by Andy Chen | Feb 3, 2020 | California, Evidence
It should hopefully not surprise anyone that evidence is important in legal disputes. The parties will inevitably say their own versions of what happened, but unless someone has evidence to back up what they’re saying, the outcome will likely disappoint all involved. Not all evidence is treated equal, however. The evidence in question has to be relevant to the dispute in order to be of interest to a judge, a jury, the lawyers, etc. In this post, I’m going to talk about what “relevant” means in California court cases. The definition, unfortunately, varies from state-to-state. New York has a different definition as does the Federal Court system. Hopefully, though, you can see that the definitions are similar, regardless of the jurisdiction. In California state court, relevance is defined in California Evidence Code section 210, which provides: “Relevant evidence” means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” I bolded the end of that definition to highlight that ‘the tendency within reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact’ is the essence of what relevance means. Relevance is important because it limits what evidence can be admitted. Under section 350 of the California Evidence Code, only relevant evidence is admissible. In the abstract, this should hopefully make sense to everyone. It would be confusing and a waste of time and energy to admit or use evidence that is unrelated (i.e. is not relevant) to what the dispute or case is about. In practice,...
by Andy Chen | Feb 3, 2020 | California, contracts
Contracts are super prevalent in everyday life. If you have a loan (e.g. for your car), then you likely have a contract specifying things like what you have to pay and when and what happens if you don’t pay when you’re supposed to. Companies rely on contracts to do business with one another all the time. I would posit that literally everything you buy has been made and transported to you by a series of companies that have contracts between them specifying what each company’s obligations are and what fee they want to be paid. Contracts, of course, aren’t perfect. When problems arise and a lawsuit needs to be filed over, say, one party not doing what they are supposed to under the contract, one thing that needs to be examined is whether it is too late to sue. The time limit in which you have to file a civil lawsuit is called a “Statute of Limitations.” This varies not only state, but also by the type of case you want to file. If you miss this statute of limitations and then try to file your case, you will almost certainly lose your case because you’ve waited too long. In certain rare situations, you might be able to make an argument for why the statute of limitations period should be paused for a period (e.g. one year). This is called “tolling” and, if successful, would extend the statute of limitations period by that same amount of time that the proverbial clock was paused. If you’re the plaintiff, the filing date of your case will hopefully be within this extended...
by Andy Chen | Jan 21, 2020 | New York, Torts
A few years ago — 2016, it appears — I put out a video on my Youtube channel about the Shopkeeper’s Privilege in California. Here’s the video. This post will go over the Shopkeeper’s Privilege as it exists in New York. Like California, New York’s Shopkeeper’s Privilege is also statutory. The governing New York statute is Section 218 of the New York General Business Law. Section 218 provides that if a defendant is sued for “false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, defamation of character, assault, trespass, or invasion of civil rights” by a person detained at a retail establishment, the defendant may raise as a defense that the plaintiff was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a police officer or an owner or employee of the retail establishment and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff being detained had committed a theft. (Note: I am paraphrasing this somewhat due to length. If you’re going to actually use the statute (e.g. in court), do always take a look at the section’s actual text first). If you compare this to how California’s Shopkeeper’s Privilege works (see California Penal Code section 490.5(f)), you should see similarities. As always, this post is meant to only briefly go over a singular topic. If the Shopkeeper’s Privilege — either the California or New York one — please do additional research before proceeding and do not rely on just this blog post. Lastly, I’ll repeat again as I do at the end of every post related to New York...
by Andy Chen | Nov 27, 2019 | California, Military Law
If you are in the military in any way, you’re likely entitled to various legal protections under California law that — at least in theory — are meant to make it easier for you to perform your military service. These laws allow, for instance, may allow you to resume your old health insurance when your active duty service ends. It may allow you to enjoy a reduced interest rate on loans and other debts when you’re on active duty. There are housing-related benefits as well related to rental agreements and mortgages. In this post, I’m going to describe California’s laws in this area in a very general or high-level way. There are a lot of laws so I can’t go over all of them because if I did, this post would be enormous. As I make follow-on posts over time, however, I will probably hit a lot of these topics anyway. I am going to start this process by describing some common themes or ideas that all of these laws have that hopefully make it so all who are entitled to these benefits actually receive them. When working on cases in this area of California law, the first thing I ask is what kind of military member am I working with? By that, I mean is this person an active duty service member (e.g. Lance Corporal in the Marines), a member of the California National Guard, or a member of the Naval Reserves who has been called to active duty? As with anything in the law, technicalities and definitions like this can be important. The benefits provided are similar,...
by Andy Chen | Nov 3, 2019 | California, Family Law, Torts
In a prior post, I went over the definition of “separate property” in New York. Under that definition (Section 236(B)(1)(d) of New York’s Domestic Relations Law, if you need to look it up), one of the things that is separate property in divorce in New York is damages received by a spouse for their personal injuries. In this post, I’m going to go over that same question — namely, is money received for personal injuries separate or not — for California. California and New York are similar politically, but remember that when it comes to divorces, California is a community property state and New York is not. Does that affect the answer? In short, yes. Money received for personal injuries sustained during the marriage is community property in California, but it is not automatically subject to division in the way community property typically is in a divorce. There are three California statutes that apply here, all of which are in the California Family Code. The first is section 780 of the California Family Code which provides the following. This entire statute is important, but I’ve put the super important parts in bold. “Except as provided in Section 781 and subject to the rules of allocation set forth in Section 2603, money and other property received or to be received by a married person in satisfaction of a judgment for damages for personal injuries, or pursuant to an agreement for the settlement or compromise of a claim for such damages, is community property if the cause of action for the damages arose during the marriage.” From this, the general rule...
by Andy Chen | Oct 31, 2019 | California, Family Law, New York
As mentioned previously on this blog, California is in the small group of US states that use the community property method of property division when it comes to dividing items during a divorce. If you are involved in or around a California divorce case, you know that the terms “community property” and “separate property” are used frequently. As also mentioned previously, the former is divided equally during a California divorce while the latter is not. If you’re interested, community property in California is defined in section 760 of the California Family Code while separate property is defined in section 770(a) of the California Family Code. New York, on the other hand, is not a community property state, but rather uses a property division method called Equitable Distribution. New York is similar to most states in the US in that only about 10 states (mostly in the western US and southwestern US) use the community property method. Unfortunately, this distinction can become confusing to talk about because New York also uses the term “separate property” like California does. However, in place of “community property,” New York uses the term “marital property.” Terminology aside, what also makes it confusing is that the definitions for separate and marital/community property look very similar. For example, in New York, “separate property” is defined in New York Domestic Relations Law section 236(B)(1)(d) as: property acquired before marriage or property acquired by bequest, devise, descent, or gift from someone other than the person’s spouse; compensation for personal injuries; property acquired in exchange for or the increase in value of separate property, except to the extent this...
by Andy Chen | Oct 29, 2019 | California, Family Law
When it comes to marriage and divorces in California, one concept that you must absolutely understand is the idea of community versus separate property. The idea is fundamentally very simple. In a nutshell, when you are married, the items you acquire during the marriage are — with a few exceptions — “community property” (see California Family Code section 760). Think of community property as belonging to both spouses equally. In the event of divorce, community property needs to be divided equally. Property that you acquire before or after the married couple separates is “separate property” (see California Family Code section 770) and is not divided during a divorce because it is owned just one of the spouses. Applying this idea in the real world, however, can be complicated for a few reasons. When something was acquired (e.g. during the marriage, before the marriage, etc) is really important. The parties can disagree about that and there is, unfortunately, not always a clear cut way to prove when something was acquired. Sometimes, the date of acquisition is not always a single date. This often happens when, for instance, one spouse buys something (e.g. a house or car) when they are single and pays for it over time that is partly when they are single and partly when they are married. Third, most normal people do not think of assets in terms of when it was acquired, what money was used to pay for it, etc. As a result, mixing or commingling of assets is very common, especially for inherently fungible items like money. Because of these problems and those like them,...
by Andy Chen | Oct 25, 2019 | California, Estate Planning
I’ve made several posts in the past about California wills. There’s the one about how to make a will, how to disinherit your children and your spouse, as well as what happens to your will when you get divorced in California. In this post, I’m going to go over something a bit more fundamental when you make a will: is the person mentally competent to even make a will? If a person is going to make a will, I think they should make it really early. Making a will in your 30s or 40s isn’t too soon at all, I think. Human nature being what it is, though, many people wait until the last minute to make a will. By this time, they might be suffering from a variety of health problems, including but not limited to dementia. The question of ‘When is someone mentally competent to make a will?” is answered in California in section 6100.5 of the California Probate Code. The statute is phrased — for clarity and ease of understanding purposes, I’m sure — in the negative. Two criteria are listed and if either of those criteria are satisfied, mental competency does not exist. Under section 6111(b)(2) of the California Probate Code, a will is invalid if it was made at a time when the person making it (i.e. the testator) did not have mental competency. The criteria to demonstrate a lack of mental competency under Section 6100.5 are as follows: The person does not understand the nature of the testamentary act. For example, the person needs to understand that they are making a will and...
by Andy Chen | Oct 23, 2019 | Family Law, New York
Last time, I described the concept of an Automatic Temporary Restraining Order (ATROS) in a California divorce case as authorized under Section 2040 of the California Family Code. The idea of an ATROS is not unique to California, however. New York has it as well and that’s the subject of this blog post. Before I begin, my usual disclaimer for New York content applies: I have been licensed to practice law in New York since 2012, but I do not (as of the date of this post) maintain a physical office in New York state. Under Section 470 of the New York Judiciary Law, I therefore cannot practice law in the state of New York. This post is meant to simply go over a New York statute that is publicly-available for free to any member of the public. If you have a case in New York involving an ATROS, do feel free to get in touch in the event I can make a referral for you. Anyway, that said, in my California ATROS post, I described how some marriages involve a disparity in earning power. One spouse might, for example, stay at home to raise the children while the other works a job to support the family. This can, in the event of divorce, sometimes result in a situation where the spouse who works tries to exercise an unfair advantage over the spouse who stayed home in retaliation by, for example, concealing marital property or cancelling the family’s health insurance. In California, the Section 2040 ATROS is intended to prevent this. New York has a similar ATROS under New...
by Andy Chen | Oct 21, 2019 | California, Family Law
Everyone’s divorce is different. I haven’t checked every state, of course, but I would venture a guess that that applies to divorces all over. It is not specific specific to any one state in the US. One scenario that sometimes occurs is the following. Spouse A and B are married, but there is a disparity in earnings between the two. For example, only A works a job while B stays home to raise the children. Suppose that A and B then divorce. What, unfortunately, sometimes occurs is that A then attempts to exercise financial leverage to coerce B during the course of the divorce. I’ve seen this happen both in situations where A has filed for divorce and B has filed for divorce. In the former, A may feel entitled to, for instance, hide significant community property because A feels that property belongs to them since it came from their earnings. In the latter, A may feel entitled to cut B off financially by, for example, hiding assets as a way of retaliating for B filing a divorce in the first place. What is the spouse in B’s position to do to protect themselves? In California, B is protected by something called an Automatic Temporary Restraining Order — commonly called an “ATROS” — as defined in California Family Code section 2040 and that is the subject of this post. Most people have heard of the term “restraining order” which is generally a court order prohibiting (i.e. “restraining”) one party from doing something. A restraining order might be issued by a family court in a domestic violence situation, for example....
