TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT (TCJA) OF 2017 COMPLICATES POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF DIVORCE CASES

Leave a comment

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) enacted dramatic changes to several tax issues that directly impact how divorces are settled. If you are a high wage earner, or you’re married to one and you’re contemplating getting a divorce, there’s almost a sense of urgency toward you understanding the financial aspects of your divorce and when to file your marital settlement agreement, should you and your spouse reach one.

Heather L. Locus, an owner and wealth manager at Balasa Dinverno Foltz LLC in Chicago, defines on her Website why this could be important to you. “Many high-net-worth couples may want to move quickly in order to preserve some important financial options,” Locus writes. “Couples who finalize their divorce agreements this year have many more options since the most significant rules impacting divorce go into effect on New Year’s Day 2019.” Keep on reading!

DOES THE U.S. HAVE ENOUGH GOLD TO BACK THE NEW U.S. DOLLAR?

1 Comment

The U.S. dollar as we know it is about to be replaced by a new currency. We don’t know when. It could be this year, or maybe next year, we don’t know. The question is not if? the Federal Reserve Note (U.S. Dollar) will be replaced but when? When it does, it’s going to have to be gold backed with value. Real assets like gold will have to back the new U.S. dollar at least in part for America, and Americans, to get back onto the global financial carousel with economic independence and the ability to coexist with foreign currencies that are backed by gold.

The important question to us as Americans with family members to provide for and a desire to see our spending power grow is how much if any gold does the U.S. actually possess? A legacy of secrecy still surrounds how much gold America has, author James Ledbetter, editor of “Inc. magazine” and the author of “One Nation Under Gold: How One Precious Metal Has Dominated the American Imagination for Four Centuries”, writes for the Los Angeles Times. “Some of the conservative and libertarian figures who demand that the Federal Reserve be audited, for example, grumble that there may be a lot less gold — maybe none! — in Fort Knox than official numbers allow,” Ledbetter writes. Keep on reading!

WHAT HAPPENED TO HR 5404 – AND THE GOLD BACKING OF AMERICA’S NEW CURRENCY?

11 Comments

It’s tough being a kid growing up in these times of civil war and deprivation where censorship runs rampant and the many layers of falsehood are often confused for truth. We’ve seen up close the horrors of pain and desperation etched onto the faces of hungry American children and frail elders alike. Our food and water is poisoned, geoengineering is making us ill and destroying the environment in which we live, and fires endlessly burn us out of our homes, jobs, and air. The economy has turned many of us into financial slaves and we can feel the devastation of loved ones falling apart right before our helpless eyes.

Our children are our futures yet they suffer from the darkness of a financial insecurity of which they are yet unaware. Many families don’t have enough money to make ends meet on a monthly basis which means they don’t have the financial wherewithal to keep their families together, to fill their children’s bellies with nutritionally balanced meals, or to clothe them properly from head to toe. Choices with profound implications have to be made under every roof every day. Irreversible sacrifices are being taken. Bills are not getting paid, medicines or food or both are not being bought, and almost all of this has to do with scarcity in the name of the American Dollar. Keep on reading!

VENTURA FAMILY LAWYERS EXPOSE SACHA BARON COHEN AND SHOWTIME ON BEHALF OF DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Leave a comment

Who do we think we are?

We are a boutique California family law firm and mediation center dedicated to serving families and helping them preserve their hard earned wealth. Beneath our professional veneer you will find a team of humble servants of God striving to make a difference in everyday people’s lives. We strive to champion righteous causes, our decades of experience provide us with insight into how better to achieve family values and prosperity, and we write to expose the serious problems and potential solutions thereto regarding the fact major American institutions are making life miserable and often times deadly for American Veterans and senior citizens, two of America’s most vulnerable and valuable social classes.

That’s why on September 6 we wrote an article specifically targeting Sacha Baron Cohen and Showtime when the non funny comedian disrespected disabled American vets in a segment of his failed Who is America? series on Showtime. We blasted the unfunny Brit who had disguised himself as a disabled American vet from Kentucky, fake wheelchair and all, while interviewing former Alaska governor and U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom he stated he was a fan of. Keep on reading!

FAMILY LAW COURT ORDER NOT ENOUGH TO ESTOP WIFE FROM SUING EX FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Leave a comment

If he continuously commits acts of violence against his ex wife, she should be able to go after him with a legal vengeance.  And the California appellate courts agree.  In its wisdom, the Golden State’s highest court has held that despite the fact Wife went after Husband in family law court, and was awarded spousal support, she is not collaterally estopped (prevented) by res judicata from filing a tort action against her former Husband based on his alleged acts of domestic violence against her. In the case of Boblitt v Boblitt (2010) 190 CA4th 603, 118 CR3d 788, Wife, at the couple’s divorce trial, claimed that her Husband had been physically and mentally abusive for decades, from the time before they were married up until after the dissolution was filed.  She further claimed that injuries resulting from the abuse had impaired her ability to work. The trial judge indicated that he considered her allegations in reviewing the factors set forth in Family Code §4320 affecting spousal support and stated in his statement of decision that he had trouble with Wife’s credibility relating to some of the alleged incidents.  The family court judge then went on to state that, although Wife had also requested she be repaid for “past medical bills, future medical bills, counseling and alleged pain and suffering,” he felt her spousal support award was appropriate.  When a judgment on reserved issues was entered in the family law court, the wife requested reconsideration and then, when that was unsuccessful, appealed the judgment. In a civil action, Wife later sued Husband for damages based on domestic violence, assault and battery, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as other causes of action.  Husband moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that all of Wife’s claims had been or could have been tried in the family law case and that the family law court had denied Wife most of the relief she had requested there. Wife opposed Husband’s motion, first by arguing that the family law judgment, being on appeal, was not a final judgment, and second, by arguing that the domestic violence cause of action was “not tried in the dissolution action.”  The trial court in the tort action granted Husband’s motion based on collateral estoppel or res judicata. The appellate court reversed.  It found Wife to be correct on both counts in her tort action.  The panel pointed out that even had the family law judgment on reserved issues been final, Wife’s second argument remained valid.  The appellate court found that Wife’s tort action was based on “the primary right to be free from personal injury,” while the right to spousal support from a former spouse was based on the trial court’s consideration of numerous factors, one of which is a history of domestic violence.  Also, the family law judge’s failure to award Wife some of the relief she requested, such as for past and future medical bills, counseling, and alleged pain and suffering, did not have a preclusive effect, because that judge had no power to award such relief in a divorce case.

Older Entries