Mediators of Southern California
Elkins Family Law Task Force
Work of the Task Force
Over the course of its work, the task force held 10 in-person meetings plus 2 additional in-person meetings dedicated to hearing comments from the public. The meetings occurred in San Francisco (June, September, November 2008, May 2009, August 2009, and February 2010), Los Angeles (February 2009), and a Litigant and Advocate Input Group meeting on April 6, 2009 in San Francisco. Public Hearings on the Draft Recommendations were held in Los Angeles and San Francisco in October 2009. At the February 1 and 2, 2010 meetings in San Francisco, the task force review and considered the public comments on the draft recommendations and discussed the proposed revisions of the draft recommendations.
The Elkins Family Law Task Force presented its final recommendations to increase access to justice, ensure due process, and provide for more effective and consistent rules, policies, and procedures in family court. These recommendations were presented to the Judicial Council of California meeting on April 23, 2010. The Judicial Council accepted the report and recommendations.
The Elkins Family Law Task Force is grateful to the many people who have submitted written comments or who participated in the public hearings and meetings on the draft recommendations. The active involvement of people who have experience in the family courts has informed the work of the Task Force. Thank you for taking the time to share your comments and suggestions to ensure a comprehensive review of the family courts.
Judicial Council Report (PDF)
Final Report and Recommendations (April 2010, PDF)
Executive Summary (PDF)
Comment Chart (PDF)
Dissolving Small c/p Business in Bad Economic Times
The spouse operating the family business claims that business profits have decreased and that there is no profits due to the poor economy. Parties have been separated for over a year. There is no money for lawyers, no money for accountants, no agreement regarding cash flow. Tax returns/ P and L’s may not be current or may not be provided to the other party. The only evidence may be from the lips of the parties only. What choices are there? We know Mediation is always best and that the parties should always have some kind of understanding of the law.
Valuation and Division of Marital Assets
1. Cream, 13 call app 4th 81
2. Fonstein, 17 cal 3d 738
3. Kilbourne, 232 cal app 3d 738
4. Hewitson, 142 cal app 3d 874 ( I&E)
5. Lotz, 120 cal app 3d 379 (Inkind)
6. Burlini, 143 cal app 3d 379
7. Smith, 79 cal app 3d 725
8. Iredale, 121 cal app 4th 321
9. Kozen, 185 cal app 3d 1258 (Burger King case)
10. Economou, 224 cal app 3d 1466
11. Ackerman, 146 Cal app 4th 191
Valuation and Division of c/p Stock
1. Brigden, 80 call app 3d 381
2. Micalizio, 199 cal app 3d 662
3. Rosan, 24 cal app 3d 885
4. Nichols, 27 cal app 4th 661
Alternate Valuation Date
1. Stevenson, 20 app 4th 250 (value as of D of S)
2. Nelson, 139 cal app 4th 1546
3. Duncan, 90 cal app 4th 617
1. Hargrave, 163 cal app 3d 346
2. Lopez, 38 cal app 3d 93
3. Foster, 42 cal app 3d 577
© 2023 Created by Kym Adams Director of CEDRS. Powered by
You need to be a member of LA Mediators to add comments!
Join LA Mediators