Dissolution of marriage and legal separation: disclosure of assets and liabilities.
Impact
The proposed amendments would have significant implications for the legal process surrounding divorce and asset division in California. By streamlining the ability to waive disclosures, the bill can lead to faster resolutions in some divorce cases. However, it also expands the crime of perjury, as the required declarations are signed under penalty of perjury, which could deter noncompliance by making legal consequences clearer for those failing to disclose assets as required.
Summary
Assembly Bill 2373, introduced by Assembly Member Acosta, amends certain sections of the Family Code dealing with the dissolution of marriage and legal separation. The bill primarily seeks to modify how financial disclosures are handled in divorce proceedings by allowing a party who has complied with disclosure requirements to waive their right to receive disclosures from a noncompliant party without needing court approval. This change aims to simplify the process for individuals wishing to forgo the burdensome requirement for court intervention in particular cases of noncompliance.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding AB 2373 appears to be generally supportive among lawmakers, as indicated by its unanimous vote of 71-0 during its passage. Proponents highlight the bill as a necessary adjustment to modernize the dissolution process by reducing unnecessary court involvement. However, some concerns may exist regarding the balance between allowing waivers and ensuring that both parties are adequately protected and informed during the financial disclosure process.
Contention
The most notable point of contention regarding AB 2373 lies in its potential to enable parties to waive vital financial disclosures without court oversight. Critics might argue that this could lead to inequities, especially if one party suppresses vital information that could affect asset division. The requirement that the waiving party acknowledges their rights can lead to discussions about whether this truly affords fairness in all circumstances, especially in cases where power imbalances in the relationship might influence decision-making.