contempt for not giving me my property

[sonic0627]

and i guess no one on here can read then since i've already stated i'm doing so

 

[Bali Hai]

and i guess no one on here can read then since i've already stated i'm doing so

If you win in court, the judge could put him in jail until such time he produces the 55" tv. However, if he doesn't have the asset, he could remain in jail for a long time, 14 years is the record in such cases.

 

[sonic0627]

If you win in court, the judge could put him in jail until such time he produces the 55" tv. However, if he doesn't have the asset, he could remain in jail for a long time, 14 years is the record in such cases.

thank you now that is a real reply

 

[tranquility]

Actually, it was not a real reply in that Bali Hai has a windmill he is tilting at regarding a famous and specific case. It has no relevance to your issues. Sure, the court could have the power if they had credible evidence the ex is hiding assets to jail him for contempt and keep him there until he disgorges those assets. That will not be the case here. Even if the judge does not believe him, ex is not going to jail until he produces the TV.

 

[Bali Hai]

Actually, it was not a real reply in that Bali Hai has a windmill he is tilting at regarding a famous and specific case. It has no relevance to your issues. Sure, the court could have the power if they had credible evidence the ex is hiding assets to jail him for contempt and keep him there until he disgorges those assets. That will not be the case here. Even if the judge does not believe him, ex is not going to jail until he produces the TV.

Why would this case be any different than another case where the judge believed a litigant was hidding assets? Does the value of the asset make a difference?

Explain this to OP, she wants her tv.

 

[tranquility]

Because in this case the OP suspects the person took the property and in the other case there was substantial proof (including defendant's admission at one point) he had control of the property.

 

[tuffbrk]

The problem as I see it - the only person with new keys was the party complaining the property was stolen. The party complaining is not able to prove the ex took the items. The party complaining may very well have given the key to a friend to go pick up the property and is now just starting trouble for the ex. The party complaining cannot prove that they never received the property. The party complaining should have called the police and filed a report. That the home was not broken into would have been noted. That a TV was in the house but was not the TV for which the complaining party should have had a receipt would have been noted. If the complaining party had the right from the landlord to change the locks, then presumably they were a party to the lease and therefore would have been included on the renters insurance and should have been able to make a claim against the insurance.

The party complaining then would be walking into court with their receipt for the TV, their police report of a missing item from a location that showed no evidence of a break-in and where the "robber" kindly replaced the TV with another one and a denied insurance claim. But they didn't do that due to their belief that theft is a civil matter.

So basically, the party complaining is walking into court with a "he said/she said" situation. If you're lucky your case will be heard later in the day when the judge is tired and is fed up with all of the ridiculous shennanigans people do to spite one another. Other than that, frankly I think you're out of luck.

 

[ecmst12]

Stop asking for the property. Ask for the cash value of the property.

 

[Bali Hai]

Because in this case the OP suspects the person took the property and in the other case there was substantial proof (including defendant's admission at one point) he had control of the property.

The substantial proof would have eventually led to the property. Did it? If I were facing 14 years in prison I would tell them anything they wanted to hear. The police get confessions out of innocent people all the time.

Were the judge's suspisions correct, the property recovered and subsequently equitably distributed?

14 years in prison seems like an awful long time for a judge to admit they were wrong.

This is a classic example of what every divorced husband knows: NEVER get in a pissing contest with a judge. Ever.

 

[ecmst12]

Bali, stop derailing threads.