Los Angeles court date

[Sokols]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Is it feasible to come to aggreements before a court date and proceed without going to court in a divorce in Los Angeles? We've been separated since 1/09 and still don't have a court date set. Is this normal?
We have not come to terms with the property settlement, division of property as of yet. Can we legally sell the house and split the proceeds before a trial?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Is it feasible to come to aggreements before a court date and proceed without going to court in a divorce in Los Angeles? We've been separated since 1/09 and still don't have a court date set. Is this normal?
We have not come to terms with the property settlement, division of property as of yet. Can we legally sell the house and split the proceeds before a trial?

You can pretty much do whatever you like regarding marital assets as long as you are both in agreement.

You won't get a court date set until you ask that one be set. You WILL have to go to court but if you have agreements in place regarding marital assets and children (should their be any children) that makes it much simpler.

Have you been to mediation yet? You might want to talk the family law facilitators office or self help center for your county. They can help you see where you are at and why you are stalled.

 

[mistoffolees]

You can pretty much do whatever you like regarding marital assets as long as you are both in agreement.

Generally true if the arrangement is basically within the bounds of fairness. If an agreement is horribly one-sided, the judge can reject it, particularly if the 'cheated' side is not represented by an attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

Generally true if the arrangement is basically within the bounds of fairness. If an agreement is horribly one-sided, the judge can reject it, particularly if the 'cheated' side is not represented by an attorney.

True, absolutely.

 

[Sokols]

No court date

We both have lawyers for about a year. The attorneys were supposed to meet for a preliminary court date. That didn't happen. Are they dragging their feet. My lawyer claims that the courts haven't given him a court date yet. Seems to me it's taking too long. I'd love to move out of the house, this co-habitating isn't the best situation for our teens. My attorney has instructed me not to move out.

 

[LdiJ]

We both have lawyers for about a year. The attorneys were supposed to meet for a preliminary court date. That didn't happen. Are they dragging their feet. My lawyer claims that the courts haven't given him a court date yet. Seems to me it's taking too long. I'd love to move out of the house, this co-habitating isn't the best situation for our teens. My attorney has instructed me not to move out.

If there is going to be any dispute over who keeps the house or who has custody of the children then your attorney is right to tell you not to move out. However, if there are not going to be any disputes over the house or custody, then it may not be necessary to stay.

 

[mistoffolees]

If there is going to be any dispute over who keeps the house or who has custody of the children then your attorney is right to tell you not to move out. However, if there are not going to be any disputes over the house or custody, then it may not be necessary to stay.

Unfortunately, the fact that there is no dispute today doesn't mean that there won't be one after he moves out. STBX could tell him that she's happy with shared custody and there's no need to worry about a custody battle - and then as soon as he's been out long enough to establish a status quo tell the court that she wants full custody.

I wouldn't move out until either everything is finalized by the court or my attorney says it's OK. His attorney says it's NOT OK, so I wouldn't even consider it.

 

[Sokols]

House and Custody

I don't see a problem with Custody at all. Since this has been going on my son will be finishing high school in the spring and he will be 18. My husband doesn't plan on helping school tuition or expenses for him. I would prefer if he buys me out of the house and I will move. At this point he doensn't know if he can afford it and might not be able to get a loan. The issue with the house is he thinks it's worth a lot less and I think it's worth more. Ive ask him if we could put it up for sale. At this point he is only interested in putting it up for sale just to find out what we could get for it and then try to buy me out. Need suggestions on whether to sell, agree to a low price and let him buy me out. or in the meantime move out.

 

[Bali Hai]

Generally true if the arrangement is basically within the bounds of fairness. If an agreement is horribly one-sided, the judge can reject it, particularly if the 'cheated' side is not represented by an attorney.

Just because the judge feels (as you do for some reason) that the agreement is "horribly one-side" and someone is getting "cheated", the parties may not feel that way because the parties have their own criteria for determining what is acceptable to them.

The judge is a government official and "meddling" into a private agreement between two people if their agreement is "rejected".

You apparently are in favor of government agencies meddling more and more into the private lives of private citizens. Are you a government employee? If so, I'm not getting my monies worth.

A couple I knew had their agreement rejected by a nosy judge and guess what, the judge didn't like it at all, but, in the end that agreement was accepted by the court.

 

[Zigner]

Just because the judge feels (as you do for some reason) that the agreement is "horribly one-side" and someone is getting "cheated", the parties may not feel that way because the parties have their own criteria for determining what is acceptable to them.

The judge is a government official and "meddling" into a private agreement between two people if their agreement is "rejected".

You apparently are in favor of government agencies meddling more and more into the private lives of private citizens. Are you a government employee? If so, I'm not getting my monies worth.

A couple I knew had their agreement rejected by a nosy judge and guess what, the judge didn't like it at all, but, in the end that agreement was accepted by the court.

HOWEVER, if one side IS represented by an attorney and the other side ISN'T, and the agreement is horribly one-sided in favor of the party WITH representation, then the judge may reject it (this was laid out above).

This is particularly true here in wacky California!

 

[Bali Hai]

HOWEVER, if one side IS represented by an attorney and the other side ISN'T, and the agreement is horribly one-sided in favor of the party WITH representation, then the judge may reject it (this was laid out above).

This is particularly true here in wacky California!

If I were the "cheated one" without an attorney and the judge told me to create an additional expense and hire an attorney, I would request a different judge.

 

[Zigner]

If I were the "cheated one" without an attorney and the judge told me to create an additional expense and hire an attorney, I would request a different judge.

If you were the cheated one, you would likely get a better net settlement even after the attorney fees were factored in

 

[mistoffolees]

Just because the judge feels (as you do for some reason) that the agreement is "horribly one-side" and someone is getting "cheated", the parties may not feel that way because the parties have their own criteria for determining what is acceptable to them.

The judge is a government official and "meddling" into a private agreement between two people if their agreement is "rejected".

You apparently are in favor of government agencies meddling more and more into the private lives of private citizens. Are you a government employee? If so, I'm not getting my monies worth.

A couple I knew had their agreement rejected by a nosy judge and guess what, the judge didn't like it at all, but, in the end that agreement was accepted by the court.

No, I'm not a government employee, nor have I ever been one (except that I did work for the census bureau one year in college).

Fundamentally, though, I believe that the courts are there to administer justice. There are cases where one side in a relationship holds all the power and can steamroll the other side. For example, there are plenty of cases where one spouse makes an enormous amount of money and has millions of dollars in assets while the other spouse thinks they're barely getting buy. In a divorce, the other spouse would probably take far less than he/she is entitled to.

As an example, my mother signed joint tax returns for 40 years without ever seeing the figures (my father covered them up). When he died, she had no idea how much they had and was surprised to see that she could live quite comfortably. If they had divorced earlier, she would have taken almost anything he offered.

In an ideal world, everyone would be fully knowledgeable about their finances and their rights and everyone would strive for fairness. Since we don't have that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the courts to step in when one person is being taken advantage of.

But, then, I'm not the one who tried to get out of a marriage leaving my wife with nothing......

 

[Bali Hai]

No, I'm not a government employee, nor have I ever been one (except that I did work for the census bureau one year in college).

Fundamentally, though, I believe that the courts are there to administer justice. There are cases where one side in a relationship holds all the power and can steamroll the other side. For example, there are plenty of cases where one spouse makes an enormous amount of money and has millions of dollars in assets while the other spouse thinks they're barely getting buy. In a divorce, the other spouse would probably take far less than he/she is entitled to.

As an example, my mother signed joint tax returns for 40 years without ever seeing the figures (my father covered them up). When he died, she had no idea how much they had and was surprised to see that she could live quite comfortably. If they had divorced earlier, she would have taken almost anything he offered.

In an ideal world, everyone would be fully knowledgeable about their finances and their rights and everyone would strive for fairness. Since we don't have that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the courts to step in when one person is being taken advantage of.

But, then, I'm not the one who tried to get out of a marriage leaving my wife with nothing......

As you have stated many times here, laws have been enacted and the system is set up to an absurd fault to protect women.

Is this because women need to be protected?

Or is this because of the perception of some paranoid women and mommies boys that men are out to cheat them?

 

[mistoffolees]

As you have stated many times here, laws have been enacted and the system is set up to an absurd fault to protect women.

BS. I never said any such thing (nice of you to completely fabricate things).

What I've said is that the law is set up to protect the weaker party in interpersonal interactions. While in our society that may be the woman more often than not, it doesn't have to be - the law is largely gender neutral.