Is this legal malpractice?

[tigger22472]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

Husband took ex to court in Nov. 2004 for a modification of their decree. The judge ordered 3 things: husband no longer carried insurance, ex claimed taxes every year and a bank account for the child was to be changed to a joint account requiring both parents signatures for withdraws. During the hearing the judge stated that husband "should" give ex 1/2 of the SS monies he received for the child. At the end of the hearing the judge told ex's lawyer to draw up the paperwork. As we were preparing to leave the courtroom the lawyer asked if he should put in the SS monies and the judge told him NO.. that the three things I mentioned above were all. Husband never saw any paperwork and yes dropped the ball on this. He was JUST today given a copy of an order drawn up AND signed by the judge on Dec. 3, 2004. There are 2 things listed.... the bank account and the SS monies... NOTHING ELSE.

Was the lawyer NOT required to provide husband with a copy? And if we get the transcripts could he be sanctioned for this?

Also, the ex saw this attorney on Dec. 18th about filing for custody. Now, we cannot verify this but supposedly the lawyer was just going to draw the paperwork up to have the parties look it over and if agreed then it would simply be filed with the courts. Ex said she called lawyer last Thurs (the 4th) and was told that it would be mailed out. The ex told husband today that she received the paperwork yesterday and that there was a court date set (she did not tell him when it was because.. long story.. supposedly it's going to get canceled.. of course he is going to check on for sure what it is for and when it is) but he's not received any paperwork at all or any notice of a hearing while supposedly he has the address of both us and of his brother. I realize that if he's not properly served the court date will not go on as scheduled and he has lead way but could the attorney be sanctioned for this also?

TIA

 

[stephenk]

What did the attorney say when you husband called him about the order that was filed and the upcoming custody hearing?

Your husband should file a motion to correct the order. He will need to get a transcript of the hearing. Contact the court clerk for that department and get the name of the court reporter to order a copy fo the transcript.

WHOA, this order is from 2004?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What did the attorney say when you husband called him about the order that was filed and the upcoming custody hearing?

Your husband should file a motion to correct the order. He will need to get a transcript of the hearing. Contact the court clerk for that department and get the name of the court reporter to order a copy fo the transcript.

WHOA, this order is from 2004?

THANKS A HELL OF A LOT STEPHEN....I just got whiplash reading your post

 

[stephenk]

I noticed the date of the order right after I posted. That's why i added the end sentence.

The poster's hubby may still have recourse to correct the order.

Has the order been enforced the past 2 years?

 

[tigger22472]

I noticed the date of the order right after I posted. That's why i added the end sentence.

The poster's hubby may still have recourse to correct the order.

Has the order been enforced the past 2 years?

No, the order has not been enforced in the last 2 years... the ex obviously knew about it because she had a copy of the order.

His first plan is to get the transcript. At that point I'm going to take him to the attorney that we often consult with and have used. I time dated the order when he received and it and by what means. I'm not sure if it was the attorney or the court's duty to make sure he had a copy but either way this attorney KNEW he was not to put the SS monies in the order and by not only putting this in when it wasn't supposed to be and not putting in the issue of insurance he opened my husband up to the possibility of being brought up on contempt charges. It is our opinion that the order should reflect exactly what the judge stated and it was CLEARLY stated it was to only be those 3 things even though many more were discussed.

I guess what just ticks us off the most is that he asked the judge about this specifically and the judge told him NO, yet he still put it in there...