Posted by:
admin
| Comments
Case Commentary
CRME Financial Services v. Pamela Parton
Once the community estate is divided in a marriage dissolution, a spouse’s personal liability and liability of the separate vs. the community estate for debts incurred before and during marriage are determined exclusively under Family Code 916. Keep in mind that regardless of who is assigned the debt in the property division, the debtor’s spouse remains personally liable to the creditor for debts incurred before or during the marriage. Creditors may reach the debtor spouse’s separate property as well as his or her share of the community property. The non-debtor spouse is liable only if the debt is assigned in the property division judgment.
In this non family law appellate court decision, CRME successfully prevailed at trial in a collection proceeding holding Pam liable for hospitalization and medical fees that were incurred by her husband subsequent to the parties’ separation. This debt was never assigned to Pamela under the Judgment for Dissolution and yet the creditor secured a judgment against her. Only due to the efforts of the Legal Aid Society of San Diego was the clear error by the trial Court reversed. The Trial Court erroneously applied Family Code 914 holding Pamela Parton liable, as the expense was in the nature of “necessaries.” This Court failed to apply Family Code 916, which is the exclusive statutory provision which permits a creditor to collect from a debtor spouse only if this debt was assigned under the Judgment. Without this assignment, there is simply no new creditor relationship. CRME simply had no right to pursue collection from Pamela, the nondebtor spouse.
As a practice pointer, should you represent a party who has incurred a post separation debt and want the non-debtor spouse to be responsible, it is incumbent to have those specific debts assigned to the non-debtor spouse under Family Code 916. This is the only way in which the debtor spouse can avoid liability. If you are representing the non-debtor spouse, it is essential that your marital settlement agreement or stipulated Judgment specifically identify those debts incurred by the debtor spouse be confirmed to him or her so that your client, the non-debtor spouse, is immune from liability. CRME vs. Parton emphasizes the importance of covering all the bases regarding posts separation debts and for all family law practitioners and judicial officers to have a clear understanding of both Family Code 914 and 916 and their applications. As a practice tip, make sure that there is absolute certainty in your Marital Settlement Agreement or Stipulated Judgment what both pre-separation and post-separation debts are being assigned to the respective parties. The devil is always in the details.The last thing you want to hear is a call from your client saying that creditors are calling for payment of the debt and your marital settlement agreement or Stipulated Judgment does not clearly address this issue.
“A Gut Wrenching Decision for Jewish Men”
In the past six years, our Family Law firm has witnessed a spike in the numbers
of divorcing men who must decide whether to pursue either interim support or
long term support from their soon to be former spouse. Ten years ago this issue
would have been an anomaly. Times have changed dramatically. The vast majority
of cases at our firm address support for stay at home Moms or lower wage earning
women. However, the trend is clearly shifting. From census studies and other reliable resources, we know
that in nearly one third of the marriages, women are the higher wage earners.
Yet only 3.3% of men in California seek temporary or long-term support when their
marriages last more than ten years. Those upward trends also show that Dad’s
role as the primary care taker for the couple’s children happens more frequently
when Moms put their career first and are expected to bring home the gelt.
I have been particularly struck with the emotional turmoil a Jewish man faces
when he must make the gut wrenching decision to seek spousal support from his
soon to be ex-wife. There is clearly a stigma, a feeling of guilt and failure.
This is understandable. Young Jewish boys are taught early on in their religious
studies that the Children of Israel was founded by men. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
were our role models, and as spiritual ancestors, a direct link to our faith,
our commitment to God, and to our families. Although modern trends for equality
in our synagogues and our workplaces prevail, it is not unusual to hear extended
family members, our mispoche, make comments like, “you father is such a mensch—such
a good provider.” We were all socialized to view Jewish men as primary breadwinners.
Therefore, a Jewish man who has been in a less traditional marriage, one in which his wife
was the primary wage earner, experiences tsuris when considering whether he
should consider seeking temporary support or longer term financial assistance
from his wife.
In point of fact, the California Court considers awarding temporary support on
need and the ability of the higher earning spouse to pay.
The courts routinely award spousal support to men who earn less than their spouses. If spousal support is appropriate,
I will fight just as hard for a man as I do for women. However, so often the
responses from Jewish men clients are almost uniform. They range from an imitation
of Tony Soprano’s” FORGETABOUTIT’ to “I could never face my children or my family.”
Others say, “I don’t want be a schnorrer (mooch) I am feeling so guilty.” Or,
“I understand that the law is here to protect me, but I just can’t go there.”
I counsel my client to get past this social stigma of the Jewish male patriarch
provider. Sometimes I succeed and other times I do not. The bottom line is that
we live in an ever changing and challenging social and economic environment.
We left the Shetl many generations ago but our minds still return to our great
history and of course TRADITION. Many Jewish women who I have also represented
and who are the primary wage earners do not resent the payment of spousal support.
Ten years ago there would have been major resistance, but this is not the case
now. In my experience, many successful women in executive or professional fields
are pleased that their former mates are able to spend quality time with their
children. Under our Family Code of California, our spousal support provisions are gender neutral.
It is time for Jewish men to realize that there is nothing to be ashamed of when
seeking support from a soon to be former mate. For many, the length and duration
of support is set so that you may transition into a new life and become self supporting
in time. This is particularly important for Dads who have taken on the principal
role as day to day caretaker and supervisor and have been out of the work force
for some time. Vocational assessment, career counseling and other supportive services
will make the path a lot easier for men this transition. A request for financial
assistance is based on the path that the couple chose, whether it was career or
family focused with children or both. These challenges were not faced by Teyve
in Unitika with his wife, Golda. It is time to look at the ending of a marital
relationship with dignity, respect and with a clear conscience.