In this Brief, the following are labeled accordingly:
Frank E. Polo is referred to as the Father, Mr. Polo or Appellant. Merlin Hernandez is referred to as the Mother, Ms. Hernandez or Appellee and the Mother’s Attorney is referred to as the Opposing Counsel. References to the record will be designated as "R." followed by the appropriate page number(s) “:” paragraph “:” line.
This is an appeal by the Respondent in the lower tribunal, Frank E. Polo, seeking review and reversal of a final post-Judgement Order of contempt entered by the Honorable Scott M. Bernstein, Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. We show in this case, that the Appellee’s attorney failed to plead and prove a cause of action on which a conviction of contempt
…show more content…
constitution.
While the proceeding below was initiated by the adverse party and the lower court likely intended a civil contempt sanction, we show in this appeal that the sanction, payment of attorney fees, without a purge provision, is punitive. Therefore, it is not an appropriate civil contempt sanction, and must be reversed.
The court erred in enforcing a mediated agreement which was obtained heavily influenced by the GAL whom committed fraud upon the court corrupting the impartial functions of the court, thereby making the whole process void as a matter of law. Consequently, this mediated agreement must be declared void and the case remanded for a new final judgment or agreed final judgment.
An explanation of the term of “the agreed final judgment” will reveal that this agreement is not enforceable when it violates principles of public policy and most part of it was obtained as result of fraud upon the court. Consequently, this case must be remanded instructing the lower court to order the mother to pay child support retroactive to the date that the final judgment was entered by the lower court on August 7,
The facts surrounding this case were obtained from both Reilly, and Zisko. It should be noted that Reilly failed to explain in his complaint how he was connected to the probate matter for which Zisko subpoenaed his employment records. The underlying matter that this complaint is related to is the “post-divorce case Elaine C. Menice vs. Jeffrey L. Menice, Plymouth Probate & Family Court Docket No. PL11D2044JP.”
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
The courts modified the judgment and order that youngest child remain with the mother because there was nothing to suggest the defendant has anything but a fit parent towards the youngest child.
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
For the purpose of the paper, I will summarize the facts and leading events of the case of Elenita L and Romer N. Fajota. As reading through this trial I discovered that judges don’t always make the right decision for families or individuals. Likely in this case it is presentably true. Elenita and Romer got married in June 2005 and have three minor children together. As their marriage progressed, in the beginning of the year 2006, Romero became physically violent against Elenita. Romer committed various acts of violence against her and stated in court that it continued “even while pregnant with their second child”. But however, from 2006 to 2008 the violence continued against Elenita and her children. As the domestic violence continued, Elenita filed a
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
letter; the court refused, by a vote of 92 to 17, and was dismissed. The
Contentions of the Parties: Mr. Faretta challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the Appellate District, stating he had no constitutional right to represent himself at his criminal trial.
A dangerous silence envelopes the dark, drab courtroom. It is only punctuated with the hiss of an indecisive fluorescent lamp that seems to flirt with the idea of extinguishing itself completely. The lamp’s dim spectrum illuminates the pallid face of the plaintiff. His bespectacled eyes peer upwards from horn-rimmed glasses. Abruptly, a gruff voice pierces the quiet. It is a voice that wears impressive yet insipid suits. It is a voice that drinks black coffee and smokes generic cigarettes. When it speaks, it asks:
]In the case of Hart v. Hart, Michael Robert Hart (Father) was granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the minor children he shares with Kari Rose Hart (Mother) with an additional order that Mother’s time with the children be supervised. This order a divorce in 2003 at which time Mother was awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children, followed by her remarriage and relocation with the children to Texas in 2005, Father’s relocation for 6 months to be near the children in Texas, Father’s return to Arizona after not finding steady employment, Mother’s separation from her new husband and subsequent move to an apartment with the children (that resulted in a change of schools). Father filed a petition for mediation
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
This experience is really interesting for me. To observe the procedure of the court, to see how American system works, to see how government money spent, to see one of the most common case in the United State, and to witnessed something I have never seen with my own eyes before is really interesting. Even though I cannot know what is the answer of the judge about child custody in this case but I have got something out of this helpful assignment.
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.
The Paralegal Professional, A reference to the source of legal information chapter 12, pages 434, 446, and 454.