously you’d decide to have a legal separation. Could be religious. Catholics, they often don’t want a divorce.
Only in special situations do we advise it because they don’t work out, unless it’s something serious like that. They’re going to come back in less than a year probably and tell the judge they want to change it to a divorce. But, it’s one of the things people can always come talk to us about and have up front information before they start trying to make decisions.
By: CD Owens
Hi. My name is Mitchell Reichman. I’m a board certified specialist in family law and chair of the family law department at Jaburg & Wilk. Opting out is choosing to resolve a family law dispute outside the traditional judicial system. One of the ways parties can choose to opt out is by choosing to arbitrate.
Arbitration is a voluntary process. It’s beyond the jurisdiction of a judge to order parties to arbitrate. However, once parties do decide to arbitrate, a court order will be entered that appoints the arbitrator and governs the process. Generally in Arizona, arbitrations are governed by a set of statutes known as Arizona’s Arbitration Act. One of the advantages of arbitration is that the parties can choose the neutral that serves as the arbitrator based on the parties’ circumstances, particularly where the issues are specialized such as with the valuation of a business or professional practice. The parties can chose an arbitrator who has a greater amount of education, training, and experience than the judge randomly assigned to their case. This gives the parties the opportunity to obtain a more predictable outcome because the arbitrator is familiar with the issues that will be presented in a valuation analysis, and the judge might not be. An important difference between choosing to arbitrate a dispute as compared to a trial concerns the right to appeal.
Under Arizona’s Arbitration Act, people who choose to arbitrate have very limited rights to appeal the decision of the arbitrator. This is very dissimilar from their rights to appeal should a judge make the decision after a trial on the merits. Overall, however, in many cases we find that by choosing to opt out through a process of arbitration, we’re able to reach our goal of helping our clients obtain a more favorable result in their family law proceeding.
Hi. My name is Mitchell Reichman. I’m a board certified specialist in family law and chair of the family law department at Jaburg & Wilk. Opting out is choosing to resolve a family law dispute outside the traditional judicial system. One of the ways parties can choose to opt out is by choosing to arbitrate.
Arbitration is a voluntary process. It’s beyond the jurisdiction of a judge to order parties to arbitrate. However, once parties do decide to arbitrate, a court order will be entered that appoints the arbitrator and governs the process. Generally in Arizona, arbitrations are governed by a set of statutes known as Arizona’s Arbitration Act. One of the advantages of arbitration is that the parties can choose the neutral that serves as the arbitrator based on the parties’ circumstances, particularly where the issues are specialized such as with the valuation of a business or professional practice. The parties can chose an arbitrator who has a greater amount of education, training, and experience than the judge randomly assigned to their case. This gives the parties the opportunity to obtain a more predictable outcome because the arbitrator is familiar with the issues that will be presented in a valuation analysis, and the judge might not be. An important difference between choosing to arbitrate a dispute as compared to a trial concerns the right to appeal.
Under Arizona’s Arbitration Act, people who choose to arbitrate have very limited rights to appeal the decision of the arbitrator. This is very dissimilar from their rights to appeal should a judge make the decision after a trial on the merits. Overall, however, in many cases we find that by choosing to opt out through a process of arbitration, we’re able to reach our goal of helping our clients obtain a more favorable result in their family law proceeding.
In most circumstances, you can’t keep your spouse’s health insurance after a divorce. You can, however, convert your spouse’s health insurance to your own plan under HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Most people know this as COBRA. It’s a wonderful thing to be able to keep your insurance for another (36) thirty-six months. Unfortunately, it’s also very expensive. For details, contact me, Greg Davis, at (602) 279-1900.
By: Greg Davis
In most circumstances, you can’t keep your spouse’s health insurance after a divorce. You can, however, convert your spouse’s health insurance to your own plan under HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Most people know this as COBRA. It’s a wonderful thing to be able to keep your insurance for another (36) thirty-six months. Unfortunately, it’s also very expensive. For details, contact me, Greg Davis, at (602) 279-1900.
By: Greg Davis
In a divorce without minor children, you will file a petition for dissolution of your marriage and request a division of community assets and debts, an affirmation of your sole and separate property, an award of spousal maintenance if applicable, and perhaps, reimbursement for your attorney’s fees and costs.
If your divorce involves minor children, then your petition will ask the court to additionally determine child custody, which is now called legal decision making, parenting time and child support. You file your petition with the superior court in the county where you reside and serve a copy on your spouse.
The soonest you can get divorced in Arizona is (60) sixty days from the date your spouse is served. If your spouse does not file a response in the proper time frame, you can request that your spouse be defaulted and proceed to a default hearing before the court. If your spouse files a response, your case can be resolved by two options; agreement or trial.
If you reach an agreement, a consent decree can be prepared and signed by both parties and then submitted to the court for the judge’s signature and there is no need to appear in court for a trial. If you cannot reach an agreement, the court will set the unresolved issues for trial. If you want me to explain in detail the divorce process, please call me at Warner Angle, (602) 264-7101 to schedule a complimentary consultation. I look forward to meeting with you.
In a divorce without minor children, you will file a petition for dissolution of your marriage and request a division of community assets and debts, an affirmation of your sole and separate property, an award of spousal maintenance if applicable, and perhaps, reimbursement for your attorney’s fees and costs.
If your divorce involves minor children, then your petition will ask the court to additionally determine child custody, which is now called legal decision making, parenting time and child support. You file your petition with the superior court in the county where you reside and serve a copy on your spouse.
The soonest you can get divorced in Arizona is (60) sixty days from the date your spouse is served. If your spouse does not file a response in the proper time frame, you can request that your spouse be defaulted and proceed to a default hearing before the court. If your spouse files a response, your case can be resolved by two options; agreement or trial.
If you reach an agreement, a consent decree can be prepared and signed by both parties and then submitted to the court for the judge’s signature and there is no need to appear in court for a trial. If you cannot reach an agreement, the court will set the unresolved issues for trial. If you want me to explain in detail the divorce process, please call me at Warner Angle, (602) 264-7101 to schedule a complimentary consultation. I look forward to meeting with you.
My name is Jason Castle. I’m an attorney at Jaburg Wilk, and my practice areas are family law and criminal defense.
A resolution management conference – often called an RMC – is one of the first times the parties will end up going to court. Most of my clients when they come in are scared of court and don’t want to go. So the RMC ends up being their first opportunity to be a party in a lawsuit, and to go to court. The RMC sounds scary as well. It is not. It is primarily just a scheduling conference.
However, it is an important step in the process towards litigation. It typically is scheduled somewhere between 45 and 60 days after the Respondent files his or her response, and the order setting the RMC will require the parties to have a settlement meeting prior to the RMC.
During the settlement meeting, depending on where the parties are in the litigation process, some people come in already having an idea of what they want to do in order to resolve their divorce. Others do not. That’s a good time to set what are called temporary orders.
Temporary orders are the rules or the orders that will apply between that point in time and the final decree. During the RMC, you will then go to be in the court. They’ll tell the court, These are our issues. This is how long we need for trial. The court will look at its calendar, talk to the parties to find out when it’s good for them, and schedule the trial.
By: Jason Castle
My name is Jason Castle. I’m an attorney at Jaburg Wilk, and my practice areas are family law and criminal defense.
A resolution management conference – often called an RMC – is one of the first times the parties will end up going to court. Most of my clients when they come in are scared of court and don’t want to go. So the RMC ends up being their first opportunity to be a party in a lawsuit, and to go to court. The RMC sounds scary as well. It is not. It is primarily just a scheduling conference.
However, it is an important step in the process towards litigation. It typically is scheduled somewhere between 45 and 60 days after the Respondent files his or her response, and the order setting the RMC will require the parties to have a settlement meeting prior to the RMC.
During the settlement meeting, depending on where the parties are in the litigation process, some people come in already having an idea of what they want to do in order to resolve their divorce. Others do not. That’s a good time to set what are called temporary orders.
Temporary orders are the rules or the orders that will apply between that point in time and the final decree. During the RMC, you will then go to be in the court. They’ll tell the court, These are our issues. This is how long we need for trial. The court will look at its calendar, talk to the parties to find out when it’s good for them, and schedule the trial.
By: Jason Castle
A Judge Can Order a Parent to Attend Counseling in Arizona
A Judge Orders a Parent to Attend Domestic Violence Counseling in Arizona Can a judge order a parent in a child custody…
Read MoreArizona Dissolution of Marriage
In divorce, many issues require a resolution. Those issues can be resolved either by you or by the court before you can…
Read More
