Practice Areas and Legal Definitions

Divorce:
A court of law is the only way one can obtain a divorce decree, dissolution, legal separation, nullity or other form of terminating a marriage. Other than the termination of the marital estate, the court also has jurisdiction to resolve other issues that are intertwined in the existing marriage which include, but are not limited to: custody and visitation rights, division of property of the marital estate, spousal support, child support, restraining orders, etc.

Property and Debt Division:
Marital property attained during marriage, regardless of whose name it is under, can be divided. Marital property can include real estate (including a home bought in contemplation of marriage), pension plans, vehicles, bank accounts, income tax refunds and/or household furnishings. However, property that is inherited by one spouse is not considered marital property, i.e. a family business or estate. If you are contractually bound with your ex-spouse on a debt, the creditor can require the entire payment of that debt from your share of the community property even though the divorce decree assigns the debt to your ex-spouse. Depending on the terms of your divorce decree, you may be able to have certain support obligations under the divorce decree determined to be non-dischargeable by the bankruptcy court or in state court.

Prenuptial Agreements:
A prenuptial, or premarital agreement (often referred to as a "pre-nup") is a written contract created by two individuals who plan to be married. This agreement lists all individually owned property, such as homes and businesses, family assets, stocks and bonds, savings accounts as well as debts, and specifies what will and will not remain individually owned property after the legalization of marriage. Prenuptial agreements also specify whether spousal support will be paid in the event of a divorce, and the intentions regarding distribution of individually owned property upon death.

A factor that cannot be stipulated in a prenuptial agreement is child support. A couple cannot lawfully agree in a prenuptial agreement that either part will in no way be responsible for child support. Also, a few states do not allow prenuptial agreements to modify or eliminate the right of a spouse to receive court-ordered alimony at divorce, although a prenuptial agreement can facilitate in the degree of compensation.

Child Custody:
Custody is the charge and control of a child, including the right to make all major decisions such as education, religious upbringing, training, health and welfare. Custody usually refers to a combination of physical custody and legal custody. Many factors influence an award of custody and the way a case is presented in court can have a large impact on the result for you and your children. If you are awarded the children as a primary custodial parent, it has far reaching consequences both to you and to their well-being and development.

Child Support:
Child support is a periodic payment made to a custodial parent from a non-custodial parent to help compensate a child's living expenses, i.e. food, clothes, etc., and any other related debts. When one parent is awarded sole custody, as in the event of a divorce, the non-custodial parent is required to fulfill his or her child support obligation by making set payments, whereas the custodial parent meets his or her support obligation through the custody itself. When parents are awarded joint custody in a divorce, however, the support obligation is shared and is based on a ratio of each parent's income and the amount of time the child spends with each parent.

The obligation to support minor children cannot be waived by either parent and is a right enjoyed by the child, not the parent. Each state has guidelines that factor the amount of child support, such as the amount of time spent with the child, the income of both parents and the standard of living the child is accustomed to. ; The court may allow deductions for items such as catastrophic medical expenses and travel expenses for visitation.

Jurisdictional Issues:
When faced with a relocating custodial parent, the court will general require that parent to give the other parent a minimum amount of notice prior to the anticipated move. This notice gives the non-custodial parent an opportunity to go to court and seek orders restraining the relocation of the child.

These so-called move away cases have gone back and forth on allowing and disallowing a move by the custodial parent with the minor children for over 20 years. While the best interests of the child have always been central to the decision, the uncertainty has made this area murky. Prior to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, when parents sought an advantage in a custody tug-of-war, they would move to a "friendly" jurisdiction (that is, a region with a history of rulings favorable to their position). However, after the UCCJA was adopted by all 50 states, family law courts were forced to defer jurisdiction to the home state, and this custody battle tactic lost favor.

Spousal Support (Alimony):
Alimony is temporary or permanent financial support paid from one separated spouse to the other, either in one lump sum or in installments. ; Alimony is designed to provide the lower-income spouse with money for living expenses over and above the money provided by child support.  Alimony differs from child support because it is at the discretion of the judge. Child support is usually determined by state-sanctioned guidelines.

There are several factors a judge considers when deciding whether to grant alimony. These differ from state to state, of course, but they usually involve things like the parties' relative ability to earn money, both now and in the future; their respective age and health; the length of the marriage; the kind of property involved, and the conduct of the parties. In general, about the only time a judge will award alimony in most states is where one spouse has been economically dependent on the other spouse for most of a lengthy marriage.

Divorce Mediation:
The basic attitude marking divorce mediation is a focus on solving problems, not fighting the fight. Family mediation is a voluntary process which gives a divorcing or separating couple the opportunity to make their own arrangements for their financial and personal future, while protecting themselves and their children from distress and the needless expense of litigation. The strength of a mediated agreement is that it is built by both parties together in an open process that requires all participants to recognize and make accommodation for the needs of the other participants, often without having to compromise one’s own.

While no two situations are alike, the emphasis in a mediated approach is to achieve a satisfactory settlement in an efficient, cooperative manner. This might include "four-way" settlement conferences where the parties meet along with their divorce mediation lawyers to work on a settlement. The philosophy of Divorce Mediation is that as much effort should be exerted toward settlement as is traditionally spent in preparation for and conducting a trial.

Paternity:
Paternity covers all the matters related to proving the parentage of a child or children. For married couples, paternity of a child is assumed to be the spouse, unless there is a court order or judgment stating otherwise. For unwed parents, paternity can be established by signing an Affidavit of Parentage or by filing a paternity action with the court.

Legally establishing paternity or determining that someone is not the parent of child can have a significant impact on divorce settlements, property division, child custody, child support and the ability to move out of state. Determinations of paternity can also have a significant impact on interstate conflict between unwed parents.

If you or a loved one needs the help of an experienced San Jose Family attorney, call Hogan Holmes & Usoz LLP today at 866-927-1454, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule a free consultation.

Family Law Litigation:  Most recently the firm, as trial and appellate counsel, successfully had overturned a dismissal of a domestic violence case out of Santa Clara County in the 6th Appellate District, May 19, 2009 NADKARNI v. NADKARNI, H032868 and FL107415. In this case the husband had severely abused his wife and she had been denied a restraining order. We completed an early 2008 trial in Santa Cruz County with a judgment against the debtor spouse for over $300,000 for breach of his fiduciary duty to the community during the marriage and post separation.

Appellate/Civil Rights:  We acted as appellate counsel in the case of a husband, wrongly charged for the murder of his wife, who brought suit against government authorities upon his acquittal at trial. Trial court dismissal of the action was overturned on appeal. Galgriath v. County of Santa Clara C-99-20887 WS; 9th Circuit. 00-17369.  See under Family Law Nadkarni v. Nadkarni H032868; 6th District. FL 107415.

Trade Secret Litigation:  We represented a growing Peninsula-based biotechnology firm in a vigorously contested action where we successfully obtained injunctive relief in the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.. NeogenScreening v. Telechem, Third Circuit, 02-3154 and 02-47287.

Copyright/Internet: Represented copyright holder in groundbreaking Internet copyright case. Case led to federal legislation on rights and obligations of Internet Service Providers regarding copyright infringement claims. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Unfair Competition/Trade Secret Litigation: We represented a small Florida company against a large public company in a contentious bi-coastal Federal court action between competitors in the video technology field where customers include major NFL, NBA and NCAA football and basketball teams. Acting as local counsel, we successfully defended the action winning a defense jury verdict, after first defeating plaintiff's effort to obtain injunctive relief. Pinnacle Systems, Inc. v. XOS Technologies, Inc., Northern District of California, C0203894 RMW.

Construction Defect Litigation:  We represented a homeowner against a Davis, CA-based developer in a construction defect case. After the three-day arbitration, we recovered more than $250,000, including an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Weinman v. Sequoia Associates, American Arbitration Association, 74 110 00868 03 HLT.

Breach of Contract/Trade Secret Litigation:  We represented China-based entities who had contractual and trade secret disputes involving a U.S. based start up operations in specialized storage technology field. The case was tried to a jury in November 2004, with our clients prevailing on the majority of the plaintiff's claims. Post-trial motions are pending on the remaining plaintiff's claims. Wei v. Great Wall Technology, Inc. Santa Clara County, CV810361.

Internet/Privacy:  In representing a client whose primary goal was to preserve his anonymity, we challenged discovery which sought the identity of a pseudonymous poster of messages which were arguably actionable. Posted on a Yahoo! message board it was alleged that these statements were derogatory of a business entity and its employees. We obtained a dismissal of the subpoena and a sanction award against the well-known large law firm seeking the discovery on behalf of its client. SonicWall, Inc. v. Brett Schecter, Santa Clara County Case No. DC 00 398611.

Construction:  We served as trial and appellate counsel in the case of a Southern California engineer who assisted a local physician in the remodel of his Sunnyvale home. When the doctor became unhappy with the results, we acted as trial counsel for the Burbank-based engineer who prevailed at trial and is now before the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Shahrirar v. Aghelvi,H024882.

Internet/Copyright/Malicious Prosecution:  We represented an individual in a malicious prosecution action he filed against several prominent law firms and New York based apparel manufacturer base upon claims made against him in New York federal court and then in the Northern District of California that arose out of his alleged "cyber squatting" on a domain sought by a large company. After an unsuccessful mediation effort, our client survived summary judgment and achieved a most satisfactory settlement. Nash v. K.C.P.L., Inc., Santa Clara County, CV 794158.

Corporate Litigation/Technology:  We represented a small local technology concern where disputes arose among principals of the company and certain technology became the subject of conflicting claims. We were successful in initially obtaining a temporary restraining order, then a preliminary injunction and, later, a contempt order on behalf of our client. Ivex Pacific Group v. Korolov, Santa Clara County, CV 798879.

If you or a loved one needs the help of an experienced San Jose Family attorney, call Hogan Holmes & Usoz LLP today at 866-927-1454, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule a free consultation.

If you or a loved one needs the help of an experienced San Jose Family attorney, call Hogan Holmes & Usoz LLP today at 866-927-1454, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule a free consultation.

ADDRESS OF THE FIRM:
Hogan Holmes & Usoz LLP
333 West Santa Clara Street, Ste. 800
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 866-927-1454
Hours: M-F, 8:00AM-5:00PM

MEMBERS OF THE FIRM:

Attorney Stephen J. Usoz

• Experience: More than 26 year Law Enforcement background with the City of San Jose; Instructor in law enforcement administrative investigations. Law Offices of Stephen J. Usoz (1997-2003). Broad-based civil practice, including substantial experience in family law litigation and general civil litigation. Experienced in family law issues, inclusive of custody, support (termination), domestic violence, property valuation and division, identification of community funds, and fiduciary duty.
• Education: University California, Davis, B.S., 1977; Golden Gate University, M.P.A, 1981; Lincoln University, J.D., 1997; P.O.S.T. credential.
• Bar Memberships: California Bar, 1997; United States District Court - Northern District of California, United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
• Professional Associations: State Bar of California, American Bar Association, Santa Clara County Bar Association, American Trial Lawyers Association.

Attorney Leslie Holmes

• Experience: Associate (1997-2003, Paralegal (1993-1997), Law Offices of Thomas R. Hogan. Broad-based litigation practice, including substantial experience in creditors rights, employment, intellectual property and complex business litigation, and family law issues. Ms. Holmes has experience in representing minors and special needs minors in the family law area.
• Education: San Jose State University, B.A., 1988; Santa Clara University (Paralegal Certificate, 1992); Lincoln University, J.D., 1997.
• Bar Memberships: California Bar, 1997; United States District Court - Northern District of California, United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
• Professional Associations: State Bar of California, American Bar Association, Santa Clara County Bar Association; American Trial Lawyers Association.

Attorney Thomas R. Hogan

• Experience: Associate (1967-75), Partner (1975-91) and Managing Partner, San Jose Office (1981-91), of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson and Bridges (now Thelen Reid & Priest). Primarily engaged in commercial construction law matters while a member of the Thelen firm. 85% of practice was in construction law, primarily representing owners, developers, and public agencies and some sub and specialty contractors and general contractors involving public and private (commercial, industrial and institutional) projects. Since starting own firm in June, 1991, broad range of litigation including representation of plaintiffs and defendants in fraud actions, professional malpractice claims and patent disputes. Faculty Member, Federal Practice Program, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1985-1992. Member, Federal Pro Bono Project of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and The Santa Clara County Bar Association, 1993-. Judge Pro Tem, Special Master, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 1991-.
• Education: University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1962; University of Pittsburgh, L.L.B., 1966. Member, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1965-1966.
• Bar Memberships: Pennsylvania Bar, 1966; California Bar, 1968.
• Professional Associations: American Bar Association (Member, Litigation Section); San Francisco Bar Association (Convention Delegate, 1973-1975); Santa Clara Bar Association; Santa Clara Trial Lawyers Association; California Trial Lawyers Association; Associated General Contractors of California, Legal Advisory Committee; AGC of California (Legal Advisory Commission); St. Thomas More Society of Santa Clara County. Member, 1974-1978 and Chairman, 1977-1978, Committee on Appellate Courts, The State Bar of California. Member: Panel of Arbitrators, Mediators, 1977-, Regional Advisory Council, 1979-; Construction Industry Advisory Committee, 1980-; Large Complex Case Program, 1993-, American Arbitration Association. Member: Board of Trustees of the University of Notre Dame.
• Dispute Resolution Training: Faculty, AAA 1-Day Commercial Construction Advanced Arbitration Training (San Francisco 4/93); Faculty, AAA Basic Arbitration Training (Cupertino, 3/90 and San Francisco 11/92).