<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Marcus Family Law Center, PLC &#187; News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>When is community property divided?  When the MSA is signed, says CA4</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/when-is-community-property-divided-when-the-msa-is-signed-says-ca4/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=when-is-community-property-divided-when-the-msa-is-signed-says-ca4</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/when-is-community-property-divided-when-the-msa-is-signed-says-ca4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 15:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce Marital Settlement Agreement community property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Divorces often end in some kind of agreement between the parties. Frequently, the parties will hash out a deal in a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), which is signed by the parties (and their counsel, if there be any), attached to &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/when-is-community-property-divided-when-the-msa-is-signed-says-ca4/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/when-is-community-property-divided-when-the-msa-is-signed-says-ca4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kingdoms unto themselves, Part 3: Family Court Services (FCS), Post 3</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-3-family-court-services-post-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-3-family-court-services-post-3</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-3-family-court-services-post-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 18:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Custody & Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fcs family court services custody visitation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=805</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article continues my series on the various agencies that one encounters in a Family Law proceeding beyond the Court, itself. Last week, I gave tips on how to make the most of your all-important appointment with FCS. Now we&#8217;ll &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-3-family-court-services-post-3/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/05/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-3-family-court-services-post-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kingdoms unto themselves, Part 2: Family Court Services (FCS), Post 2</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-2-family-court-services-post-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-2-family-court-services-post-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-2-family-court-services-post-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Custody & Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Court Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=795</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article continues my series on the various agencies that one encounters in a Family Law proceeding beyond the Court, itself. Last week, I stressed the importance of the Family Court Services (FCS) recommendation (in &#8220;recommending counties&#8221;). It is the &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-2-family-court-services-post-2/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-2-family-court-services-post-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kingdoms unto themselves, Part 1: Family Court Services (FCS)</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-1-family-court-services/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-1-family-court-services</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-1-family-court-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Custody & Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Court Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many people think that, when one starts a divorce (or custody proceeding, or request to modify support), one deals solely with an opposing party, that person&#8217;s lawyer and a judge acting as kind of a referee.  The reality is more &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-1-family-court-services/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/04/kingdoms-unto-themselves-part-1-family-court-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;She&#8217;s rich!  She shouldn&#8217;t get fees,&#8221; argument rejected, but post-judgment 2102(c) sanctions no good, CA4 says</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/02/shes-rich-she-shouldnt-get-fees-argument-rejected-but-post-judgment-2102c-sanctions-no-good-ca4-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shes-rich-she-shouldnt-get-fees-argument-rejected-but-post-judgment-2102c-sanctions-no-good-ca4-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/02/shes-rich-she-shouldnt-get-fees-argument-rejected-but-post-judgment-2102c-sanctions-no-good-ca4-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Custody & Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fees sanctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two years after entry of a San Diego county Judgment dissolving the marriage of Joseph and MaryAnne Sorge, MaryAnne filed a motion for modification of custody and visitation of the minor child, with attendant requests for a modification of child &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/02/shes-rich-she-shouldnt-get-fees-argument-rejected-but-post-judgment-2102c-sanctions-no-good-ca4-says/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2012/02/shes-rich-she-shouldnt-get-fees-argument-rejected-but-post-judgment-2102c-sanctions-no-good-ca4-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CA-4 says burden of proof on &#8220;managing spouse&#8221; to account for missing assets</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/09/ca-4-says-burden-of-proof-on-managing-spouse-to-account-for-missing-assets/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ca-4-says-burden-of-proof-on-managing-spouse-to-account-for-missing-assets</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/09/ca-4-says-burden-of-proof-on-managing-spouse-to-account-for-missing-assets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1101 721 asets managing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/?p=165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision filed August 11, 2011, the Third Division of the Fourth Californa Appelate District ruled, &#8220;In a marital dissolution proceeding to divide the community property, where the nonmanaging spouse has prima facie evidence that community assets..have disappeared while &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/09/ca-4-says-burden-of-proof-on-managing-spouse-to-account-for-missing-assets/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/09/ca-4-says-burden-of-proof-on-managing-spouse-to-account-for-missing-assets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Trial Court reversed for denying move-away</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/08/another-trial-court-reversed-for-denying-move-away/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=another-trial-court-reversed-for-denying-move-away</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/08/another-trial-court-reversed-for-denying-move-away/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:08:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/?p=162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jacob A., v. C.H.; C064741, (Super. Ct. No. PFL2008-0012) The California Third District Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the El Dorado Superior Court to deny the move-away of a mother on the grounds that the trial court&#8217;s order, &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/08/another-trial-court-reversed-for-denying-move-away/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/08/another-trial-court-reversed-for-denying-move-away/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appellate Court reverses denial of move-away; cites abuse of discretion</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/05/appellate-court-reverses-denial-of-move-away-cites-abuse-of-discretion/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appellate-court-reverses-denial-of-move-away-cites-abuse-of-discretion</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/05/appellate-court-reverses-denial-of-move-away-cites-abuse-of-discretion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 15:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[move away]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/?p=125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mark T. v. Jamie Z., D057091 In a decision filed April 28, 2011, the 4th California Court of Appeals determined that, when a joint-custody parent wishes to move to another state, the trial court must assume the parent will move &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/05/appellate-court-reverses-denial-of-move-away-cites-abuse-of-discretion/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/05/appellate-court-reverses-denial-of-move-away-cites-abuse-of-discretion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CA-4 affirms worker&#8217;s compensation award during marriage is both comm. and sep. property</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/04/ca-4-affirms-workers-compensation-award-during-marriage-is-both-comm-and-sep-property/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ca-4-affirms-workers-compensation-award-during-marriage-is-both-comm-and-sep-property</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/04/ca-4-affirms-workers-compensation-award-during-marriage-is-both-comm-and-sep-property/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers compensation community separate property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/?p=120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN RE: the Marriage of FLORA S. and GEORGE L. RUIZ. FLORA S. RUIZ, Appellant, v. GEORGE L. RUIZ, Respondent. E049310 In a decision filed April 14, 2011, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed a Riverside Superior Court&#8217;s &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/04/ca-4-affirms-workers-compensation-award-during-marriage-is-both-comm-and-sep-property/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/04/ca-4-affirms-workers-compensation-award-during-marriage-is-both-comm-and-sep-property/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CA-2 holds §1101(g) (breach of fiduciary duty) fee awards are mandatory</title>
		<link>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/02/ca-2-holds-%c2%a71101g-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-fee-awards-are-mandatory/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ca-2-holds-%25c2%25a71101g-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-fee-awards-are-mandatory</link>
		<comments>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/02/ca-2-holds-%c2%a71101g-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-fee-awards-are-mandatory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gideonmarcus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/?p=117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN RE: MARRIAGE OF Sandra and Edward FOSSUM In a decision filed January 28, 2011, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that, under CFC §1101(g), attorney fee awards are mandatory when a party breaches fiduciary duty &#8230; <a href="http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/02/ca-2-holds-%c2%a71101g-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-fee-awards-are-mandatory/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barefootlawyer.com/news/2011/02/ca-2-holds-%c2%a71101g-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-fee-awards-are-mandatory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

