| Chekuri v. Nekkalapudi |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court Citation: 2020 Ark. 74 Opinion Date: February 20, 2020 Judge: Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Appellant a divorce, dividing the parties' marital property, and awarding alimony to Appellee, holding that the circuit court's rulings were not clearly erroneous. The parties in this case entered into an arranged marriage in India. Approximately one year later, Appellant filed a complaint for divorce. After the divorce decree was entered Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by equally dividing the funds that Appellant spent during the parties' separation; (2) did not err in deciding to divide equally the marital assets; and (3) did not err by awarding Appellee rehabilitative alimony. |
| |
| Conservatorship of A.E. |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: B297092(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: February 18, 2020 Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Probate Code section 1825 required that a conservatee consent to the appointment of the proposed conservator or a showing had to be made that she was unable or unwilling to attend the hearing. Mother appealed the trial court's order denying her petition to be appointed conservator of her 26-year-old autistic daughter, A.E., and the trial court's sua sponte order appointing the Ventura County Public Guardian as the permanent limited conservator of A.E.'s person. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court failed to make the requisite finding that A.E. did not want to attend the hearing, or could not be produced for the hearing due to medical inability, or that her appearance was likely to cause serious and immediate physiological damage. |
| |
| In re: Marriage of Brewster and Clevenger |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: H045050(Sixth Appellate District) Opinion Date: February 19, 2020 Judge: Greenwood Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The parties were married for 21 years before seeking dissolution. Both are physicians; they met in medical school. The trial court denied Wife’s request for spousal support orders because she suffered criminal convictions for acts of domestic violence against Husband and had not overcome the rebuttable presumption set forth in Family Code section 43251 against an award of support to a spouse convicted of domestic violence. The court of appeal affirmed, finding substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual determinations, The court also upheld the characterization of post-separation payments Husband made to Wife by depositing $10,000 into a joint account for Wife’s use in lieu of temporary spousal support, pursuant to the agreement of the parties. The court of appeal rejected an argument that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over temporary spousal support at the time of the trial and did not have jurisdiction to make retroactive orders and that the trial court erred when it found the deposits taxable to Wife and deductible by Husband. |
| |
| In re: Marriage of Grimes and Mou |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: H046035(Sixth Appellate District) Opinion Date: February 19, 2020 Judge: Danner Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The parties married in 2004. Husband filed a dissolution petition in 2016. The trial court held a hearing on property division and permanent spousal support and ordered Wife to transfer half of the funds then in a brokerage account to Husband and ordering Husband to pay directly to Wife his one-half share of the debt owed to her relatives on their loan to the marital community. The court of appeal affirmed. In its order, the trial court listed all of the factors under Family Code section 4320 and stated its findings for each. It considered the parties’ employment and earning histories, earning capacities, assets, obligations, and standard of living in Silicon Valley, and the length of the marriage. The court found that Wife’s “efforts [to find a job] were not appropriately and fully focused.” Only after the court imputed income to her did she “resume work ... just slightly above the imputed earnings rate.” The court concluded that she can obtain a higher-paying position with a potential salary commensurate with what she had earned several years earlier. The findings provide sufficient rationale for the amount and duration of the award. |
| |
| Kinsella v. Kinsella |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: D074989(Fourth Appellate District) Opinion Date: February 19, 2020 Judge: Joan Irion Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| The issues presented by this appeal for the Court of Appeal’s review arose in the procedural context of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Tamara Kinsella, in defendant Kevin Kinsella’s malicious prosecution complaint. Shortly after Tamara initiated dissolution of marriage proceedings against Kevin, Tamara sued Kevin based on what she contended was his promise, prior to their marriage, that the property and income they acquired during their relationship would belong equally to both of them (Marvin Action). After Tamara voluntarily dismissed the Marvin Action, Kevin sued her for malicious prosecution in the present action. Seeking to have Kevin's malicious prosecution complaint stricken as a SLAPP, Tamara responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. In her effort to establish that Kevin could not show she lacked probable cause to prosecute the Marvin Action, Tamara relied on an interim adverse judgment rule: She (1) presented evidence that the trial court in the Marvin Action denied Kevin's motion for summary judgment, and (2) argued that this interim victory on Kevin's summary judgment motion precluded Kevin from establishing that Tamara lacked the requisite probable cause to file and prosecute the Marvin Action. In opposition, Kevin relied on the fraud exception to the interim adverse judgment rule: He argued that, because Tamara defeated Kevin's summary judgment motion in the Marvin Action by having submitted materially false facts on which the court relied in denying the motion, Tamara was not entitled to rely on the interim adverse judgment rule's presumption that resulted from the denial of his summary judgment motion in the Marvin Action. The trial court ruled that the malicious prosecution complaint was a SLAPP and struck it. Kevin appealed, arguing the trial court erred in determining that he did not establish the requisite probability of prevailing on the merits of his claim against Tamara. The Court of Appeal concurred with Kevin’s argument and reversed. |
| |
| In re M.S. |
| Court: Supreme Court of Indiana Docket: 19S-JC-505 Opinion Date: February 20, 2020 Judge: Steven H. David Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Mother's motion to dismiss the petition filed by the Department of Child Services (DCS) alleging M.S. was a child in need of services (CHINS), holding that the 120-day deadline contemplated by Ind. Code 31-34-11-1(b) may be enlarged only if a party shows good cause for a continuance, and Mother showed good cause for a continuance in this case. Under section 31-34-11-1(d) a trial court must dismiss a CHINS petition if the court does not conclude a fact-finding hearing within 120 days of the State's filing of the petition. At issue int his case was whether the 120-day deadline may be enlarged under Ind. Trial Rule 53.5 if a party to the proceeding moves for a good faith continuance that results in the conclusion of fact-finding beyond the codified 120-day limit. In the instant case, Mother moved for a good faith continuance of the CHINS proceeding. The final order adjudicating M.S. a CHINS was not issued until after the 120-day deadline expired. Mother filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 120-day time period may be extended for good cause, and because Mother showed good cause for a continuance, the trial court correctly denied Mother's motion to dismiss. |
| |
| In re Adoption of Luc |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Docket: SJC-12719 Opinion Date: February 13, 2020 Judge: Lowy Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the appeals court affirming the decision and decree of the juvenile court judge terminating Mother's parental rights to Luc, holding that there was sufficient proof to support he judge's decree and decision. On appeal, Mother argued that the judge improperly admitted into evidence a Department of Child and Families social worker's reports and dictation notes, as well as inadmissible hearsay and improper opinion evidence contained therein. Mother also argued that the juvenile court judge's findings of fact were insufficient to establish Mother's unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even without the challenged evidence, there was enough proof supporting the judge's decree and decision terminating Mother's parental rights to Luc. |
| |
| CML v. ADBL |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 23 Opinion Date: February 20, 2020 Judge: Kate M. Fox Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying a petition filed by Father and Stepmother for adoption of Father and Mother's two minor children pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-22-110(a)(ix), holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mother's failure to pay seventy percent or more of court-ordered child support for a two-year period was not willful. Father and Stepmother petitioned the district court to allow Stepmother to adopt Father and Mother's two minor children based on Mother's willful failure to pay at least seventy percent of court-ordered support for a two-year period. The district court denied the petition, determining that Mother's failure to pay was not willful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that Mother's failure to meet her child support obligation was not willful. |
| |
