Chico Family Law Attorney C. Chan 530.497-0777... Win Your Case!

BEWARE:  If you have any issue in divorce,  involving a property like a house, which is under water, absolutely do NOT let any officer of the court (Judge, commissioner,etc.) GIVE your house to the other party if you paid big cash down--- unless you don't want the house at all....ever.   Get help fast from a family law attorney who has handled these cases as it appears that some in Butte County don't understand how to handle this. There is a lot written about reimbursements in CA family law cases, and some very messy litigation in the published cases. Typically, a CA FC2640 reimbursement  http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/family-code/fam-sect-2640.html arises when spouses  to the dissolution have spent their separate property money and then went in/out and out/in and changed things such that it's difficult to say who owned what, when, where, and how? In some instances, each party claims reimbursement. Also note that reimbursement is not automatic if there...

In what was claimed to be a case of a "move away" which had already taken place, and where there was no ongoing order, but only a Parentage Act temporary order of several months, and a time span of less than four years.........client offered other side at least 4 months a year visitation, which is actually fairly long, considering the parents are not in the same state.  Other side refused to take the offer. We note this opposing attorney does have great credentials insofar as academics, and even on objections.       In attempting to settle the case, before the trial even started, we proposed several variations, all of which would have given the other side straight time visitation of at least two months duration each time, plus more. We announced before trial began, that we would try for settlement at the outset. However, apparently the other side was entrenched in their belief that they would be granted custody and would be leaving with the child in tow for...

The doctrine of res judicata means that a judgment on the merits in a lawsuit involving the same parties will bar a later lawsuit based on the same cause of action; collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues already litigated and determined, regardless of whether the prior suit was based on the same cause of action as the subsequent lawsuit. As an example, an attorney (not attorney herein)  asserted res judicata in defending his client's claim that the order to take a 52 week for DV conduct had been completed, and that the Court's order indicated client had completed the class; however, Wife later discovered that spouse lied, and in fact had not completed the class at all.  The Court had not asked for proof of completion. Outside of whether or not this was a 'final' order, it is very unlikely that the "res judicata" would stand since the spouse obviously and purposely gave false testimony (since it could not have been true.) Therefore the ...

Beware having to be placed on supervised visitation; it is very expensive, it's difficult to get into an agency, and even if you get into the agency, it's still fairly expensive. Having a third party which or who is not an agency supervisor is a good alternative. Preferably not someone who hates you? Attorney is seeing many cases where everyone thinks the parent should be supervised. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that it becomes a show and tell episode of fault finding. Attorney has seen this pattern relentlessly.  The goal of supervised visits is to improve the parent, not make him/her worse.  While no one is perfect, observation in public places of one who is watching their own kid will be skewed by each party because they are critical of each other to begin with. That is why a supervisor who is objective, not subjective, will not necessarily try and take sides. In all fairness we would like kids to have good parents with some skills. Many parents lack th...

ATTORNEY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SOLVING PROBLEMS.  You have come to the right attorney for your problem here...                Even if you are losing your case---attorney can likely turn it around.                               Attorney limits how many cases she works on at a time, and                  actually excels at  difficult cases..                  Attorney often works on cases that other attorneys won't work on.                                                        Affordable service * Friendly Help  *                          ...

It should be known that "mediation" only means settling cases, and the mediation person is not usually advocating for your side, he/she is just there to settle the case. Now that doesn't mean he/she may not explain the law, but seriously, how can just explaining the law point out each person's rights without an opinion on what is right? Clients usually don't know the law or their entitlement rights, that's why they hire attorneys; but hiring mediators that just settle cases doesn't mean necessarily that YOUR rights will be necessarily covered. Why? Well if a mediator doesn't tell you your rights then what rights do you have?  If a mediator can only point out things, because they do not actually  advocate for one side, you can hire your own advocate who will ONLY take your side for whatever position you have, explain the details, and explain (to you only) --- why or why not you might or might win a specific point? The adversary system is normally...

Pitbull litigator and Litigation in Animal Law Cases One of the first cases in federal law involving a pitbull in Northern California, was when the police killed the owner's pitbull..... Summary:  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Primary Citation:    36 F3d 65 (9th Cir. 1994) Motion for leave to amend § 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun. Case below (non pitbull dog we assume) re 42 USC 1983 claim: Moreno v. Hughes 2016 WL 212932 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2016) This § 1983 action arises from the shooting of Plaintiffs' do...