Motion to Disqualify

A Motion to Disqualify has been filed.

And rejected.

Fair and Equitable Distributions

Fair and equitable distributions in a no fault divorce should not "punish" anyone.

The law seems concerned about equity between spouses.

The law should not allow such actions as Judge Charles J. Roberts in Florida's 18th Circuit Court has been Ordering in one case, if not all his cases.

Preparing a "Fair and Equitable Distribution of Assets" should be done out of a court room with and by competent people.

Diane Baccus-Horsley and Charles J. Roberts have repeatedly demonstrated lack of the necessary competence.

Fair and Equitable Distribution of Assets in No Fault DOM

Keeping track of interest due in my case is a computational nightmare.  In addition to “normal factors”, my case includes an 8-month “nunc pro tunc”.  This due to Judge Roberts and Diane Baccus-Horsley.  I should not be penalized for their actions and/or inaction.

After rereading my lawyer's closing a couple of times it became apparent to me that a Fair and Equitable Distribution of Assets in a no fault Dissolution of Marriage, cannot include both investment results and interest for the same calendar period.

I would prefer that I pay my former spouse interest on the assets I retained after she filed the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.  The market has done well enough that my former spouse almost certainly will prefer to share investment results.

Because the Amended Final Judgment only ordered monthly payments for the mortgages, my ex-spouse should pay the entire 1^st mortgage and half the 2^nd and 3^rd mortgages from Rendition.  She should pay interest on the unwarranted alimony payments until repaid.

Early in my case my lawyer told me that the Court was not supposed to create a situation where it was to the benefit of one of the parties for the other party to become “deceased”.  The Court has done that in this case as long as my ex-spouse remains a beneficiary on my Life Insurance policy.  The “narrative” rationale for this was to enable my former spouse to continue paying the (now paid off) mortgage.

My former spouse no longer needs “protection” provided by my life insurance policy.  The typical “narrative” is for the good ole SOB to leave the state under the cover of darkness and leave the poor “stay-at-home” wife to pay all the mortgages.  My case provides strong evidence that any rational male should do that.

I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT NO FLORIDA JUDGE WOULD WANT TO SEND THAT MESSAGE. I WAS ACTUALLY ENVISIONING GETTING ATTA BOYS FROM FLORIDA INSTEAD OF THE CONSTANT NEGATIVISM OF BACCUS-HORSLEY.

LAWYERS LIE.  ARITHMETIC DOES NOT.

Legal costs through a final Fair and Equitable distribution of assets should be paid for out of Marital funds in all no fault Dissolution of Marriage proceedings.

Charging Liens

There are four requirements for a valid charging lien. To impose such a charging lien, the attorney must show:

(1) an express or implied contract between attorney and client;

(2) an express or implied understanding for payment of attorney's fees out of the recovery;

(3) either an avoidance of payment or a dispute as to the amount of fees; and

(4) timely notice. Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986).

Notice and Timing of Charging Lien

There are no requirements for perfecting a charging lien beyond timely notice. Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383, 1385 (Fla. 1983).

In order to give timely notice of a charging lien an attorney should either file a notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action. Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986).

Notice of the charging lien must be filed or the lien pursued in the action before entry of a final judgment or dismissal of the case. Naftzger v. Elam, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Charging liens filed during the pendency of a proceeding may be filed before or after an attorney's withdrawal in that proceeding. Rudd v. Rudd, 960 So. 2d 885, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

If notice of a charging lien is not given before entry of the final judgment or an order dismissing the case, the trial court loses jurisdiction to enforce a charging lien in the original action. Naftzger v. Elam, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

An attorney's charging lien is untimely and may not be established in proceedings after final judgment has been entered. Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) citing Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) holding attorney may not wait more than thirty days from the entry of final judgment, give notice of nonrepresentation, and then seek to enforce a lien not noticed before the entry of the final judgment).

However, a charging lien may be enforced in cases in which the court dismisses the case pursuant to a settlement but expressly reserves jurisdiction on attorney's fees. Naftzger v. Elam, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Effects of a perfected charging lien

There is a fundamental difference between the perfection of a charging lien and the imposition of the lien on certain proceeds or property after it has been perfected. Gordon C. Brydger, P.A. v. Wolfe, 847 So. 2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

"'There are no requirements for perfecting a charging lien beyond timely notice.” Gordon C. Brydger, P.A. v. Wolfe, 847 So. 2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)

One of the advantages of a perfected charging lien is that it may prevent the lienee from obtaining unfettered access to the funds to the possible detriment of the lienor's rights. Sharyn D. Garfield, P.A. v. Green, 687 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

A charging lien "protects counsel from the parties' looking after themselves at his expense Wishoff v. Wishoff, 497 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (Glickstein, J., concurring specially).

My source:  http://www.familylawfla.org/cle/materials082510/materials_for_chargnig_lien_telephonic_CLE.pdf

Illegal Goals

The appeals court said that the lower court's goal was not allowed by law (aka "illegal")  The judge was new and the case involved two narratives:

1) Stay-at-home wife abandoned by her abusing spouse who left the state.

2)  A white knight, who although ousted from his home in record pollen, continued to pay mortgages of over $4,000 per month.  [His relatives removed him from Florida.]

Which narrative would you believe?

This male was actually expecting something like kudos from the Judge in the state with the worst housing market.

This male has not received any kudos.  He has received apologies from lawyers not involved in the case.  Judge Charles J. Roberts has demonstrated that he can not distinguish fact from fiction.  I hope his performance has improved with experience.  I hope he is better in criminal cases.

I hope to be able to recover some of my losses for my heirs.  I think Diane Baccus-Horsley should be responsible for half of my losses and my partner's enablers should share the other half.

Sheer Stupidity 001

"The Court" is out of touch with reality.  Appellant believed that no alimony could be verified as "needed" until Appellee's real estate assets were identified.  Petitioner had enough income for "the Court" to find that "her" Hilton Head timeshare(s) were non-marital but not enough to pay any legal fees.

Appellee’s Response to Motion to Supplement the Record is viewable at  https://edca.5dca.org/DCADocs/2012/3815/123815_35_05152013_12144153_e.pdf.

The Court ordered the mortgages to be paid out of Appellant’s employer’s 401k until the account was exhausted.  This had the consequence that all the funds used to pay the mortgages were taxed as ordinary income. 

The Appellant paid off the mortgages so that his “income” would not be over $48,000 more than it should be/need be.

The Court’s major concern, as described in the first complete paragraph on page three is:

“The point is that they should equally share in the tax write-off from the payment of the second and third mortgage.  She’s going to pay the first mortgage, so she gets the entire write-off from the payment of the first mortgage.”

The Court did not allow mortgage payments to be made out of required minimum distributions from accounts other than Harris until that account was exhausted.  Not good tax planning.

The Court “found” that the Apellant had income over $9,000 per month.  This included double counting of the required minimum distribution from a pre-marital 403b which should not be included at all.  It also included double counting for Dreyfus IRA.

The payments, as described in the Amended Final Order, generated additional tax liabilities and increased Appellant’s Part B Medicare premium by about $200 per month.  The Court undid the Medicare premium increase by an 8-month “nunc pro tunc”.

One of four issues raised by Appellee is that the Court did not distribute husband's bank account income.  During most of this case, Drefus Liquid Assets did not pay any "interest."  Husband's bank account income is far less than what he lost by maintaining a significant position in readily available cash.

“The Court” was concerned about tax write-offs when it should have been concerned about Petitioner complying with the mandatory disclosure list and filing a credible Financial Affidavitt.  The Court would have seen the wisdom in no alimony and have devoted its attention to developing a fair and equitable distribution of assets.

I want to see the CPA’s findings that Ms. Hodge needs alimony.

(DR)2H

Must Do Something List

1.       Liberalize Drug Policy

2.       Decriminalize marijuana

3.       Decriminalize drugs

4.       Leave definition of marriage to the states

5.       Disband the Fed

6.       Balance the Budget

7.       Impeach Obama

8.       Defund VAWA

9.       Defund/Cancel/Repeal anything else that “sounds good”

10.   Rethink any law/treaty which does not affect US.

The Internet - The End of Localized Completeness

 The Supreme Court of Florida has adopted rules that require “the allegations” be signed and under oath.  A copy of the rule imposing this obligation (3-7.3(c)) may (or may not) be found at the Florida Bar’s web site at www.floridabar.org.

The oath consists of “Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the facts contained in … are, true, correct and complete.”  I wonder what definitions they are using.  My definitions of “true” and “correct” overlap considerably.  As for “complete,” the universe is complete but even it is evolving.  The Courts seem to be stuck in the days of William Blackstone:

“Blackstone had developed a great interest in common law, and in 1753 he began to lecture on that subject. These were the first lectures on English law ever delivered in a university. His listeners were captivated by the lucidity and charm of his style and by the simplicity with which he presented the subject. The latter virtue, however, was attained in part because Blackstone blurred the difficulties and contradictions of English law. He gave the whole subject an air of completeness and mutual interdependence as if it were a uniform logical system, and he suppressed or ignored its archaic aspects and instead acclaimed English law as the embodiment of 18th-century wisdom. He stated his aims in a notice of his lectures dated June 23, 1753:

“It is proposed to lay down a general and comprehensive Plan of the Laws of England; to deduce their History; to enforce and illustrate their leading Rules and fundamental Principles; and to compare them with the Laws of Nature and of other Nations.

“In 1754 Blackstone published Analysis of the Laws of England, a synopsis of his lectures for the guidance of his pupils. In October 1758 he was elected the first holder of a chair (the Vinerian professorship) of common law. His lectures formed the basis of his Commentaries, which were published in four successive volumes between 1765 and 1769.”

For a continuation of the article in Britannica Online see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68589/Sir-William-Blackstone/729/Assessment

The terminology is breathtaking:  “an air of completeness and mutual interdependence as if it were a uniform logical system” and he “suppressed or ignored its archaic aspects”.

The 200+-year history of the United States of America hadn’t even gotten started when Blackstone published his four volumes.  The internet is introducing an interdependence that was unimaginable in Blackstone’s day.  Only the web has potential for "completeness."  No single node can be "complete."

In the Florida judicial system “complete” means that no other factors or evidence need be considered.  Such completeness would allow the Judiciary decision making agent/node to act as if they were a closed system.  For applicable definitions of Open System and Closed System, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_and_closed_systems_in_social_science.

The Florida Judicial Systems needs to look closely at feedback loops.  Circuit Court judges in Family Law matters definitely need their findings of fact to be subject to review/correction.  If my personal experience is “typical,” we are in deep trouble.

My personal situation is an example of “The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.”  My ex-spouse is an entitled victim in the 47%.  She has two (2) Master’s degrees.  One is basically in getting free help to help her do good/well.  She has a Director of Christian Education (DCE) degree from Emory University.

She has utilized student loans, victim’s support group(s), and extended unemployment.  (Her highest paying job was with Volunteers of America - Florida where she helped Vets with homelessness, alcohol, and drug problems.)  She wants everything to which she is entitled.  She got her second Master’s in Mental Health counseling in 2003.  Doesn’t she owe the current veterans her services at a reasonable price?  She is/was a licensed mental health counselor in Florida.  Would Florida license a person inappropriate for our Vets?

Should I pay alimony to keep her in the extremely comfortable life style to which she wanted to become accustomed?  Her two (2) real doctor brothers could afford her desired lifestyle.  With only a PhD in experimental particle physics, I could not.  My ex-spouse was enabled by various support groups.  If not the Road to Hell, then at least the Road to the Poor House for me is paved with the Good Intentions of many (good intentioned) people.  Judge Charles J. Roberts, 18th Circuit, may be the only one to suffer any negative consequences for his poorly directed good intentions.

 

 

 

Mission

This blog is dedicated to promoting truth, justice and The American Way.

(DR)2H