Posted on 01/20/2006 7:28:30 PM PST by NormsRevenge
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A state appeals court on Friday determined a California law used by billionaire investor Ron Burkle to seal records in his divorce case is unconstitutional, ruling the First Amendment allows public access to divorce proceedings.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed a lower court's decision of last year. The three-judge panel noted that the state law, which was intended to improve privacy and confidentiality, places an "undue burden" on the public's ability to review court records in divorce cases.
"While the interest in protecting divorcing parties from identity theft and other financial crimes may override the First Amendment right of access ... (the state law) is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest," the court wrote.
The statute, which went into effect in 2004, was challenged in court by the Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press and the California Newspaper Publisher's Association.
"It's important that the public maintains oversight over the courts to make sure they are applying the laws evenly and fairly," said attorney Susan Seager, who represented the news organizations. "The best way to ensure that is to allow the public and the press to go to court and sit in on the proceedings."
A call left for Burkle's attorney was not immediately returned Friday.
Burkle, whose estimated personal wealth of more than $2 billion makes him one of the world's richest men, is also a well-known political contributor who has given millions of dollars mostly to Democratic candidates and campaigns. He's also given more than $200,000 to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaigns.
He cited the law in his case with his wife, Janet, who filed for divorce in June 2003 and accused her husband's business, the Yucaipa Company, of hiding millions of dollars in assets.
Burkle argued that information about his business transactions and his holdings should be kept confidential. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Roy Paul, who struck down the statute as unconstitutional, did agree to seal some financial documents, but not all of the records Burkle sought to keep secret.
Paul said in his February 2005 ruling that if the law was upheld it could "become an instrument of gamesmanship" by requiring the court to seal large amounts of documents if requested.
Citing a case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which justices said the public has an interest in all civil cases, the appellate panel had to weigh if divorce proceedings are different from other civil cases when public access is involved.
"We are not aware of, and Mr. Burkle does not offer, any cases or commentary supporting the notion that divorce proceedings have ever been generally excepted from California's historical tradition of presumptively open civl proceedings," the court wrote.
Another reason I'm starting to believe government should get out of the marriage business. Leave it to the churces and religious institutions like it used to be. There are very few things government doesn't end up screwing up.
First Amendment grounds? How the hell did he pull that off? Must be that "living document" I keep hearing about.
As a law student, I was clerking for an attorney in Hollywood who was handling Flip Wilson's divorce at the time.
I was astounded at what was in the case file and what was available for all to read at the courthouse.
Remind me never to get divorced.
Remind me never to get divorced.
BumP that. ;-)
yeah, so much for that right to privacy listed in the California Constitution. Its good for the "pro-choice" people to argue for abortions, but apparently it doesn't grant privacy on personal matters such as divorce proceedings.
I was leaning towards keeping the records open until I came to the part where the man's personal finances would have been laid open.
Open divorce records, sans financial info, could save someone from making a huge mistake.
Oops!
At first I wanted this latest round with my ex sealed, because of the horrible lies he told about me, but now I want it public knowledge. The judge in this family law case is a probate judge, as I found out too late. Man can't find his ass with both hands : (
NormsRevenge wrote:
Remind me never to get divorced.
BumP that. ;-)
---"It's cheaper to keep her", is how the saying goes, especially when woman get more rights/special favors than a guys during divorces. If you get a divorce you may as well figure on spending time in someone else's couch or in your car until you can get back on your feet financially especially if you got kids too (child support). I know some guys that have been cleaned out by their exwifes because the exwifes new they could cause the law was on their side.
These are pretty decent guys too, not the jerk types.
hmm....
A document proving divorce should be available to the public to view. Any other informaion pertaining to the divorce should be private. Anyone should be able to check the validity of a marraige. So this includes a cerificate of marraige as well. Nothing else is anybody elses business.
I agree. In states where there is not "no fault" divorce a partner seeking a divorce had to convince a judge that maintaining the marriage was not possible. That often included scurrilous accusations and falsehoods, or at least extreme exaggerations. Even the party being libeled often acceded because by then the marriage WAS beyond repair. In addition to the divorce it left a very black mark on his record.
Same reasons Trials are public.
Yeah, but the First Amendment doesn't guaratnee that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.