<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.5.1" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Divorce Lawyers San Jose</title>
	<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog</link>
	<description>San Jose Divorce Lawyers and Attorneys</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:18:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>1 Before Filing</title>
		<description>Satisfy Your Credit Counseling Requirement Before Filing Bankruptcy
1 Before Filing </description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=42</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>1 After Filing</title>
		<description>
2-Hour Personal Financial Management Instructional Course

1 After Filing </description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=41</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Retirement</title>
		<description>Whether a spouse may rely on his retirement as a change in circumstances to justify the modification of maintenance depends upon the circumstances of each individual case; relevant factors include his age, health, motives and timing of retirement, ability to pay maintenance after retirement, and the former spouse’s ability to ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=40</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Proceedings on Remand</title>
		<description>Where a change in the economic circumstances of one or both of the parties occurred between the remand and the new hearing, the wife’s proper recourse was to file a motion for modification pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, in which she could have presented any evidence of a ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=39</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Burden of Proof Not Met</title>
		<description>The standard for modification due to cohabitation was not met where former spouse’s roommate made only one contribution toward household expenses, the couple did not have a joint checking account and did not commingle funds in any manner, wife’s cohabitation with roommate did not affect her need for support, maintenance ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=38</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Certain and Definite</title>
		<description>The provision for the payment of alimony by husband as “one-half of his salary earned and received as a teacher or employee of the public schools of the City of Chicago, Illinois, as long as he is so employed” was held reasonably definite and certain.
 </description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=37</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Malpractice</title>
		<description>Because subsection (b) of this section, before 1982 amendments, permitted parties to agree to maintenance that would be payable following the remarriage of the recipient, a settlement agreement that included a provision that maintenance payments were not modifiable did not warrant imposition of liability on an based on a breach ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=36</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Reserved Jurisdiction Method</title>
		<description>Under the reserved jurisdiction method, the court orders the employee spouse to pay an allocated portion of the pension fund to the former spouse, as it is disbursed, while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the decree; the payments are made by the employee spouse “if, as and when” the benefits become ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=35</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Unconscionability</title>
		<description>Husband failed to establish either duress or economic inequality to render marital property settlement agreement unconscionable.
In a divorce action where the plaintiff wife had no counsel of record when the cause was called for trial, the trial court’s ex parte decree of divorce entered upon defendant husband’s counterclaim was totally ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=34</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Trust Ordered By Court</title>
		<description>Trust was created by appellee for his own benefit and was therefore invalid as a spendthrift trust; therefore prohibition of this section in reaching the trust for future child support payments did not apply so the trust was converted into a trust under 750 ILCS 5/503(g).

Also See San Antonio Divorce ...</description>
		<link>http://www.divorce-lawyers-sanjose.com/blog/?p=33</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
