Loan Applications Can Come Back To Haunt

Many cases have been won or lost in both the child and spousal support arenas due to clever lawyers and their clients finding and introducing into evidence for the Court’s consideration recent loan applications where the adverse party claimed inflated income to secure approval of a loan application to a lender.

Now, that same person is in family court telling the judge, usually under penalty of perjury, that he or she has limited income for purposes of paying child or spousal support. 

Income stated on loan application is substantial evidence at trial supporting a court finding that it is the party's income.  A 2005 appellate court decision ruled that a trial court may properly rely on income stated on a loan application that was wildly different from that stated on tax returns.

Although case law permits a trial court to rely on income stated on a loan application, the trial court is not obligated to do so.  The trial court still has wide discretion to believe or not believe the statement of income on a loan application.  In fact, in a 2009 appellate case, In re Marriage of Berger, Mr. Berger had applied for a 1.8 million dollar construction loan.  The loan application listed his income at $65,000 per month.  The trial court did not adopt this figure as Mr. Berger’s income in the family law case.  This case went up on appeal.  The appellate court ruled that, like any other evidence, it is within the discretion of the trial court that hears and considers the evidence contained in the loan application to be persuaded or not be persuaded by the loan application evidence put before the court for review.

Nevertheless, loan applications and associated financial statements are one of the most fertile areas for discovery in support litigation. With the prevalence of refinancing, it is always a good idea to see if the other party has refinanced and, if so, to subpoena the loan records.


Richard Ross
Certified Family Law Specialist

Richard Ross is a certified family law specialist in California who is a member of the Collaborative Family Law Professionals in both Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

Collaborative AKA No-Court Divorce - A Better Way?

Collaborative divorce is a family law procedure by which the two parties agree that they will not go to court, or threaten to do so.  The parties strive to reach a fair settlement through a series of four-way meetings between the two parties and their lawyers.   This is a relatively new approach to conflict resolution.  It is based on the realization that traditional litigation is not always helpful to families, and often is damaging.  Its popularity is increasing dramatically.

Collaborative law differs from mediation. In mediation the mediator is a neutral third party who doesn't represent either side, though each party usually has a lawyer available to consult with throughout the mediation process. 


The Collaborative process involves treating each other respectfully and satisfying the interests of all family members rather than trying to gain individual advantage.  The Collaborative process sets a positive tone so that the husband and wife can work to satisfy both of their interests.  The process can reduce unnecessary and destructive conflict and avoid litigation.

The key document in a collaborative case is the Participation Agreement. It is a contract signed by the participants, which sets forth the rules for the process.  The Participation Agreement includes a Court Disqualification Clause, which states that if the parties do not resolve the matter in the Collaborative process, neither attorney will represent the parties in any contested litigation between them. 


Thus, the Collaborative process can increase the motivation of all parties and attorneys to reach a settlement.  If negotiations break down and either husband or wife decides to proceed with a litigated court divorce, both parties need to hire new attorneys and the collaborative attorneys are out of a job.  As a result, everyone in the Collaborative process focuses exclusively on reaching agreement.  All parties and attorneys focus on negotiation from the very beginning of the process.  Collaborative attorneys work to negotiate constructively and avoid attacking the other side.  What is said in the settlement meetings remains confidential.

The Collaborative process typically involves a team of Collaborative professionals who have specialized training in collaborative divorce skills.  Using a team approach helps the couple make fully-informed, carefully considered settlement decisions, using professionals with different skills.  The team is assembled based on the individual needs of the case.  For example, separate divorce coaches, who are mental health professionals, can help one or both of the parties to deal with emotional, relationship, and parenting issues.  Child development specialists, financial and real estate professionals may be hired jointly to provide unbiased information and advice.  These specialists are neutral, which saves each party time and money hiring his or her own experts.

Collaborative professionals usually have had special training to help promote constructive settlements.  By investing the time and money for professional training, Collaborative professionals demonstrate a commitment to constructive negotiation. 


Richard Ross
Certified Family Law Specialist

Richard Ross is a certified family law specialist in California who is a member of the Collaborative Family Law Professionals in both Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

Family Law Goes to the Dogs

We marvel at how crazy our dogs become when we arrive home from the grocery store, even though we may have been gone for only 10 minutes. It's like we have been gone for weeks.  They jump around and go nuts.  No wonder that we love our animals.  Wouldn't it be great if our kids were as excited to see us when we came home from work?  So, when dissolution of marriage occurs in California, who gets the family pet? 

Unfortunately, dogs and cats are usually treated as personal property items and are not treated as children.  Judges usually award the dog to either the husband or wife at the time of trial, but a shared visitation award regarding the family pet is not likely. A local judge recently told me a story about a case before him regarding the family dog. 

The wife had moved out of the family residence in California and relocated to Seattle Washington. Both husband and wife wanted the judge to award the dog to him or her. The judge decided to award the dog to the husband on condition that the husband gives the wife $1000 to purchase a new dog in Seattle. The judge sent the attorneys out to speak with their respective clients, to tell each the news about the judges intended decision, and to write up the judge's order. When they returned to the judge's chambers, the judge was surprised that the order provided for the wife, rather than the husband, to be awarded the dog. The attorneys explained that upon being told of the judges intended decision, the wife broke down in the courthouse hallway crying uncontrollably. After regaining control, she offered to pay husband $2500 for the family dog. The husband refused. The wife then raised her offer to $5000. The husband rejected the $5000 offer, whereupon, the wife offered the husband $7500, which he accepted.

It took 2 additional court hearing, each brought on an emergency basis, at great cost to each party, to work out the logistics of transporting the family dog from California to Seattle, Washington. Finally, the dog arrived in Seattle, only to be hit by a car and killed a week later.

A divorcing couple could sign a written agreement, called a stipulation, providing for a shared custody arrangement of a family pet, which a Court would likely honor.  However, if presented with such an issue at the time of trial, without the agreement of both parties, a family law judge would not order such a shared arrangement of the family dog or cat, but would likely award the animal to either the Husband or Wife.  This is a true story with a terrible ending. Unfortunately sad tales like this are too common in Family Court in California.

Richard Ross
Certified Family Law Specialist