September 27, 2009

Susan Stanford files malpractice case against divorce attorneys

Multimillion dollar lawsuit against divorce attorneys

Susan Stanford, wife of jailed Houston, Texas financier R. Allen Stanford, filed a malpractice lawsuit against her previous divorce attorneys alleging they failed to inform her of a $200 million dollar divorce settlement offer allegedly made in January, 2008. According to the lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas, Susan filed for divorce from Stanford in 2007 and Allen Stanford's attorney made a verbal settlement offer of $200 million to settle the case. The offer was later withdrawn in February, 2009, at about the same time all the assets of Stanford Financial Group and R. Allen Stanford were frozen by U.S. District Judge David Godbey. Mrs. Stanford alleges that if she became aware of the offer, she would have accepted it. The interesting question is whether Ms. Stanford would have been able to keep any of those assets if she did settle the case given the current SEC action and its attempt to "claw back" the assets associated with Stanford Financial Group.

Stanford Financial Group has a Mississippi connection. Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford Financial Group's Chief Investment Officer, and James Davis, CFO of Stanford Financial Group, were both from Baldwyn, Mississippi. In August, James Davis plead guilty to fraud and obstruction of justice charges related to a $7 billion dollar scheme to defraud investors. Pendergest-Holt has pled not guilty to 21 felony counts of fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Posted by Robert Kisselburgh | | Email This Post

Posted In: Family Law News

Bookmark and Share

September 23, 2009

Judge awards joint custody of dog

Dog shares time with split owners

Here is another story of an expensive custody battle except in this case it was over a dog. A New Jersey couple spent the last three years battling over who gets the dog. $40,000 later, the judge ruled that the couple must share custody. The six-year-old pug, Dexter, will spend alternating five week periods with each party.

The amazing part of the story is that the husband is considering appealing the decision. I guess they have a lot of extra income they don't mind spending on attorney fees. According to the article, the wife, who frequently dresses Dexter in costumes and lavishes him with gifts, was pleased with the decision.

iStock_000008553793XSmall.jpg

Posted by Robert Kisselburgh | | Email This Post

Posted In: Hodgepodge

Bookmark and Share

September 21, 2009

Mississippi Supreme Court sets the record straight

Mississippi Supreme Court resolves conflicting opinions in irreconcilable divorces

Last week, the Mississippi Supreme Court settled a dispute to a technical question in irreconcilable divorce cases. Many times, one party will file for divorce alleging a fault-based ground but also alleging irreconcilable differences as an alternative ground. As the case proceeds, the parties agree to divorce on irreconcilable differences. Before the court can approve the divorce on irreconcilable differences, the party that alleged fault-based grounds must file a motion to withdraw those grounds and the court must sign an order withdrawing those grounds. That is what Mississippi Code Section 93-5-2(5) requires. If the Court approves the divorce without the fault-based grounds being withdrawn, then the judgment is void. There is one exception to this rule.

Under Mississippi Code Section 93-5-2(3), the parties may agree to a divorce based upon irreconcilable differences, but submit for the court’s determination other matters such as child custody, support, or property division. In those cases, the parties must file a written consent, signed by both parties, stating that the parties agree to divorce based on irreconcilable differences and voluntarily consent to permit the court to decide the remaining issues. If one of the parties previously alleged a fault-based ground before the parties agreed to irreconcilable differences, that party is not required to file a motion to withdraw the fault-based grounds. In O'Neal v. O'Neal, decided last week, that is what occurred.

Continue reading "Mississippi Supreme Court sets the record straight" »

Posted by Robert Kisselburgh | | Email This Post

Posted In: Mississippi Family Law Update

Bookmark and Share

September 12, 2009

Mississippi offering free paternity testing

Is free paternity testing the answer to the problem in Mississippi?

Mississippi Department of Human Services is offering free paternity testing in hopes of identifying parents who are not paying child support for their children. Federal funding is paying for the program. According to the article, the director of Child Support Enforcement said, "After paternity is established, the next thing we are going to go after is financial support on a monthly basis and medical support." State officials estimate there is "as much as $25 million in uncollected child support because paternity has not been established."

While it sounds like a great effort, the question must be asked: If officials are hoping for individuals to voluntarily participate, how successful will this program be? If a person really believes they are the parent of a child, why haven't they had paternity testing done to determine whether they are the biological parent. Paternity testing is not that expensive. If they can't afford the testing, then what makes government officials think they will be able to collect child support from them. OR, if they can afford to pay child support, why haven't they had the paternity testing done before now and why would they voluntarily participate in the program?

If the program is being used to pay for paternity testing after a court has ordered it, then this will be a temporary relief to Mississippi taxpayers. But hoping individuals will voluntarily participate is probably wishful thinking. While I strongly support identifying biological parents and ensuring they pay for their children, I question whether this was the best use of federal funds. Remember, state or federal funding is still taxpayers' money.

Reported by Robert Kisselburgh of the Kisselburgh Law Firm

Posted by Robert Kisselburgh | | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Support , Legal News

Bookmark and Share

September 7, 2009

Periodic alimony award reversed by Mississippi Court of Appeals

Alimony award reversed in Mississippi divorce

The Mississippi Court of Appeals recently reversed an award of alimony in a divorce case from Neshoba County, Mississippi. In Sellers v. Sellers, the couple had a marital estate valued at $304,230. The wife had a non-marital estate valued at $13,620 while the husband had a non-marital estate of $137,500.

In dividing the marital estate, the chancellor awarded the wife $142,990. The husband was given possession of the marital home, but the chancellor ordered the husband to pay $50,000 in lump-sum alimony to the wife for her one-half equity in the marital home. After this award, the wife's award was valued at $192,990 while the husband got $111,240. Following that award, the chancellor then ordered the husband to pay the wife $12,600 in periodic alimony. The husband appealed.

Continue reading "Periodic alimony award reversed by Mississippi Court of Appeals" »

Posted by Robert Kisselburgh | | Email This Post

Posted In: Alimony , Divorce , Mississippi Family Law Update , Property Division

Bookmark and Share

Robert M. Kisselburgh

Contact Us

Toll Free: (877) 601-4040

Subscribe

Subscribe to the blogs's ATOM feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

Subscribe

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs