Protect What You've Built. Strategic Divorce Counsel.

Restricted stock units (RSUs) and stock options granted during the marriage are generally community property and must be apportioned — even when they vest after you separate. California courts use time-based formulas to decide how much of each unvested grant is community versus separate.

Which formula applies depends on why the grant was made. The Hug formula (from Marriage of Hug) measures from your start of employment to vesting and is used when the grant rewarded past work, such as a signing or hiring grant. The Nelson formula (from Marriage of Nelson) measures from the grant date to vesting and applies when the grant was meant to incentivize future service and retention. Because Hug reaches back further, it usually produces a larger community share.

The grant agreements, board resolutions, and your employer's practices determine which formula controls. The date of separation is the cutoff — moving it even a few months can shift hundreds of thousands of dollars in unvested equity between community and separate property.

A community-property business is rarely split down the middle in practice. More often, the business is valued and one spouse keeps it while the other is bought out with cash or offsetting assets. The fight is usually over the number.

Valuation typically involves a forensic accountant analyzing income, assets, market comparables, and especially goodwill — the intangible value beyond hard assets. California recognizes that goodwill built during the marriage can be a divisible community asset, and separating enterprise goodwill (tied to the business) from personal goodwill (tied to the owner) is one of the most contested issues in a high-asset case.

The valuation date, the method used, and the treatment of owner compensation all materially change the result. We retain the right experts and pressure-test the other side's appraisal.

Usually, yes — but the growth during the marriage may be partly community property. California uses two apportionment approaches depending on what drove that growth.

The Pereira approach applies when the increase came mainly from the owner-spouse's effort and skill: the court assigns a fair rate of return to your original separate investment (which stays separate) and treats the rest of the growth as community. The Van Camp approach applies when growth came mainly from the nature of the business or market forces: the court credits a reasonable salary for your community labor and lets the remaining appreciation stay separate.

Arguing for the favorable method can swing the outcome dramatically. We build the financial record to support the approach that protects your separate estate.

Executive packages are rarely just salary. Deferred compensation, pensions, carried interest, profits interests, and performance bonuses all have to be characterized and, where earned during the marriage, apportioned — often using time-rule formulas similar to those for equity grants.

For support, fluctuating income like bonuses and vesting equity is frequently handled with a percentage allocation (an Ostler-Smith approach) on top of base support, so neither spouse has to relitigate every bonus.

Both spouses owe fiduciary duties of full financial disclosure. When the numbers don't add up, we use formal discovery and forensic accountants to trace funds, scrutinize business records, and identify accounts, crypto, or transfers that should be on the table. If a spouse wasted or hid community assets, the court can order reimbursement or an unequal division to make you whole.

Often, yes — through tracing. Commingling separate property (an inheritance, a pre-marriage account, a gift) into joint accounts doesn't automatically convert it to community property, but you carry the burden of proving its separate character with records. We work with forensic experts to reconstruct the paper trail and preserve reimbursement claims (for example, Epstein credits and Watts charges).

Primary residences, vacation homes, and investment properties each need accurate valuation and a clear characterization of separate versus community interests — including credit for separate down payments or mortgage paydown during the marriage. We coordinate appraisals and weigh the real options (sale and split, buy-out, or continued co-ownership) with an eye to tax consequences and your long-term plan.

California courts decide custody based on the best interests of the child, weighing the child's health, safety, and welfare, the stability of each home, and the nature of each parent's relationship with the child. Custody has two parts: legal custody (the right to make major decisions about health, education, and welfare) and physical custody (where the child lives and the parenting timeshare). Either can be joint or sole.

Courts generally favor frequent and continuing contact with both parents unless that would not serve the child. When parents can't agree, the court may order custody mediation and, in contested cases, a custody evaluation. We advocate for a parenting plan that protects your children's stability and your role in their lives.

California uses a statewide guideline formula that factors in both parents' incomes and the percentage of time each spends with the children, along with tax filing status and certain deductions. The guideline amount is presumed correct in most cases.

For high-income earners, the analysis gets more nuanced. The guideline can be rebutted where the paying parent's income is so high that the formula amount would far exceed the children's reasonable needs, and accurately determining true income — including bonuses, equity, and self-employment or business income — is often the central battle. We make sure income is characterized correctly so support is fair, not distorted.

California has two kinds of spousal support. Temporary support, ordered while the case is pending, is often set using a county guideline calculation based on the parties' incomes. Long-term (post-judgment) support is not formula-driven — the court weighs the statutory factors in Family Code section 4320, including the marital standard of living, each spouse's earning capacity, the supported spouse's needs, the duration of the marriage, age and health, and contributions to the other's career or education.

Duration matters: for marriages under ten years, support often runs about half the length of the marriage as a general reference point, while a marriage of long duration (generally ten years or more) can keep the court's jurisdiction open without a fixed end date. In high-income cases, properly establishing the marital standard of living and true income is critical. We build well-supported positions so any order reflects reality, not exaggeration.

A well-drafted agreement can control much of how assets and support are handled, but enforceability turns on strict requirements. Under California Family Code section 1615, an agreement can be challenged if it was not signed voluntarily, or if it was unconscionable when signed and the challenging party didn't receive full and fair financial disclosure (and didn't waive it).

For agreements signed on or after January 1, 2020, California also imposes a seven-day rule: a party must have at least seven calendar days between first receiving the final agreement and signing it. Independent counsel, adequate disclosure, and the circumstances of signing all factor in. Whether you're enforcing an agreement or believe one was signed under unfair conditions, we assess its strength early.

Sometimes, yes. California provides specific grounds to set aside a judgment under Family Code sections 2120–2122, including actual fraud, perjury, duress, mental incapacity, mistake, and the failure to disclose assets or income as required. There are also more general avenues, such as Code of Civil Procedure section 473 for mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Strict time limits apply and they vary by ground, so acting quickly is essential. If you discover your former spouse hid assets or misrepresented finances, we can evaluate whether a set-aside motion is available and worthwhile.

California imposes a mandatory six-month waiting period — a divorce can't be final any sooner than six months and one day after the responding spouse is served (or appears). That's the floor, not the typical timeline.

An uncontested case with cooperative spouses may finish at or near the six-month mark, while a contested, high-asset case involving business valuations, custody disputes, or extensive discovery can take a year or more. A clear strategy and efficient handling keep things moving and avoid unnecessary delay and cost.

An uncontested divorce is one where the spouses agree on all major issues — property division, support, and any custody arrangements — and put those terms into a written settlement. It's typically faster, more private, and less expensive, and it never requires a trial.

A contested divorce is one where the spouses can't agree on one or more issues, requiring negotiation, mediation, or ultimately court intervention to resolve them. Many cases begin contested and settle along the way. We aim for efficient, favorable resolution wherever possible, while staying fully prepared to litigate when the other side won't be reasonable.

Discretion is central to how we work. From confidential communications to strategies that keep sensitive financial and personal details out of the public record where possible, we handle high-profile matters with the privacy they require — and pursue private resolution paths like negotiation and mediation when they serve your interests.