The Kramden's and Litigation:
Ralph is a bus driver and Alice is currently unemployed but has worked as secretary at times when Ralph has been laid off. They have no children and Alice is primarily responsible for the management of the finances. Ralph often gets involved in ridiculous schemes that Alice claims have wasted their money. Ralph and Alice often insult each other, and Ralph makes constant threats such as "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!."
Recently Ralph was caught using his cell phone while driving and lost his job as a bus driver. When he came home and told Alice she berated him for his stupidity and Ralph became extremely angry. He got right in Alice's face and said, as he so often has, "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!." Alice replies "I'd like to see you try" and in response Ralph steps closer to her and pulls back his arm making a fist. Rather than wait to see if Ralph would actually hit her, Alice immediately backs away. Ralph does not follow her, but Alice is afraid and leaves the apartment.
She goes into a friend's apartment down the hall and calls the police. The police arrive and after interviewing both parties they indicated that they are not going to arrest Ralph. They ask Alice if she wants to request a 209A restraining order against Ralph and she states that she does. The police call the emergency Judge who approves an emergency restraining order. The police escort Ralph out of the apartment who has calmed down and accepts the police's request without any fight or argument.
Ralph, escorted by the police, collects some of his clothes and moves in with his friend, Ed Norton.
The following morning, Ralph and Alice both show up without lawyers at a hearing in the Suffolk District Court. Alice indicates during the hearing that she was afraid that Ralph was going to hit her during their argument, even though he has never carried out his threats in the past. Alice also states that she is not afraid of him right now and that she feels safe so long as he does not move back in. Alice also indicates that she intends to file for Divorce and that she doesn't want Ralph to move back in. Ralph agrees that he won't move back in and that he will continue to live with Ed. The Judge indicates to Alice that he can only extend the Restraining Order if she has a "reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm," and given her testimony he cannot extend the restraining order.
Both Ralph and Alice consult with attorneys. Alice does not consult with a free Legal Aid service because she is back to working as a part-time secretary and she believes that she does not qualify for their services.
Alice borrows money from a friend to hire the attorney she consulted with because she doesn't feel safe negotiating directly with Ralph. Alice's attorney files a Complaint for Divorce.
Eventually right before the Pre-Trial, Ralph hires an attorney as well and the Divorce case is settled via Separation Agreement at the Pre-Trial. Both parties end up with some debt because of the cost of their legal fees.
COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Unfortunately, when domestic violence is an issue in a case, it is practically impossible to make use of mediation or collaborative law. Although mediation or collaborative law could have been cheaper, both options depend on a certain amount of trust between the parties and it is necessary for there not to be any threat of coercion.
Even in an instance where no physical violence has occurred, the threat of violence can be just as damaging and puts the victim at a disadvantage in any negotiation (notwithstanding the ongoing safety concerns).
As was suggested by one of our voters, DGVE law, Alice, might have been better served by having a trained domestic violence advocate work with her. Resources for domestic violence victims in Massachusetts are available here. Alice should have also discussed her case with potential legal aid services before assuming she didn't qualify. Resources related to finding legal counsel and/or legal services are available here.
Showing posts with label Pre Trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pre Trial. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
What Should I Expect at My Divorce Pre-Trial Conference?
Many of our divorce clients wonder what will happen at the Pre-Trial Conference. Most divorce cases actually settle at or shortly after their Pre-Trial Conference, so it is important to understand what the process actually entails before it begins.
Prior to your court date for the Pre-Trial Conference, both parties and their respective attorneys, if any, will be required to meet in person at what is called a "four-way conference." The purpose of this is to encourage discussion about possible settlement prior to the Pre-Trial Conference, so that the process of resolving issues might have begun before the case gets in front of a judge.
There is no testimony at a Pre-Trial Conference. If represented by an attorney, parties will not generally be asked to speak, although some judges have been known to ask the parties a few questions directly.
Each party will be required to file with the court a memorandum summarizing the procedural history and positions on disputed issues. Different judges have different notices for a Pre-Trial Conference laying out the structure for their memorandums. Usually, it is a six- to ten-page document.
Both sides will have an oral argument in front of a judge, who will give his or her feedback on the disputed issues. The judge's response is usually framed as a range in which he or she is inclined to rule should each disputed issue be brought to trial. Since we have an individual calendar system, unless the judge that hears the pre-trial retires or changes courts, it will be the same judge at trial. This is an opportunity, therefore, to get feedback directly from the person who decide your case if you can't settle.
For example, if the parties cannot agree as to whether an inheritance to the husband shall be divided along with everything else, the husband and wife (or their respective attorneys) will each argue their respective positions. After reading the Pre-Trial Memorandum and listening to each side present their cases during oral argument, the judge will, during that hearing, provide feedback for how he or she would be inclined to rule should the facts as presented by the husband be proved at trial, and the same for the facts as presented by the wife. Once the parties hear what the range of results will be from the judge there is a more limited scope of options for settlement. Expectations are generally tempered accordingly, and, usually, negotiations pick up speed. Often, cases settle at or shortly after the Pre-Trial for this reason.
Should you have any questions about divorce, contact Attorney Jonathan R. Eaton, or call 508.655.5980 to schedule a one hour initial consultation.
Prior to your court date for the Pre-Trial Conference, both parties and their respective attorneys, if any, will be required to meet in person at what is called a "four-way conference." The purpose of this is to encourage discussion about possible settlement prior to the Pre-Trial Conference, so that the process of resolving issues might have begun before the case gets in front of a judge.
There is no testimony at a Pre-Trial Conference. If represented by an attorney, parties will not generally be asked to speak, although some judges have been known to ask the parties a few questions directly.
Each party will be required to file with the court a memorandum summarizing the procedural history and positions on disputed issues. Different judges have different notices for a Pre-Trial Conference laying out the structure for their memorandums. Usually, it is a six- to ten-page document.
Both sides will have an oral argument in front of a judge, who will give his or her feedback on the disputed issues. The judge's response is usually framed as a range in which he or she is inclined to rule should each disputed issue be brought to trial. Since we have an individual calendar system, unless the judge that hears the pre-trial retires or changes courts, it will be the same judge at trial. This is an opportunity, therefore, to get feedback directly from the person who decide your case if you can't settle.
For example, if the parties cannot agree as to whether an inheritance to the husband shall be divided along with everything else, the husband and wife (or their respective attorneys) will each argue their respective positions. After reading the Pre-Trial Memorandum and listening to each side present their cases during oral argument, the judge will, during that hearing, provide feedback for how he or she would be inclined to rule should the facts as presented by the husband be proved at trial, and the same for the facts as presented by the wife. Once the parties hear what the range of results will be from the judge there is a more limited scope of options for settlement. Expectations are generally tempered accordingly, and, usually, negotiations pick up speed. Often, cases settle at or shortly after the Pre-Trial for this reason.
Should you have any questions about divorce, contact Attorney Jonathan R. Eaton, or call 508.655.5980 to schedule a one hour initial consultation.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The Cleavers Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part I
The votes are cast - The Cleavers and Mediation:
Ward is a businessman and June is a stay-at-home mom. They have two children Wally and Beaver. Ward handles all of the finances and June handles most of the home care including parenting, although once in a while Ward is needed to help discipline the children (in a very stern but fair kind of way).
Ward and June agree that the spark and color had left their marriage long ago and that they were only staying together for the children. They have agreed that a divorce would be best and have already sat down to a family meeting with Wally and the Beaver and explained that although Mom and Dad are getting a divorce, they will still both be involved regularly in the children's lives, that it is not the children's fault and that they both love the children very much.
Ward, eager to move forward with the divorce quickly and as cheaply as possible, suggests that they attend mediation and provides June with the name of a mediator he has found. Agreeing with the logic of using a mediator, June agrees and they attend their first mediation meeting.
At the first meeting, the Mediator explains how mediation works, telling Ward and June that the mediator does not represent either of them, and that their job is only to help Ward and June reach an agreement, not to steer them in any particular direction. The mediator explains that they will both have to provide a Financial Statement and that they should begin thinking about what they each want for a custody and visitation plan, and for the division of assets and liabilities.
After the meeting Ward informs June that he wants joint custody and that he will help her do her Financial Statement since he has all of the financial information. He also wants to sell the house and he asks her to agree to this immediately so they can list the house for sale as soon as possible.
June is worried that she doesn't know enough about their finances to know whether the house has to be sold. She also realizes that she doesn't really know what joint or sole custody means. June talks to her friends who all suggest that she meet with an attorney. After meeting with a few attorneys, June realizes she needs help and hires an attorney. Upon realizing that June has hired an attorney, Ward feels like June was trying to get an advantage behind his back and hires an attorney as well. They end up proceeding through litigation, because June's attorney insists on filing the Complaint for Divorce to protect the assets with the Automatic Stay and to provide for mandatory discovery. Eventually they settle their case at Pre-Trial.
COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Because of June's lack of knowledge about the finances it was likely that she would feel uncomfortable at some point in the mediation, even if Ward hadn't pushed her at the beginning to be more ready to make decisions. Her lack of information was going to make it difficult for her to make decisions. This could have been resolved by June being more aggressive, but if this has not been the pattern in the marriage it was unlikely to change now. For these reasons June needed an adviser/advocate, i.e. her own lawyer.
If the parties had communicated their intentions better, it is possible June and Ward would still have been able to use mediation, and just have their lawyers advise them individually as to the Agreement and disclosure of financial information.
This was likely a more ideal case for Collaborative Law, because of June's need for a representative. In Collaborative Law both parties and lawyers agree to commit to working towards a settlement and to not file litigation. In a true Collaborative Law agreement, the lawyers also agree that if the case goes to litigation that they will not represent the parties, i.e. both lawyers are thus committed to the settlement path as well. Although there's the danger of having to pay two lawyers each, the advantage is the great potential for a less acrimonious process.
Because both Ward and June committed to settlement, but just had an imbalance of power/knowledge, they would have been best served by Collaborative Law.
There's still time to vote for what the Huxtables and Kramdens should do: leave a comment here.
Ward is a businessman and June is a stay-at-home mom. They have two children Wally and Beaver. Ward handles all of the finances and June handles most of the home care including parenting, although once in a while Ward is needed to help discipline the children (in a very stern but fair kind of way).
Ward and June agree that the spark and color had left their marriage long ago and that they were only staying together for the children. They have agreed that a divorce would be best and have already sat down to a family meeting with Wally and the Beaver and explained that although Mom and Dad are getting a divorce, they will still both be involved regularly in the children's lives, that it is not the children's fault and that they both love the children very much.
Ward, eager to move forward with the divorce quickly and as cheaply as possible, suggests that they attend mediation and provides June with the name of a mediator he has found. Agreeing with the logic of using a mediator, June agrees and they attend their first mediation meeting.
At the first meeting, the Mediator explains how mediation works, telling Ward and June that the mediator does not represent either of them, and that their job is only to help Ward and June reach an agreement, not to steer them in any particular direction. The mediator explains that they will both have to provide a Financial Statement and that they should begin thinking about what they each want for a custody and visitation plan, and for the division of assets and liabilities.
After the meeting Ward informs June that he wants joint custody and that he will help her do her Financial Statement since he has all of the financial information. He also wants to sell the house and he asks her to agree to this immediately so they can list the house for sale as soon as possible.
June is worried that she doesn't know enough about their finances to know whether the house has to be sold. She also realizes that she doesn't really know what joint or sole custody means. June talks to her friends who all suggest that she meet with an attorney. After meeting with a few attorneys, June realizes she needs help and hires an attorney. Upon realizing that June has hired an attorney, Ward feels like June was trying to get an advantage behind his back and hires an attorney as well. They end up proceeding through litigation, because June's attorney insists on filing the Complaint for Divorce to protect the assets with the Automatic Stay and to provide for mandatory discovery. Eventually they settle their case at Pre-Trial.
COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Because of June's lack of knowledge about the finances it was likely that she would feel uncomfortable at some point in the mediation, even if Ward hadn't pushed her at the beginning to be more ready to make decisions. Her lack of information was going to make it difficult for her to make decisions. This could have been resolved by June being more aggressive, but if this has not been the pattern in the marriage it was unlikely to change now. For these reasons June needed an adviser/advocate, i.e. her own lawyer.
If the parties had communicated their intentions better, it is possible June and Ward would still have been able to use mediation, and just have their lawyers advise them individually as to the Agreement and disclosure of financial information.
This was likely a more ideal case for Collaborative Law, because of June's need for a representative. In Collaborative Law both parties and lawyers agree to commit to working towards a settlement and to not file litigation. In a true Collaborative Law agreement, the lawyers also agree that if the case goes to litigation that they will not represent the parties, i.e. both lawyers are thus committed to the settlement path as well. Although there's the danger of having to pay two lawyers each, the advantage is the great potential for a less acrimonious process.
Because both Ward and June committed to settlement, but just had an imbalance of power/knowledge, they would have been best served by Collaborative Law.
There's still time to vote for what the Huxtables and Kramdens should do: leave a comment here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)