Menu

It’s certainly not unusual for at least one member of a formerly married couple to express hostile feelings after a divorce. But when this goes further and becomes abusive behavior, what options are available to the spouse being attacked?

California’s Proposition 13 limits increases in the assessed value of real property – and therefore in the taxes levied on that property – unless there is a “change in ownership” of the property. But if the only change is in the form of ownership of the property, as from a partnership or corporation to a trust, with the beneficial ownership interests remaining unchanged, there is no reassessment.

Setting up a trust allows us to specify how we want our assets to be distributed to our beneficiaries, and to modify those decisions later should circumstances – or just our wishes – change. But a trust must be drafted carefully, to ensure that it meets legal requirements, and any subsequent changes must be made with equal care, as a case recently decided by the California Court of Appeal demonstrates (Trotter v Van Dyck).

Arbitration is supposed to provide a quicker, more private, and less expensive alternative to litigating a dispute in a courtroom. Because the parties may have very different resources – often an individual confronting a large corporation – California requires the parties to an arbitration to adhere closely to rules intended to keep the process as fair as possible.

Lawyers are duty-bound to vigorously represent the interests of their clients, and that can sometimes lead to some pretty contentious behavior in a courtroom or when two sides are negotiating a bitterly contested agreement. But vigorous advocacy is supposed to stop short of breaking the ethical rules that lawyers are duty-bound to follow.

Arbitration is intended to be a quicker, less expensive, and more confidential alternative to traditional courtroom litigation. But what happens if one of the parties seems to be gaming the arbitration system to delay the proceedings?