Post by: The Rabbi on June 25, 2007, 06:18:59 PM
Child-support suit challenges jail tactic
Dad says inability to pay is no crime
By SHEILA BURKE
Staff Writer
Bryan Cottingham insists he had no intention of trying to escape the $37,000 he owed in back child support he says he just didn't have the money to pay.
But that didn't stop a private collection agency working for the state from asking a Williamson County court to throw him in jail. Without a lawyer for much of the case, the freelance television producer and traffic reporter was sentenced to 170 days for criminal contempt of court. In 2002, he spent two days behind bars before making bail.
After years of legal wrangling, the Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously overturned the convictions, ruling that no one proved Cottingham had the money and refused to pay.
Cottingham, now 60, is pushing a federal lawsuit, hoping to collect damages and prevent the state child-support collectors from improperly using the threat of jail to pressure people who can't afford to pay.
"I never tried to get out of paying child support. I never felt like I should get out of it," he said, adding: "I can tell you that there was nothing lower in my life than when I was in that jail cell."
Post by: Thor on June 25, 2007, 08:05:48 PM
Post by: kldimond on June 25, 2007, 08:13:43 PM
My wife (paralegal who's done a lot of family law work) wrote a series about it for our local newspaper. She keeps telling me she will adapt it and put it up on my blog, but nothing yet.
She did a lot of research, found sites that had story after story after story of treachery being suborned by the courts. It's a disgrace. One's very best bet is to stay out of the system!
Post by: SomeKid on June 25, 2007, 10:08:17 PM
Was paying his child support, but it was really bleeding his finances. So, he took a second job. (Where we met.) Second job gave him a few hundred extra a week, it paid less than half his main job. That poor bastard was working hard, nights/weekends and working his day job.
Wifey found out, took him to court over the second job. Court rose his child support using his main jobs pay scale! His second job ended up costing him money, that was how much his child support was increased.
Just one more reason I wonder if I will ever let myself get roped into marriage.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 25, 2007, 11:18:16 PM
Post by: Vile Nylons on June 26, 2007, 05:04:12 AM
Post by: Paddy on June 26, 2007, 05:08:36 AM
Still he didn't pay. If you're gonna spawn children you need to provide money for their support. If we've got jail space for victimless crimes like marijuana possession, we've got jailspace for deadbeat dads like this guy.
Post by: crt360 on June 26, 2007, 06:49:34 AM
The jail sentence wasn't imposed for some 'inability to pay child support', it was imposed for criminal contempt of court. Read the finding http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN77584625.PDF
"the trial court found Mr. Cottingham guilty of ten counts of criminal contempt for ten months that he failed to pay child support in any amount and seven counts of criminal contempt for each of the seven years that he failed to pay alimony. The trial court sentenced Mr. Cottingham to ten days of incarceration for each conviction to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of 170 days in the county jail." This was effectively the same thing, since the trial court failed to determine his inability to pay or just construed it as unwillingness to pay.
his child support payments were cut in half after his income mysteriously decreased Still he didn't pay.
Still he didn't pay. From what I can make of it, he did pay child support for 48 of the 58 months he was required to pay it. He obviously satisfied Tennessee's Supreme Court that he was paying all he could given his financial situation at the time.
Post by: jnojr on June 26, 2007, 01:15:28 PM
DON'T HAVE KIDS!!!
Seriously... why? So hands can dip into your pockets for the rest of your life?
Stuff like this makes me more eager to just get a vasectomy.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 26, 2007, 03:23:43 PM
Post by: Barbara on June 26, 2007, 03:39:51 PM
Quote
Was paying his child support, but it was really bleeding his finances.
Yeah, I was raising kids, but it was really bleeding my finances.
And for what its worth, in close to 20 years, I've received $5.00 in child support. Its a screwed up situation in my case, but still. I just got my Social Security statement today and its scary to think how little I made some of those years I was raising kids..so not a lot of sympathy about what it costs to pay child support vs. what it costs to raise kids.
Post by: SomeKid on June 26, 2007, 06:33:21 PM
Why don't you read my earlier post again. This guy was not dodging his commitment, he was trying to fulfill his commitment without bankrupting himself. Maybe you can't pity the guy, but I knew him, and did. Just because your ex was a deadbeat doesn't mean all men should suffer, woman.
Post by: charby on June 26, 2007, 06:52:08 PM
I don't know Barbara personally, but I exchanged a few emails with her and topics on here, to me she seems like a person that warrants respect. You may not agree with her but you could have left that last sentence off.
-C
Post by: SomeKid on June 26, 2007, 07:20:04 PM
I think the last sentence is appropriate, and the last word is a good reminder that she should remember that this isn't a man woman thing, unless she makes it one. (Which I perceived her post as making it. Maybe I was wrong, but the intention was to point out that she shouldn't think that because she suffered, men should to.)
Post by: Barbara on June 27, 2007, 12:56:21 AM
Quote
Just because your ex was a deadbeat doesn't mean all men should suffer, woman.
Wasn't my ex.
I'm pretty sure the person raising the kids still had to buy groceries every week and keep the kids in shoes, even if the guy had good intentions of paying his child support. And that was my point..even though I didn't receive *any* child support, I still had to figure out how to make hardly any money at all make it through the week..I didn't have the luxury of deciding whether or not I could afford to pay it. I just did.
I'd also suggest that the money he's spending trying to get out of paying his obligations might better be spent on making sure his children are taken care of.
Maybe instead of trying to get in the last word, you should consider that my post wasn't related to yours at all?
Post by: Art Eatman on June 27, 2007, 03:26:19 AM
But where the system goes all wonky is in cases where a guy loses his job and flat-out cannot pay--but the court orders "pay or jail" as his only options. There is a notable number of these when you see newspaper headlines of, "XYZ Corp. lays off 4,000 workers."
Art
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 04:11:09 AM
Why should this one be different?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 27, 2007, 04:23:05 AM
Post by: Chris on June 27, 2007, 04:26:52 AM
First, although "dead beat dad" is the common phrase, I would estimate that at least 30% of the cases I see involve "dead beat moms." Just food for thought.
Contempt is not filed against an obligor for at least the first $5,000 of missed support. When contempt is filed, and the person found to be in contempt, they are afforded an opportunity to purge the contempt, meaning they set up a new payment schedule for support to not only pay the currently owed support, but also pay off on the arrearages. I have yet to see an obligor (dead-beat) refuse this opportunity. Only after allowing an opportunity to make these payments is jail even a consideration.
Now, there is a real difference between someone who is out of work, unable to work, and just not working. A person who loses a job often has the ability to work, and will be actively seeking work. As long as they are trying, I'll give them a break. Some people are unable to work, whether due to medical conditions, mental health issues, or family issues. these are the people I forgive, and order a hearing to modify the support order. And, some people choose not to work. Frankly, nothing pisses me off on the bench more than an obligor who comes in saying that they just can't find a job, admits that they haven't been putting in applications anywhere, and then tests positive for drugs. I had a guy in a few weeks ago who said he couldn't find a job anywhere, and hadn't been employed for two years. When pushed, he admitted that he'd last applied for a job in 2006. He then tested positive for marihuana, cocaine, and opiates, but said that he only does drugs when a friend is willing to give it to him. I locked him up for the max.
Post by: Paddy on June 27, 2007, 05:12:06 AM
Quote
I am not aware of any other circumstance where a person owing a financial obligation goes to jail if he does not/cannot pay.
Why should this one be different?
Generally, your Visa payment is not court ordered. Child support is. The jail sentence is imposed for violation of the court order.
Why should this one be different?
Post by: Laurent du Var on June 27, 2007, 05:56:29 AM
If those "dead beat dads" don't pay any child support, does
that mean that they still teach their children how to ride a bike,
sing them a song when they can't sleep, take them to the doc when they are sick,
make them a real cool gift for their birthday, help them with their homework,
give them some info on the girl/boy thing, make sure they don't come home too
late, that they don't drink or take drugs ?
If not you can hang them, for all I care.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 11:07:12 AM
Quote
I am not aware of any other circumstance where a person owing a financial obligation goes to jail if he does not/cannot pay.
Why should this one be different?
Generally, your Visa payment is not court ordered. Child support is. The jail sentence is imposed for violation of the court order. Why should this one be different?
But even a civil judgement is court ordered, and you cannot be jailed if you dont pay it. I know. I sued a guy for non payment of rent and won over $1000 and he hasnt paid me. In fact nothing has happened to him other than a lien on his house. And that's been probably 4 years.
Post by: Paddy on June 27, 2007, 11:16:18 AM
Post by: SomeKid on June 27, 2007, 11:26:26 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 01:54:34 PM
IANAL, and maybe ET can clarify, explain. A civil judgement is 'court ordered' but it is not an order to pay; rather it is a determination by the court of liability. A 'court order' to pay child support is just that; it directly orders payment be made, to whom, the amounts and timing.
Can you think of an analogous situation in any other case, where the court orders a payment of one kind or another and can jail someone?
Especially so where it is between 2 private parties.
Post by: Paddy on June 27, 2007, 02:11:29 PM
Quote
Can you think of an analogous situation in any other case, where the court orders a payment of one kind or another and can jail someone?
Let me ask you a question. Do you think there is a higher moral obligation to support children than to repay a credit card debt? And don't try to tell me the court has no business making moral judgements; that's exactly what most law is based on.
Post by: Barbara on June 27, 2007, 02:57:23 PM
Quote
I am not aware of any other circumstance where a person owing a financial obligation goes to jail if he does not/cannot pay.
Why should this one be different?
Why should this one be different?
Because its effectively child neglect. If I have a child and that child lives with me and I don't provide basic food, clothing, and shelter, I can be jailed. I see non-payment of child support as the same thing.
Somekid, I guess I did..I confused your friend with the guy in the original story. Sorry about that.
Post by: crt360 on June 27, 2007, 02:59:44 PM
From the Texas Penal Code:
§ 25.05. CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT. (a) An individual commits
an offense if the individual intentionally or knowingly fails to
provide support for the individual's child younger than 18 years of
age, or for the individual's child who is the subject of a court
order requiring the individual to support the child.
(b) For purposes of this section, "child" includes a child
born out of wedlock whose paternity has either been acknowledged by
the actor or has been established in a civil suit under the Family
Code or the law of another state.
(c) Under this section, a conviction may be had on the
uncorroborated testimony of a party to the offense.
(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the actor could not provide support for the actor's
child.
(e) The pendency of a prosecution under this section does
not affect the power of a court to enter an order for child support
under the Family Code.
(f) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
Post by: SomeKid on June 27, 2007, 03:11:20 PM
Either way, you brought up a good point I wanted to ask about.
Quote
If I have a child and that child lives with me and I don't provide basic food, clothing, and shelter, I can be jailed.
Keep in mind, I have no kids, and aside from seeing men butchered by the system, have little first-hand contact, and this is curiosity; that said...
If you were so poor you truely could not afford it, wouldn't there be some kind of food-stamp system there you could take advantage of to ensure your kid was fed, and wouldn't you be able to avoid jail by proving you had no money to do these things? Or is being poor really a jailable offense?
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 03:34:58 PM
Quote
Can you think of an analogous situation in any other case, where the court orders a payment of one kind or another and can jail someone?
Let me ask you a question. Do you think there is a higher moral obligation to support children than to repay a credit card debt? And don't try to tell me the court has no business making moral judgements; that's exactly what most law is based on. What was wrong with my question that you didnt answer it?
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 03:39:45 PM
Quote
I am not aware of any other circumstance where a person owing a financial obligation goes to jail if he does not/cannot pay.
Why should this one be different?
Why should this one be different?
Because its effectively child neglect. If I have a child and that child lives with me and I don't provide basic food, clothing, and shelter, I can be jailed. I see non-payment of child support as the same thing.
Bully for you. But your opinion is irrelevant here. What is the legal basis for jailing one private individual who fails to honor a financial obligation to another private individual?
Post by: Paddy on June 27, 2007, 04:02:13 PM
Quote
What was wrong with my question that you didnt answer it?
Well I did answer it. You just don't want to hear it. You seem to be looking for some legalistic rationale for not jailing someone who repeatedly refuses to support their children. You seem to think that walking away from a child, a life you started, is the same as walking away from your credit card bill. I don't understand that thinking. Are you honestly saying there is a moral equivalence? The extension of your thinking is that sex has no consequences. So, if you get aids or some other std, you would probably think you're the victim? You honestly cannot see the moral obligation to support (and protect) life you've created? The fact that child support even has to be ordered by a court indicates there's something highly dysfunctional with the parents in the first place. A society that cannot protect its women and children is doomed.
Post by: Barbara on June 27, 2007, 04:15:28 PM
Quote
Bully for you. But your opinion is irrelevant here. What is the legal basis for jailing one private individual who fails to honor a financial obligation to another private individual?
Because its not simply a financial obligation. Its a requirement not to abuse or neglect your children. How is it any different than if I failed to provide food for my kid when he's sitting in front of me?
What crawled up your butt today? Good lord.
Post by: Barbara on June 27, 2007, 04:21:20 PM
Quote
If you were so poor you truely could not afford it, wouldn't there be some kind of food-stamp system there you could take advantage of to ensure your kid was fed, and wouldn't you be able to avoid jail by proving you had no money to do these things? Or is being poor really a jailable offense?
I would guess so..but then again, I think you have to be flat out destitute to get welfare..I think its like a couple thousand a year in income? I really don't know.
But there are a lot of working poor people out there..what if I had to make a choice between say paying for gas to go to work and feeding my kids..or hell, what if I wanted to spend my money on booze instead of feeding my kid..why should I be obligated to support them when there are other things I want or need the money for?
We both know neither of those scenarios are a good reason for not feeding your children..if you can't pay for gas, you get a second job or pick up bottles or ask your church for help or something..but not feeding them isn't an option. If you have kids, you've sort of given up your right to spend money on anything if they aren't provided for..even if it makes your life difficult.
FWIW, one of the people who didn't pay me child support was a woman. Deadbeats come in all forms.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 04:58:07 PM
Quote
Bully for you. But your opinion is irrelevant here. What is the legal basis for jailing one private individual who fails to honor a financial obligation to another private individual?
Because its not simply a financial obligation. Its a requirement not to abuse or neglect your children. How is it any different than if I failed to provide food for my kid when he's sitting in front of me?
What crawled up your butt today? Good lord.
But the current situation of the children is not a factor in the decision to jail the delinquent person.
If my ex-wife has a $200k a year job and has shacked up with her boss who makes even more, I am still liable to be put in jail if I am delinquent in my support.
So it is not a matter of "child welfare" (and if the kids were really starving Child Services would come take them away anyway).
So we are back to the question of why this private obligation is privelaged over other private obligations.
As for what crawled up my butt, I dont see why you take this simple question as an attack on you personally. Maybe you need to temper your remarks.
Post by: Barbara on June 27, 2007, 05:23:29 PM
I guess if you can't see why the obligation to feed a child is more important than paying off Mastercard, I'm probably not going to convince you anyway.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 27, 2007, 06:03:37 PM
I didn't take anything as a personal attack. I took the "Bully for you, your opinion is irrelevant" as a sign that once again you were more interested in being snotty and obnoxious than having an actual conversation.
I guess if you can't see why the obligation to feed a child is more important than paying off Mastercard, I'm probably not going to convince you anyway.
I guess if you can't see why the obligation to feed a child is more important than paying off Mastercard, I'm probably not going to convince you anyway.
Your feelings are irrelevant in a discussion on the lawfullness of this. So are mine.
And we arent talking about the "obligation to feed a child." Whether the money is being used to feed a child or buy crack is not considered by the court in deciding to jail.
If you can't separate your own feelings from the logic of the discussion maybe you shouldn't participate.
For the record I think people ought to honor commitments they make. I also think the gov't has no business using the threat of violence to enforce private contracts.
Post by: Paddy on June 27, 2007, 06:42:44 PM
Quote
I also think the gov't has no business using the threat of violence to enforce private contracts.
A contract is by definition a binding agreement. If one of the parties reneges, who, praytell, should enforce it?Post by: Ned Hamford on June 27, 2007, 10:04:20 PM
Quote
I also think the gov't has no business using the threat of violence to enforce private contracts.
A contract is by definition a binding agreement. If one of the parties reneges, who, praytell, should enforce it?The free market of course
Post by: Barbara on June 28, 2007, 12:43:14 AM
In another situation, if a court orders you to do something (pay a fine of $100.00 per day, for instance) and you violate that order, you can be jailed. I've seen this in action.
Post by: Chris on June 28, 2007, 08:10:43 AM
There are two kinds of contempt. Direct contempt, like where the defendant picks up a pad of paper and throws it at the judge, or tells the judge to *expletive deleted*ck himself, or something else done in the court which interferes with the court's ability to conduct business. In direct contempt, the court can act summarily, meaning there is no right to trial or such, the judge issues an immediate order for punishment, be it fines or incarceration.
Indirect cintempt is what is being talked about with child support. In other words, the court issues an order, and someone fails to comply with the order. it is enforced differently. The contemptor has rights to a hearing, to counsel, to appeal, etc. More importantly, the contemptor has the right, even after being found in contempt of court, to purge the contempt by complying with the original order. this is before punishment is imposed. In other words, you get a second chance.
Now, while we most often hear about the support cases, indrect contempt actions occur all of the time. We see at least one a week around here. They vary from case to case. Often in divorce cases with children, we see contempt actions brought because the child was brought home from a visitation late, or picked up late, etc. in civil cases, we see contempt actions brought because discovery is late, or one party misses a deposition, or doesn't deliver something on time, etc. the reason you don't here more about these is that the contempt is genrally purged, and no one goes to jail. or, the judge/magistrate sees the action is garbage and treats it as such.
In child support contempt, the court issues an order. Here in Ohio, child support is determined based upon a standar set of figures the legislature adopted as standard guidelines. Where one falls on the guidelines is based upon level of income of both parents. the law allows for a judge/magistrate to order a deviation for good cause shown, such as in hardship situations, disability, etc.
So, the order is made after a hearing to determine what the amount should be. Obligor (the person who is supposed to pay) doesn't pay. A contempt action is brought by Child Support Enforcement Administration. A hearing is held, and the judge or magistrate must determine of the obligor is in substantial compliance with the original order. If yes, case dismissed. If no, then the obligor is in conntempt. A sentence is rendered, depending upon what number contempt the case is (1 - 30 days, 2- 60, 3- 90, 4 -120, 5- 150, 6-180, etc.). the sentence is rendered, and then the person is ordered to purge himself of contempt by paying, and a review is set. if in compliance, the contempt can be dismissed. If in partial comliance, the case can be set for further review.. If the obligor is not in substantial compliance at the time of the review, all or a portion of the orgininal sentence may be imposed.
Now, rabbi, you asked what authority the Court has to jail someone for failing to pay an obligation to another party. the authority falls from the failure to comply with the court's order, not the failure of payment necessarily. But, as a matter of argument, I have seen a person jailed for failing to pay a civil judgment after an amount had been ordered. how else can a court enforce its orders. And, when a court stops enforcing its orders, well, I think we call that TSHTF around here.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 28, 2007, 08:26:05 AM
Post by: Chris on June 28, 2007, 09:26:59 AM
Post by: MillCreek on June 28, 2007, 12:34:41 PM
Quote
There are two kinds of contempt. Direct contempt, like where the defendant picks up a pad of paper and throws it at the judge, or tells the judge to *expletive deleted*ck himself, or something else done in the court which interferes with the court's ability to conduct business. In direct contempt, the court can act summarily, meaning there is no right to trial or such, the judge issues an immediate order for punishment, be it fines or incarceration.
I work on the defense side of medical malpractice cases. At one of our trials several years back, after a defense verdict, the plaintiff became unglued and started screaming and cursing at the jury. You don't see that very frequently in this type of litigation. I don't know who was more shocked, the judge, jury or the plaintiff lawyer. Before anyone could do anything, the plaintiff ran screaming out into the hall and left the courthouse. We could see her on the courthouse lawn screaming and sobbing. We turned to the plaintiff lawyer and said, "this looks a client control problem, and we will let you handle it'.
Post by: SomeKid on June 28, 2007, 03:38:00 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/28/ndivorce128.xml
Quote
Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce
Last Updated: 6:00pm BST 28/06/2007
Have your say Read comments
A wealthy retired builder was ordered to pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had "fallen on hard times", the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
Dennis North, 70, was divorced from his first wife Jean, 61, in 1978 - a year after finding out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.
In 1981 he made a financial settlement with the woman he married in 1964, buying her a house and investments.
advertisement
Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life, the judges were told.
But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia where she saw her capital dwindle because of bad investments and what the court was told was a lifestyle beyond her means.
A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year despite agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.
Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr North had prospered and his wealth is now estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, the court was told.
Mr North, who was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife, wants the Court of Appeal to quash the award.
Philip Moor QC, representing him, told the panel of judges headed by Lord Justice Thorpe that Mrs North had made no attempt to find a job since 1977, when she was 32.
When she sold all her assets and emigrated, she chose to live in an expensive part of Sydney, he said.
If she had stayed in the North of England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life.
"The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives," he told the three judges.
Mr Moor told Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, that it was not his client's fault that his first wife "has fallen on hard times and she cannot now go back for a second bite of the cherry".
But Mrs North's counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, said it was not her client's fault that her investments had gone wrong and the District Judge took account of her ex-husband's wealth and the fact that she needed additional support when he gave her an award at the "bottom end of the spectrum".
She added: "This was not a second bite at the cherry, but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of her former husband. It was an extraordinarily modest award set against his wealth."
The court reserved its judgment to a date to be fixed.
Last Updated: 6:00pm BST 28/06/2007
Have your say Read comments
A wealthy retired builder was ordered to pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had "fallen on hard times", the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
Dennis North, 70, was divorced from his first wife Jean, 61, in 1978 - a year after finding out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.
In 1981 he made a financial settlement with the woman he married in 1964, buying her a house and investments.
advertisement
Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life, the judges were told.
But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia where she saw her capital dwindle because of bad investments and what the court was told was a lifestyle beyond her means.
A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year despite agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.
Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr North had prospered and his wealth is now estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, the court was told.
Mr North, who was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife, wants the Court of Appeal to quash the award.
Philip Moor QC, representing him, told the panel of judges headed by Lord Justice Thorpe that Mrs North had made no attempt to find a job since 1977, when she was 32.
When she sold all her assets and emigrated, she chose to live in an expensive part of Sydney, he said.
If she had stayed in the North of England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life.
"The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives," he told the three judges.
Mr Moor told Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, that it was not his client's fault that his first wife "has fallen on hard times and she cannot now go back for a second bite of the cherry".
But Mrs North's counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, said it was not her client's fault that her investments had gone wrong and the District Judge took account of her ex-husband's wealth and the fact that she needed additional support when he gave her an award at the "bottom end of the spectrum".
She added: "This was not a second bite at the cherry, but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of her former husband. It was an extraordinarily modest award set against his wealth."
The court reserved its judgment to a date to be fixed.
Post by: Barbara on June 28, 2007, 04:31:58 PM
