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.