SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Amy J who wrote (18198)3/6/2004 10:24:24 PM
From: brushwudRead Replies (1) of 306849
 
Personally think the judge should rule she's responsible for being financially inept by spending above their means so was an absolute hazard to their marital health. Even in no-fault California, the judge should rule with common sense and cut the figure by a substantial factor.

The judge should rule according to the California Family Code, not "common sense". You liberal Democrats always want activist judges to enact your political ends, rather than achieving them through legislation.

If she spent above their means and her expenses exceeded their income, the difference would amount to community debt in California, and be divided up along with community property. He'll have to support her for a few years and the amount will be determined by a formula based on their incomes. In the end, expenses are probably irrelevant.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News