Good catch, Bob. Bet you're the only one who saw that little twist : )

Mel Gamble

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
TM wrote:


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.

The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his
point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
not
produce that evidence without prior notice.

It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
been
at least some advance notice.

Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
the
courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who
happens
to
be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury.
Of
course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him
prove
his
inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
subpoena.

Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing
alimony?

Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set
at
based on his income and her lack of income.

I'll accept your explanation because of your personal knowledge of this
case.

However, when you wrote:

"His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity
in
the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his
exes
lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second
half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years."

...I assumed that meant the judge in awarding her additional equity in the
family home, and half of her attorney fees, that REDUCED her need for
alimony. When the court did not take into consideration the additional cash
amounts she received, it had the affect of inflating the alimony award even
though the need for it had been further reduced by the up-front cash
transfers. I consider not reducing the alimony to be part of the sanction.