Protective Orders and Reasonable Costs Considered -- Pendente Lite

My Friday afternoon in the Gloucester, Virginia Circuit Court was, as I mentioned in my previous post, an interesting one.  Primarily interested in the divorce cases heard and decided here, however, I must switch my focus back to the only divorce case I witnessed that afternoon.

Conflicted Counsel from my case was representing the wife.  An attorney I had not before had the opportunity to observe was representing the husband.  The judge was the same as in all of the cases I have witnessed to-date.  Now, as I recall, and as is confirmed in the transcript of my own Pendente Lite hearing, Judge R. Bruce Long does not hear fault in Pendente Lite hearings.  To quote the honorable judge,

"You want me to get into the issue of fault, and I'm not going to deal with the issue of fault pendente lite.  I haven't done that in the past. I don't think it's a good idea to start that now."

OK, so let's proceed on that presumption then. 

Before the judge this day was a husband who has a protective order against him, and who works outside the home, earning $4000 per month, is living at his mother and stepfather's and is paying them $600 rent for room and board.  The wife also works outside the home but only three days per month, with a monthly income of approximately $150.  She and the two children, one of whom is an adult child with disabling migraines who receives social security support, the other of whom is a 16 year old, live in the marital home, the $1100 mortgage on which, is paid by the husband.

Now, the immediate question is pertaining to the temporary protective order that is in place and which prevents the husband's any contact with the wife or the children, with the exception of email or unless initiated by the wife or children.  The two attorneys argue the point back and forth about whether he should be allowed to text his children back when they text him, when it is considered "initiated by the child" etc.  Conflicted Counsel suggested the girls don't want their father contacting them and that a guardian should perform a study to determine what is in the best interest of the children......AND this good attorney, the same one who wants the Court to believe that my husband is just some poor soul who wouldn't hurt a flea, despite the court records in this very courthouse which speak to the contrary, was all over this protective order, speaking at length about how the husband is abusive, demonstrated by his use of the cell phone. According to Conflicted Counsel, this man, if he were on his way to work and called home to speak to one of his family, and they did not answer the phone so he could berate them over the phone, he'd turn the car around and come home so he could berate them in person.... excuse me, but are we discussing "fault" in a Pendente Lite hearing????

Well, OK, but what ELSE was considered in this award of support in this case? Oh yes, let's recall that this judge loves the "guidelines" ... those rather odd contrivances of reality that allow the judge to feel "equitable" while completely destroying decent people's lives.  So, the "guidelines" allow the consideration of "family debt" to include ONLY mortgage/rent and automobile payments.  The "guidelines" consider "family income" in terms of gross income.

Well, the family income reported to be about $4150 per month, with the adult child's SS support payment being added to the wife's income, for reasons unclear to anyone but Conflicted Counsel who offered it as such.  Opposing counsel opposed and the judge agreed with opposing counsel, that the SS support was better characterized for the purposes of the "guidelines" as "child support."  Conflicted Counsel was unhappy with this ruling, rather wanting the husband to be required to pay $807 per month in addition to that $440 amount already being paid by the State.  This, of course, is in addition to the $1100 mortgage, and the utilities, and the insurance costs the husband is carrying.  Nevertheless, Conflicted Counsel is adamant, this is not right, but the judge declares it is, and so it shall be.

Next, Conflicted Counsel challenges the "rent" being stipulated as the husband's payment to his mother and step-father for the use of a room in their house.  He defines the rent as "bogus" and designed to rob the family of much needed monies.  

The two attorneys examine and cross-examine the husband and the husband's step-father and the truth rings out pretty clear... the step-father isn't about to give the 45 year old step-son a free ride... he set the rent himself and has no qualms about charging it.  In the end, after Conflicted Counsel had badgered the two men about how much of the $600 was for food, and how much for utilities, and wasn't it true that the three bedroom house was really set up such that the mother (with cancer) was in one room, the step-father in another and the computer set up in the third, meaning that the husband was REALLY sleeping on the fold-out couch in the sun room, neither of the men would allow Conflicted Counsel to have his way.  The last exchange, directed at the 75 year old step-father, went like this,

"How did you decide how much rent to charge him?"

"I pulled it out of my hat."

"Did you wear that hat today?" asked Conflicted Counsel of the bald man in the witness chair.

"No, it's against the law to wear a hat in court."

(Good for the old man!  Conflicted Counsel needed to be taken down a peg or two!)

And then it was time to examine and cross-examine the wife.  Could she actually work more hours to help with the strapped financial situation?  Neither attorney did a particularly good job at getting this woman to explain a very odd work arrangement she has with an employer for whom she has worked 23 years... nor did anyone suggest that there might be another way to earn income that did not require the woman to leave the home, etc. etc.  Nevertheless, the judge looked at her last year's earnings and decided to base his numbers for the "guidelines" on those figures. 

The judge chose to allow the full $600 claimed by the husband, even though, as Conflicted Counsel pointed out, both the husband AND the father-in-law agreed that this amount included food and utilities, items that are NOT part of the "guidelines."  Nevertheless, the judge found it "reasonable" and so he USED HIS DISCRETION and granted them.

Now, the net result to the wife, according to Conflicted Counsel, is that she will get something like $400 plus the husband's portion of the child support and this will be very hard for his client.  Based on my own calculations, since the total monthly income is $4150 out of which is taken both taxes and insurance costs, I'm guessing the take home pay is more in the neighborhood of $3500 per month.  The husband is paying the $1100 for the mortgage, $600 in rent and will pay about $800 in combined spousal and child support.  He is also paying the utilities for the family.  Regardless, this man will pay more than half his take home pay to support his family during the pendente lite period.  I don't imagine that sounds too bad to someone who is being represented and who represents himself as being the one"at fault" for the failed marriage.

Nevertheless, the judge clearly considered the aspect of fault in this hearing, when he heard the protective order arguments and he extended the "guidelines" in this man's case, to include food and utilities.  These two considerations seem to me to be in direct opposition to his statements made during MY pendente lite hearing.  

In my case, while I am the innocent party, the victim of the abuse, the ONLY one who worked and contributed financially to the marriage and the assets thereof, and the one whose life was threatened repeatedly by the man who wanted to ENSURE I would never seek a divorce, even despite ALL of this, the judge, in refusing to hear fault, and further refusing to consider my actual budget (in that I pay ALL of the bills, all of the debts, AND was, for the first year of our now two-year separation, sending the man an ADDITIONAL $500 per month, to help him while he got a job... of course that never happened....), succeeded in awarding this abuser just under 50% of my take-home pay.   My monthly obligations without the additional support exhaust the entire take-home pay.

There are no children of our marriage.  We were married less than half the time of the couple in the case I witnessed Friday.  And, just in case the judge HAD reviewed my file the night before, as his "right hand gal" assured me he was doing when I tried to see my file the day before the hearing, he knew very well that he was putting me into a Catch-22 situation.  I simply cannot pay all of the family bills AND pay that "temporary" alimony without further encumbering a "marital" asset.....

I am still pondering the "why" of this ruling...  I did object to the order, though it took an act of God to get my attorney to include my objections on the "Seen and Objected to" line of the order.  I am going to file a motion for a reconsideration.  But, as of today, Conflicted Counsel has issued a motion for SHOW CAUSE of why I haven't complied with the order (as yet not signed by the judge as far as I know).

Something is just not right in this Gloucester, Virginia Circuit Court...  The judge who "never considers fault" pendente lite has considered it on two occasions I have witnessed... the first for an adultery case and this one with the protective order....

Next Friday will be another opportunity for me to further my research in this courtroom......

Bowser Refuses to Clear Right of Way -- Judge Long Returns Bowser to Gloucester County Jail

I spent Friday afternoon in court again.  I am watching, taking notes, and generally learning about the cases that come through this courtroom, the arguments heard, the decisions made, etc.  This Friday afternoon was a very interesting one, with only one of the cases being divorce related.

The first case I watched was one in which the defendant was led into court sporting his orange, county-issued jumpsuit.  The judge explained to this man that he'd had a survey performed of the "right of way" in question, and the cost of that survey was $2000.  Furthermore, the judge explained, the cost to clear that right of way was estimated at $2400.  The judge asked the defendant whether he was prepared to clear the right of way himself.  The defendant started to explain his position on the matter, and the judge cut him short. "are you going to clear it?"  The defendant obliged the judge and offered his single word answer, "No."

The judge reminded the defendant that he was going to be liable for the $4400 and would be returned to the county jail, and asked him if he wanted to change his mind.  The defendant responded with, "if I agree to this, I will be saying that everything I have been fighting for for five years is not true. No, I would rather stand on the truth and take the punishment."

And with that, the man who, presumably, is spending his time in the county jail for non-compliance with a judge's order, was led back out of the courtroom.  I wrote a note to myself...."Story here" as it seemed to me I had just witnessed something that has a very long history, and which was likely to be of interest.  Two things struck me about the less that five minute exchange between the players.  The defendant was not angry or belligerent sounding, seemed genuine and convinced he was standing up for the truth.  Judge Long seemed resigned to the fact that this defendant was not going to back down.  He did not beat the guy up, just gave him a second chance to change his mind, and then returned him to the county jail.  It seemed as if this scene had been played out more than once on this case.

Later that night, and again today, I spent some time researching the case, and it is, indeed, an interesting one.  The defendant charges corruption in the county, corruption that involves judges and attorneys, and more.  And his case is a simple one on the surface.  This is a land dispute.  The defendant, Bowser, claims he witnessed a surveyor on his property, marking and pounding in steel posts, changing, he contends, the actual property lines for property which he owns, robbing him, he says, of over 8 acres of land, when the "right of way" is included.  From what I was able to find on the Internet, this case has been in the Gloucester County circuit court for at least 3 years, with Bowser defending himself against the plaintiff who, according to Bowser, he has never been able to meet in court.  The plaintiff's attorney has been the only one there, and has, according to Bowser, been allowed to enter into evidence, faulty documents, while the defendant has had his documents, supporting his property claim, routinely denied.

Interestingly, this defendant, Bowser, also ran for Gloucester County Sheriff in 2007... although, just before the election, Bowser was sent to the county jail for his refusing to comply with a court order.... I am not clear as to whether the court order for which he was sent to jail is the one that ordered him to pay plaintiff's attorneys fees when the plaintiff filed a non-suit, after which the judge dismissed Bowser's counterclaim, or whether this was another order, requiring Bowser to clear the right of way.  Whatever the order, the sentence just before election day ensured he would have little chance of being elected to the position he sought.  He contends he was a front runner in the primary, with 36% of the vote.  Whether this is accurate or not, he was not elected Sheriff in the 2007 elections.

And here he is, two and a half years later, still fighting the same battle and still spending his time in the county jail, convinced the corrupt judges and attorneys are simply continuing a scheme to steal land from the rightful owners.....  Is Bowser's case a credible one?  I don't really know.  I'd like to see the transcripts, though, I suspect, there are great gaps in such, since much of what transpires in this court transpires without benefit of record....  Regardless, more research is called for and more research I shall do.

I actually was in court Friday afternoon until 6PM, with other cases lasting beyond the "closing time" at the Gloucester County Courthouse.  I will write about those cases in the days to come, but the one that took only five minutes left me with so many questions, I simply had to pursue it first.

Seen and Objected

The pendente lite "sketch order" arrived at my attorney's office.  I was there when it arrived, having just finished meeting with my attorney.  He saw the envelope on his paralegal's desk, snatched it up, opened it, glanced through it and asked the paralegal to make a copy for me.  My attorney told me to take a look at it and get back with him via email with my "thoughts" on it.

Agreeing to do so, I took the copy and headed out of the office.  I was generally NOT a happy camper anyway, because I was still upset with a judge who had refused to look at ANYTHING except the Virginia Guidelines when determining the spousal support he was awarding my non-working-because-he-can't-leave-his-comfort-zone-husband.  Once home, I looked at the sketch order and did the math, and read the sketch order again and did the math again.  No matter how many times I worked the numbers, the facts presented themselves as truths.  There simply was no way I could comply with the order as written. 

If the order had required me to maintain all of the mortgages and other bills, continued to provide him health insurance, mandated that I not encumber or dispose any "marital property," but NOT required me to pay spousal support, I would have dealt with it.  But once the spousal support, to the tune of $2300 per month, was ADDED to the above list, and taking into consideration all those OTHER bills for which my non-working-because-he-can't-leave-his-comfort-zone-husband refuses to offer a dime, I cannot succeed in complying with the order.  The income is just not there.

I took the weekend and drafted "my thoughts" to this attorney of mine and sent them to him on Sunday, along with a nice letter requesting he include my exceptions, as noted, on the sketch order when signing.  Rather than his standard, "seen and objected to" I wanted him to spell out the particulars of my objections.  And then I left town for a week of required training.  

When I arrived home on Friday, I was greeted with email from the paralegal, requesting that I provide my employer's phone number and mailing address on the sketch order so that she could file it with the Court, for the Judge's signature.  I responded with the obvious...please include my noted exceptions to the sketch order, and then we can submit it to the Court.  I quoted my own self from my May 9, 2010 email, in case she was befuddled by my suggestion of actually noting exceptions to a pendente lite order.

Well, as I might have predicted... in fact AS I predicted, this oh-so-efficient paralegal, zeroed right in on the provided employer address and phone number, entered them in the blanks lines provided for such and filed the document with the Court...she copied me on her submission... clearly patting herself on the back for avoiding the cost of going to court on June 4, 2010 to explain WHY the order had not yet been signed, she obviously missed the more critical points of actually noting objections to these things....

"Livid" is a word that might well describe how I felt when she copied me on her filing of the signed order, without including my exceptions...  I wrote her back, careful not to violate any Internet laws in the process, asking her why she had expressly ignored my specific requests, and asking that the attorney call me as soon as possible.  Naturally, the end of the business day came and went without further communication from that firm.  (Understand, when they wanted ME to provide something, they were in HIGH communication mode...hitting the cell phone, the house phone AND the email.)

So, after hours and after hours of research, I decided to send this paralegal a little tidbit or two which I had uncovered in my own personal research on the topic.  I explained that the rules and details listed below are WHY I needed to have those exceptions entered... it should have been done for the Conflict of Interest hearing motion decision, and it most certainly should have been done for the pendente lite sketch order.  Nevertheless, it was NOT done for either, and I am now in the position to have to submit a motion for a "reconsideration" on the pendente lite order.... the conflict of interest order is now beyond the 21 days window during which the motion for reconsideration could have been filed... I have just a few days to appeal the decision to the appellate court....

In all honesty, the fact that my non-working-because-he-can't-leave-his-comfort-zone-husband is being represented by my attorney of more than 10 years is becoming the least of my worries... rather, the lack of competency of my own attorney is scaring the bejeebers out of me!

Here is an excerpt of the research I provided the paralegal and my attorney this evening... information intended to stimulate SOMETHING other than simple but poorly executed form peddling.

"Lee v. Lee expressly held that endorsing an order "Seen" or even "Seen and Objected to" is insufficient to preserve an objection to the ruling, and hence one's right of appeal.

What must be substituted for this time-honored practice is either a full and specific statement of what one's objections to the judge's ruling are, on the endorsement line where one used to put "Objected," or a motion to reconsider. 

See Huger v. Huger, 433 S.E. 2d 255 (1993), where the husband, who excepted to the court's findings, could not argue about a $23,000 horse on appeal because he did not mention the horse on the endorsement line.  The requirement was emphasized again in Klein v. Klein, 396 S.E. 2d 866 (1990), reminding practitioners of the importance of reciting a proffer. However, the Virginia Supreme Court had said in Weideman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 400 S.E. 2d 164 (1991), that "Seen and Objected" is never enough, citing Langley v. Meredith, 237 Va. 55 (1989)."

I don't know what tomorrow holds when the two who are supposed to be on my "team" but who seem to REALLY want to be picked for the "other guy's team," open their email and discover my not-too-well veiled displeasure with their lack of attention to detail...not to even MENTION their collectively questionable competence.

From the Virginia Bar

On Saturday, when I picked up my mail, I discovered a letter from the State of Virginia Bar.  The letter was a response to a complaint I'd made regarding the Conflicted Counsel's failure to return to me all of my files from the more than 10 year span of his representation of me.  Conflicted Counsel had made a big "rolls eyes" delivery of  "my files" in court on the 23rd of April Pendente Lite hearing date, as he continues to represent my husband in this little matter of a divorce.

Now, just to make the situation perfectly clear, while Conflicted Counsel said he was delivering to me my files, as had been requested of him, in fact, he left out some of the rather pertinent items I had requested.  Specifically, he left out his notes on ANY of the items for which he had been retained.  Nor did he include records pertaining to his representation of me for the sale of a home, that was separate property, and which is material to this little matter of a divorce.

So, armed with the partial file, I sent a second letter to the Bar, asking that they please consider this Conflicted Counsel's failure to respond appropriately.  In fact, missing from these returned files were at least two documents from which Conflicted Counsel had read to the Court, during the Motion to Dismiss Counsel for Conflict of Interest hearing, held on April Fool's Day.

Still, it appears that if the good attorney says he did something, and the silly client says he did not, the Bar, I am afraid, is going to discount the silly client, in support of the good attorney.  And so it was, that on Saturday, May 15, I read the letter from the Bar, in which they noted that the good attorney had notified them that he'd returned my files... and that, they ruled, is the end of that.  The matter is not appealable, but if there is NEW evidence I would like them to consider, I should write them a letter, include the new evidence, and in a few weeks they will determine whether they SHOULD reconsider their ruling...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what evidence SHOULD I provide, exactly, to prove that he did NOT return all of the files?  I mean, the problem is, that he did not return the evidence I need to PROVE that he has a conflict of interest.  Yeah, I get it, the old Catch-22.... I have to prove something that can only be proven with evidence which I can ONLY obtain from the person who will never provide it....  I suppose that is the REASON that truly GOOD attorneys would never take a case in which they were representing a person against their former client... perhaps the PERCEPTION of a Conflict of Interest is sufficient justification for GOOD attorneys to decline the case, and the MONEY that it offers, on the grounds of ETHICS.....

But, at least for me, that is not the case.  The judge ruled that the Conflicted Counsel could continue to represent my husband against me in the divorce, and the Bar has been convinced by Conflicted Counsel that he returned my files, and I, once again, am put in my place by the Judicial System that is alive and strong in Gloucester Virginia Circuit Court.

Now, in direct contrast to the above scenario, on the Saturday prior, I stopped by the bank to withdraw funds to ensure I was sufficiently covered on my business trip out of town.  I went to the drive-up teller, submitted my check for the desired amount, provided my identification and in two minutes the envelope containing money was delivered for me to retrieve.  I always count the money I am given, in these cases, and this day was no different.  For the second time in the nearly 20 years have been banking there, the money in the envelope did not match the check I had written for the withdrawal of funds.  I pushed the button to get the teller's attention and she greeted me sweetly, asking how she could help me.  "I wrote a check for $500 and only got $50," I told her.

She apologized profusely, I sent the envelope containing the $50 back to her, and she checked my check and saw her error, and sent out a new envelope, this time containing the full $500.  She apologized again and wished me a good day, I counted the contents of the new envelope and found them satisfactory, thanked her and drove away.

Had this teller been Conflicted Counsel, she would have:

1. Denied that amount in the envelope was incorrect

2. Insisted I was a liar and that my claim had no merit

3. Told her supervisor that she had given me the full $500 for which I'd written the check

4.  Rolled her eyes as she explained to her supervisor that she was "right"

5. And I would have had to accept $50 in place of the $500.....

But, then again, that's the difference, the bank teller was HONEST and ETHICAL... Conflicted Counsel is neither, and is supported by a system wherein "the truth" simply takes too much time and MUST be put off for another hearing, oh, maybe three months down the road....meanwhile... make sure you don't miss your pendente lite ordered "temporary" spousal support... After all, the husband's plans to self-enrich on the hard work of the wife were cut short by a little thing call "Spousal Abuse" and now, that poor abuser MUST be kept up in "the manner to which he has become accustomed....."  Well, Conflicted Counsel is doing a bang-up job of seeing that his former client is abused by not only his current client, but the very system that purports to protect women against such abuse.... perhaps they are only referring to women who are not the sole supporter of the household.... I suppose my mistake (besides marrying the sloth) was being a hard working, ethical person.... they, the abuser, Conflicted Counsel, the Circuit Court of Gloucester, Virginia and even the State Bar,  are determined to hold that against me forever.

Convenient Clerical Omission?

I was perplexed in the courtroom that day, now approaching three weeks ago.

Conflicted Counsel told the Court that I had provided no documents from which he could determine my income. "Funny," I thought, "I'm certain my attorney's paralegal forwarded me copies of the documents she filed with the Clerk three days prior to the pendente lite hearing." In her email it also indicated Conflicted Counsel had been copied... so why was he saying there were no submissions and why did the Court not correct his statements?

Well, today, while I am out of town on business and cannot actually DO anything on my own case, I thought, "at least I can perform a little research." I decided to look my case up on-line and I discovered a little something. My case is there and I can see the hearings that have taken place and the different documents that have been filed and placed in my file. Now I cannot see the details of them, just the type of document, etc.

It was with little surprise that I discovered there were documents missing from my file, or at least from the on-line documentation thereof. While it shows the Conflicted Counsel filed MY income sheet two days prior to the pendente lite hearing, it shows no evidence of my proffers and income/budget sheet having been filed...then or ever.

And I have to wonder why?

When I return to the quaint little town with the seriously oversized court house next week, I intend on going in to visit the Clerk of the Court and getting some answers. If those papers are not in my file, there is someone who will be explaining a little something to little old me!

Ma'am, You Are Not Allowed In the Court Room

In the Circuit Court in this fine county of Gloucester, VA, Fridays are the days upon which matters of divorce are heard. The "Pendente Lite" hearing in my own divorce was held on a Friday two weeks ago. The problem with any of this is that I don't really understand what is going to happen, until after it happens. Sadly, by then it is a little too late. So, having been sorely disappointed in the judge's refusal to hear any fault OR to consider my budget worksheet before issuing his Pendente Lite order for spousal support and more, I decided I needed to educate myself.

My attorney is not the strategical technician I need to succeed in this matter. After all, it is my attorney who failed to inform me that there would be no court recorder for the hearing on my motion to dismiss adverse counsel for conflict of interest, held three weeks prior. Silly me, when I saw no human sitting there capturing the proceedings, I presumed there was electronic recording....when I called the Clerk of the Court to inquire on the transcript, I was informed that, unless one of the parties had provided a court recorder (person), there was no transcript...it was, afterall, a "court of no record." Well, live and learn....

So, I decided to take a vacation day from work Friday and spend that time in my first "seminar"....right there in the very same court room, with the same judge presiding and the same handful of attorneys arguing for their clients. I arrived after the 9:00 docket had completed, but in time for the 10:00 docket. There were, I believe, five cases to be heard in that time slot. I sat in the very back corner of the court room, on the very hard bench, armed with my spiral notebook and a pen....

"All Rise," the Bailiff called to order and all obeyed, standing for the entrance of "his Honor."

The cases were varied and interesting to me. I took lots of notes. I noted, most importantly, that none of these cases were heard with the benefit of a court recorder. Now, after my first such experience, I can assure you, I will not proceed in another hearing without one. The preservation of the record is well worth the cost. So, as I said, these proceedings were off the record, and the rulings thereon are, therefore, necessarily reliant on the judge's own notes and recollections....notes and recollections that are not viewable by the public, I might add. And when the judge makes his decisions, it is not he who then pens his orders, and rulings, but rather, one of the counsel arguing the case....

In the selection of cases that day were an uncontested, but fault-based divorce, pendente lite hearing in which the complainant was suing for divorce based on charges of adultery. The opposing counsel argued that the VA code required a 6-month separation before such a complaint could be heard... the judge asked counsel to name the code upon which she was relying...suffice to say, she was wrong and the judge declared that in matters concerning adultery, there is no waiting period requirement... and so, though in MY pendente lite hearing, the judge declared he would not listen to any fault, indicating, "I never have and I'm not going to start now," indeed I beg to differ on the "I never have".... or perhaps, he just started two weeks later, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't adultery a fault-based complaint?

Never mind, so the judge allowed not only the fault to be introduced into the proceeding, but also allowed the Defendant to be sworn in and examined by counsel for the Plaintiff. She took him through all of the allegations of sexual harassment on females in his 10 year career, from which he was fired for cause... and she successfully argued that because he was fired for cause, and for cause substantially related to the fault-based claim of the complaint for divorce, his income should be imputed to reflect the higher earning he'd been earning from that employer, rather than his current income. The judge accepted it all and imputed his income and issued the instructions to counsel to determine the amount of spousal support for the pendente lite period accordingly.....

So, I learned a valuable lesson.... the judge is less than consistent.... he only considers fault in a pendente lite hearing if he wants to... now, it could well be that the fault upon which this complaint for divorce was filed, has been agreed to by the defendant and therefore the judge did not have to decide on the fault, but only on the consequences thereof.... I'll have to do more research before I can make that determination.

Another case was a SHOW CAUSE case wherein the Plaintiff requested the Defendant show cause for his failure to comply with the final divorce decree and the equitable distribution of assets, as ruled. This was a little more complicated, and the details were interesting, to be sure, but more interesting to me was the fact that the counsel for the Defendant was the conflicted attorney who was my counsel in my first divorce and who is now representing my husband in this divorce. And also interesting were the arguments he raised to help his client avoid the payment of the court ordered equitable distribution amounts...well, at least until such time as his client could prevail in a related, but as yet unfiled lawsuit, which, counsel for Defendant reminded the Court, could take a couple of years.... Judge was not particularly impressed with the argument presented, and tried to find a way to make the Defendant liquidate other assets to help meet the obligation... the Defendant, at the time of this hearing, was $60K in arrears.... They determined he would transfer his share of the already equitably distributed 401K to her, but that the details of the amount by which this would reduce his arrearages would have to be later determined...counsel for Defendant argued that the only other asset which could be liquidated was the Defendant's pricey motorcycle, but since that was this man's "only toy" and "every man should be allowed one toy." The judge wasn't impressed, but didn't rule that the motorcycle had to be liquidated..... The Defendant left unhappy with the ruling and, I suspect, his counsel....

Another case was a motion to compel the production of discovery documents, and to require the Defendant subject himself to a firm who would determine his earning potential.... counsel arguing that this man was, by choice, underemployed..... (Counsel in this case, is, again, my conflicted attorney). Now this man, the Defendant, has no counsel representing him in this hearing. It was unclear to me whether he had counsel at all, but I am pretty sure he had counsel at one time, based on his testimony. This day, however, he stood alone. Counsel stated he'd received no income or discovery documents requested from this man, and the man claimed he'd FAXed them timely..... Counsel claimed the man was voluntarily underemployed, and the man explained that he is 55 years old (that's what I heard, but I think he looked more like 65 ) and no matter what an employment analyst says, it is hard to get work at that age....

Counsel argued, and the man, genuine to the bone, held his own... he'd FAXed the documents on 2/11/10, and had done so twice, but no matter, because he also had them with him there, that day. Judge asked the man if he had a reason for not submitting to the employment analysis, and the man said he was required to pay for that and the attorneys fees.... Counsel argued that was not true and the man agreed to subject himself accordingly.... Counsel challenged the man on his statement of FAXing the docs in February.... man claimed he'd discarded the cover sheets of the FAX, and Counsel started his campaign to discredit the man...at which point the man found the cover sheet that proved his truthfulness.... so, counsel did not apologize for calling the man a liar, but, instead, challenged him on what number he'd sent them to, why he'd FAXed them twice, etc... generally beating this guy up... the man stood his ground, and the judge told Counsel to review the docs and get on with the request. They adjourned for 10 minutes to allow the review of the docs.

I sat there in the back with my notes after the judge left the room. Conflicted Counsel left the room too, and as he left he did a double-take when he saw me... our eyes met and he was not pleased. I decided to leave the room for a minute to write down the cases on the docket posted on the door. I didn't hide what I was doing, as this, I believe, is all public information. Once I had them jotted down, I returned to my seat in the back corner. Conflicted Counsel, now back in the courtroom said something to Bailiff and Bailiff headed directly toward me. At the end of the bench upon which I sat, he stopped and beckoned for me to follow him. Outside the courtroom I was questioned,

"Do you have involvement in any of the cases being heard here today?"
"No."
"Are you a reporter?"
"No, I am doing research..."
"Well, you can't go in there, you have to leave."
"Really? Isn't this a public court? Aren't these public proceedings?"
"No, not in Divorce cases. Unless you are one of the parties...."
"Really, I thought only if they included juveniles...."
"No, you can check with the Clerk of the Court if you like, I'm sorry but you're not allowed in..."

With which he dismissed me, returning to the courtroom.... I took his advice and headed in to see the Clerk of the Court.

Now, despite their ridiculously huge and fancy courthouse, Gloucester County is Gloucester County.... I have NEVER encountered efficiency or competence herein and this day was no different. In the Clerk's office, there was a line of ONE... one man trying to pay something (court costs presumably) and THREE women, none of whom were able to determine what was wrong with the computer .... blah, blah, blah... I waited my turn.... five minutes into my wait and no closer to actually being served, the Bailiff appeared through the same door which I had entered....he was all smiles and apologetic... he'd been wrong, it seems, only those divorce proceedings for which the Counsel has requested the hearing be "closed" are off limits to the public....

Funny change of heart, I thought, well aware of the reason I'd been instructed to leave. I suppose those dusky glass globes on the ceiling of the courtroom must, indeed, be cameras, and the judge must, indeed have seen what was going on.... now, I don't know the details, but I am SURE that had I left the building when instructed to, nobody would have run out to the parking lot to apologize and invite me back in... no, I called their bluff and they had no other options....

Why, I wondered, would this Conflicted Counsel be so eager to expel me from a public forum? I was not disruptive. I was not rude to anyone. In fact, I was so NON- intrusive that, until Conflicted Counsel was leaving the courtroom, he had no idea I was there. I presume the judge did, but I never looked at him....my eyes were always on my notes. Well, I suppose I can take a stab at why Conflicted Counsel was unhappy with my presence.... after all, I did file a motion to have him removed as counsel for my husband in our divorce, based on his conflict of interest, AND I did file a complaint with the BAR because he failed to return to me my files, inclusive of his notes which he read aloud at the "court of no record" hearing held on the matter...and I did file an updated BAR complaint because he returned only partial files after being ordered to return all files..... Yeah, I get it, Conflicted Counsel is not happy with me.... oh, but wait ... I discovered another reason Conflicted Counsel would prefer I not witness the proceedings....

When the Court was once again in session, Conflicted Counsel had to admit to the Court that he had contacted his paralegal during the break and had, in fact, been informed that the FAXed documents this man alleged he'd sent HAD indeed been received by his office on 2/11/10, AND that they had been filed in the wife's file....because there was no indication they had come from the husband.... Now DUH... so he HAS the docs in his folder, and he is alleging that he believes the WIFE FAXed in the discovery docs requested of the husband.... how LAME an excuse for LYING to the Court can one Conflicted Counsel offer?

Yes, yes, now I better understand his rationale for getting me out of there... I would see him repeating his practice of lying to the Court.... I guess I'd believed that Counsel were required to speak the truth, as they believe it to be, in the Court....but this Conflicted Counsel lied in the Conflict of Interest hearing and he also lied to the Court during my pendente lite hearing on two occasions.... the first was when he alleged my current husband stayed at home to raise my children while I worked outside the home...he knows differently, knows, in fact, that my children were nearly grown when we married and were out of the house two years after our wedding date... he knows this because of his representation of me in my first divorce, and the related child support issues.... Conflicted Counsel also lied to the Court when he declared I had not provided earnings documentation to allow for the determination of spousal support to be paid his client... the abusive, refusing to work, drug addict and alcoholic.... Even the Court should have known this was a falsehood, given that they AND Conflicted Counsel were provided pertinent documentation three days prior to the pedente lite hearing.... Nevertheless.... good for me to know this... Conflicted Counselor is not hampered by any ethics....

So, after the break and the admittance by Conflicted Counsel that he'd received this guy's documents, he then proceeded to demand the court consider the fact that his client, who, at the time of filing the complaint for divorce, was earning $600-700 per month from Social Security, and now that the husband was making $80K per year, she had lost her SS benefits.... so, the Court should rule the husband pay more in spousal support.... Now, pinch me and tell me I'm in la-la land, but isn't this the SAME Conflicted Counselor who started this whole case be saying the husband was voluntarily under-employed? And now wasn't he arguing that the $80K of underemployment was too much to allow his client to receive her SS income?????

OK, just label me confused... I'll have to reflect on that one a while longer....

I stayed for the final cases, and then returned to the Clerk's office to get the ruling on when I am and when I am not allowed in these fine courtrooms.... She was pretty vague... if the hearing is closed, for instance, they will not put a sign on the door or anything, or a note on the docket (God Forbid)... no, if it is closed, they will simply ask you to leave when you walk in.... Not sure what small town I have been living in for 22 years, but this sounds just a wee bit odd... sounds as if -- just perhaps -- a LOT of the public is asked to leave hearings, not on the basis that the hearing is closed, but for reasons which very likely violate the Freedom of Information Act.... Show me something that SAYS a hearing is closed and I will respect that... but just walk up to me and inform me I am not allowed in the Court Room??? In the Court Room which I pay dearly for with my tax dollars? In the Court Room where MY fate is also being shaped? In the Court of No Record..... Gloucester, Virginia.....

Pendente Lite Spousal Support

Three short weeks after "the Honorable" declined to remove my former divorce attorney from representing my current husband, I was in court again, this time for the so-called "Pendente Lite" hearing. Now, I understand the purpose behind this hearing, and I understand that it is well within the 9th Circuit Court of Virginia's rules to allow either party in the divorce to request such a hearing. For those not already jaded by this process, I will assume you are not knowledgeable thereof and I will "educate" you....

The Pendente Lite hearing is to establish the interim financial obligations of each party in the divorce, so that, theoretically, the debtors can be paid timely and nobody is left living out in the street while the process trudges through to the final determination of equitable distribution and decree of divorce... as such, this is deemed a "temporary" order.

Now, according to those in this "court" there is no room for deviating from the 9th Circuit Court's guidelines....

Each party completes a "family debt sheet" -- wherein they indicate the amount of the mortgage or rent they pay, whether there are minor children they support and the amount of their car payments, and their gross monthly salary or income. From there the numbers are subjected to the following calculations:

Wife income + Husband income = Family income
a. Higher earning spouse's salary X 30% (when no children in the picture)
b. Lower earning spouse's salary X 50% (when no children in the picture)
c. Subtract the number in b. from the number in a. and that is the amount of income the higher earning spouse owes the lower earning spouse.

Now, we come to the debt reduction numbers:
Wife mortgage/rent/car payment + Husband mortgage/rent/car payment = Family debt.
d. Family debt X 70% = higher earning spouse's obligation
e. Family debt X 30% = lower earning spouse's obligation

Now, for the final numbers
Spousal support is determined by subtracting the amount of the family debt already being paid by the lower earning spouse from the amount of debt he/she is obligated to pay of the Family debt. The resulting number is then subtracted from the income owed to the lower earning spouse from the higher earning spouse.

Clear as mud? OK, example time.

Wife earns $1000 per month
Husband earns $6000 per month
Family Income = $7000 per month

a. 30% of $6000 = $1800
b. 50% 0f $1000 = $500
c. $1800 - $500 = $1300 income which higher earning spouse owes lower earning spouse.

Wife rents for $350 per month and has a $150 car payment
Husband pays mortgage of $1000 per month and has a $200 car payment
Family debt = $1700

d. 70% of $1700 = $1190 (Husband's share)
e. 30% of $1700 = $510 (Wife's share)

Wife is required to pay $510 of the Family debt and she is already paying $500 -- therefore, her spousal support of $1300 from c. above is reduced by $10 (the difference between her debt obligation and what she is actually paying).


Wife, as the lower earning spouse is entitled to $1300 - $10 - $1290 in monthly spousal support from the husband.

Now, in my case, the lower earning spouse is the deadbeat who refused to work, though he signed a contract to do so as condition of being allowed to return to the home after his conviction for spousal abuse on me. Instead of working, he chose to continue in his preferred activities of drug and alcohol abuse, and spousal abuse, of course, always blaming it on his addictions.... years of counseling, addiction in-patient treatment, education to help him return to the workforce, and he refused, saying he would not work unless he could earn more than I did....

Here we are now, I, not willing to live any longer with a man who wants only to kill me, and having lived separately and apart for 2 years, and he living with his mother in another state and STILL refusing to work -- (He can't leave his "comfort zone") and the judge is looking at the Pendente Lite request for spousal support.

My attorney argues this man does not deserve the support at all... "his honor" says, "I'm not going to hear fault... this is only temporary anyway..." My attorney asks that my budget worksheet, the one that shows that I am carrying the burden of ALL the family debt incurred throughout the marriage, and which demonstrates I am actually already operating at a monthly deficit, be considered when determining any amount of spousal support.... and old-white-haired says, 'I'm not going to consider that -- he hasn't worked throughout the marriage and I'm not going to impute income to him" and with that, the guidelines of the 9th Circuit Court were put into motion...

The result was obvious. I was ordered to pay the guy who cannot leave his comfort zone, $2300 per month....AND, I was ordered to continue to pay his health insurance, AND I was ordered to continue to pay all mortgages, taxes etc. for the "marital home" which I have possession of, AND I was ordered not to squander or further encumber ANY marital assets....

And from there, it should also be obvious, to even the casual reader, that this order is non-performable... I am already operating at a monthly deficit, I already work as many hours in a week as a human could expect another to work, AND if I DID earn more, I'd OWE more to him, AND, since the court has not yet ruled on the fault based complaint for divorce, not identified what is or isn't marital property, I can not secure any loans against assets, lest they be determined marital.... I am left, therefore, with only one option -- to be found in contempt, because I cannot perform on one part of the order without violating another.....

And that, kind reader, is the jaded view of the pendente lite process in the wonderful Commonwealth of Virginia, as interpreted and applied by the Gloucester Circuit Court.

That order was ruled (though yet unsigned) on 4-23-10....retroactive to 2-15-10...

Yesterday, 5-7-10, I received a notice the "SHOW CAUSE" as to why I have failed to pay the monthly support required by this order.....

Does ANYONE else think this is directly related to the BAR complaint I filed against my former attorney for failing to return to me my files when requested to do so in writing?

Well, I have another story about my Fun in Gloucester Virginia Court yesterday, but that will have to wait.

Suffice to say, I am shaking my head and simply counting the days before they find me in contempt, and throw me in jail, which will prevent me from earning the monies they would have me pay to the evil sloth....but we aren't allowed to consider fault at pendente lite..........

More Fun in Gloucester Virginia Court

My experience with the local court is not completely novice. Since 1997 I have had occasions for which I have been required to participate in their world. Back in those days, I was truly a novice and, in fact, so uninformed of what I SHOULD expect, that I accepted whatever they fed me. I spent time there getting protective orders against my first husband, following the required prescription to obtain a divorce from him, dealing with the details of child support enforcement, and such. I was quite tired by the end of it all, and not thrilled with the process, but happy to be free from the 17 year marriage. "Never again," I thought, "never again do I want to have to go through this nonsense."

In 1999 I remarried, determined this marriage would be different, convinced my new husband was 180 degrees different from my first and that we had a common goal, dream and love for each other. I won't go into the details of the fairytale that was not, but suffice to say, after what I consider a VERY diligent attempt to make the marriage work, I finally concluded, in 2008, that it was not to be. I asked husband number 2 to move out. I agreed to provide him $500 per month to help him get on his feet, but also reminded him, as I had throughout the majority of the marriage, that I expected HIM to get a job and contribute to his own support... the $500 I paid was in addition to paying for his health insurance, cell phone, gas card, credit card, car insurance, medical bills...etc. He was going to live back home with his mother -- his place of residence prior to our marriage in 1999.

He went, and I continued to work hard to fulfill the financial obligations of the marriage, to which he had never contributed a single penny, and to additionally help him with the monthly payments. After a year of this, and his failure to even attempt to find work, and his arrest for assault and battery on a family member (same troubles as he had in living with me) I requested from him a settlement agreement to free up the house so I could sell it, reducing my expenditures. He refused and I moved forward with the inevitable -- the divorce.

And there I was, back where I had promised myself I would never again be. Yes, yes, I had been there numerously in the intervening years, more protective orders, more hearings for assault and battery/domestic violence, more drug/alcohol related hearings, etc., etc....but here I was, back in Circuit Court of Gloucester, VA, seeking my second divorce.

I did not hire the attorney who had handled my first divorce, as I was of the opinion that since he had represented me and my husband in real estate related transactions, it would put him in a position of conflict of interest, as those transactions trace to factors material to this case. Instead, I hired the "kid next door" ... a younger, greener attorney two doors down on Courthouse Circle.

Wanting with all my heart to avoid the court house, I filed for a no-fault, uncontested divorce... that was in August, 2009.

My husband waited until after the allowable 21 days to respond, through his attorney, to the complaint for divorce. I was surprised to see the attorney he was using was my attorney from my first divorce and the same attorney who'd handled those subsequent real estate transactions. Immediately, I alerted my attorney, who notified the conflicting attorney and suggested he would support the conflicting attorney's stepping down from representing my husband.

I should have thought that was a slam dunk. But there I was wrong. The conflicting attorney responded, indicating he would not step down and assuring us that he had learned nothing in his several representations of me that would constitute a conflict of interest. Additionally, the response to my complaint for divorce was simple, my husband did not want one.....the conflicting attorney attached the demand for spousal support and discovery.

My attorney suggested we withdraw the no-fault complaint and refile with the fault-based complaint. I agreed, but wanted the conflict of interest challenged in court. That was October, 2009.

One thing I can say with conviction about this place, this little "Green Acres" type world is that NOTHING seems to be performed with any concern for timeliness. It was JANUARY 2010 before the new complaint for divorce, itemizing the domestic violence, the non-performance on financial or otherwise contributing to the marriage and the persistent environment of fear created by my husband as being the basis of my fault claim.

In early February, again from the conflicting attorney, came the response, this time a counter complaint for divorce....seems he now also wants one, but, again, wants that spousal support, the "equitable distribution of property," continued health coverage, a portion of my 401K and my retirement....when and if I am ever able to do so.... AND, he claims, he will not be able to work himself, due to "health issues" which he further describes in an email to me, as "I can't leave my comfort zone to go out to work..." (No, seriously, this IS what he said.)

So, back I go to that court house and to the court room where the esteemed (you KNOW he's esteemed, because he has white hair and wears a black robe) judge. I am here to assert the conflict of interest and the conflicting attorney is here to argue against it....

My attorney is excited...he KNOWS this is a conflict of interest and he KNOWS that no attorney would have even accepted my husband as his client, under the circumstances. I was called as the witness.

For more than 45 minutes I was questioned by both attorneys and the judge. When the conflicting attorney asked me to tell the court what information HE had that represent a conflict, I asked the judge if I had to answer that question. To my way of thinking, those things shared in confidence with the attorney should not be shared now with the court, or it would violate the client/attorney privilege...but, according to the "honorable" I had to tell the court what was confidential, so he could rule as to whether it would give an unfair advantage to the conflicting attorney and in turn to my husband....

I seriously could not believe my ears, but I gave an example of the things I had shared with the conflicting attorney....

More questions followed, with the conflicting attorney not only ASKING me questions, but ANSWERING them for me, with NO objection from my attorney, nor any reprimand from "his honor." No, I got the impression very early on that there was no way this judge would rule against "mr. king of the attorney hill" Gloucester, VA. My attorney tried to help but it was clear to me he lacked the clout. Nevertheless, before his ruling, the white-haired one called the two counsel into chambers, and there, the secrets, secrets kept ONLY from me, since there was NO court recorder, were shared.

When the trio returned and the court bailiff instructed me to "all rise," I did and then we all sat. Though old-white-hair had assured us he would "err on the side of caution" in making his ruling, he proceeded to rule as such, "I decline to remove 'mr. king of the hill' from this case. OK, big surprise... I'm getting it. I remember where I am now... in the "court of no record. Gloucester, VA."

Exactly, I wonder, how will I challenge this further?

I asked my attorney for his advice, and he recommended we move forward to the next stage, the already scheduled, Pendente Lite hearing, the one where the judge determines who will pay what bills pending the decision on the divorce and equitable distribution, and in which he assigns any "temporary" spousal support..... after THAT hearing, suggested my attorney, if I was interested in appealing, he'd give me the name of the appeals guy (is there only one?)

Not at all comfortable, but still wanting to believe I am paying an expert for expert opinion, I proceeded to hold on and move forward to that P/L hearing....what happened is another story.....