Is a subpoena valid when...

[kevinblackwell]

Constructive opinion:

You can also shoot your mouth off all you want. Your wife screwed someone out of nearly 14k. That is what you are here to boast about and I hope you both ****** on it..

Let your wife come here and speak for herself. Talk about petty.

Nice, intelligent comments. You're quite a piece of work.

 

[Bali Hai]

Nice, intelligent comments. You're quite a piece of work.

And I suppose you and your wifes screwing someone out of 14k is considered intelligent and a nice piece of work by you also. I spit in your face.

 

[weenor]

I agree, I also see his understanding, but the settlement was done between the two (no lawyers), in order to come up with an equitable amount. Her interest was in the house, she waived all rights to 45% of his indexed pension, which were already hers by law ($2800/month) and any alimony that would have ceased in 2006. She wanted only the stability of a home for the kids.

The issue of the thread is whether his subpeona for closing cost information given to the title company is legitamate, given that he signed the subpeona and used the case number on the divorce decree.

Thanks for your and comments thoughts LdiJ

Does the subpoena contain a stamp from the clerk's office? The clerk likely would not have accepted a subpoena filed in a closed case and would not have stamped as "filed". No stamp, not filed, not valid.

 

[Bali Hai]

Does the subpoena contain a stamp from the clerk's office? The clerk likely would not have accepted a subpoena filed in a closed case and would not have stamped as "filed". No stamp, not filed, not valid.

Does that mean that she doesn't owe the money?

 

[weenor]

Does that mean that she doesn't owe the money?

That's a whole separate question. He wanted know if the company had to honor subpoena. If the subpoena was not properly issued by the clerk (i.e. stamped) it is not valid and the company does not have to provide the requested information.

Without reviewing the entire agreement and assuming that he has accurately posted that particular provision such that there was sum certain payment language, I would certainly argue that she does not owe the money.

 

[Bali Hai]

That's a whole separate question. He wanted know if the company had to honor subpoena. If the subpoena was not properly issued by the clerk (i.e. stamped) it is not valid and the company does not have to provide the requested information.

Without reviewing the entire agreement and assuming that he has accurately posted that particular provision such that there was sum certain payment language, I would certainly argue that she does not owe the money.

I see, are you planning to run for judge? If so what county??

 

[weenor]

I see, are you planning to run for judge? If so what county??

No judgeship for me, too many skeletons...

 

[LdiJ]

Does that mean that she doesn't owe the money?

Let me ask you a question Bali.

The decree ordered that he was to be paid a specific amount of money. If the house declined in value (and we don't know whether it did or not, but its possible in today's market) should he have still received the full amount of money as specified in the decree?

 

[Bali Hai]

Let me ask you a question Bali.

The decree ordered that he was to be paid a specific amount of money. If the house declined in value (and we don't know whether it did or not, but its possible in today's market) should he have still received the full amount of money as specified in the decree?

The decree was written around the "sale" of the property. The property was not sold nor was there any selling costs involved.

The wife is clearly in contempt of court.

 

[weenor]

The decree was written around the "sale" of the property. The property was not sold nor was there any selling costs involved.

The wife is clearly in contempt of court.

By your theory, she is not clearly in contempt until 2012.

 

[Bali Hai]

By your theory, she is not clearly in contempt until 2012.

Well then, she had better sell the property by 2012.

And, I'm sure the husband has not signed a quit claim deed on the property nor should he until the orders in the decree have been properly executed.

 

[LdiJ]

The house WAS sold. The ex sold his interest in the house to her new husband, for the specific amount of money that the ex was supposed to receive. She is not and will not be in contempt of court.

Look Bali, you are morally indignant that her ex didn't get 14k more than he got. We all get that, however you are not accepting the fact that legally the ex got what he was supposed to get.

 

[Bali Hai]

The house WAS sold. The ex sold his interest in the house to her new husband, for the specific amount of money that the ex was supposed to receive. She is not and will not be in contempt of court.

Look Bali, you are morally indignant that her ex didn't get 14k more than he got. We all get that, however you are not accepting the fact that legally the ex got what he was supposed to get.

I'm not the only one. The "ex" is not accepting that BS fact either.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm not the only one. The "ex" is not accepting that BS fact either.

and he is not going to get anywhere with it either.

 

[Bali Hai]

The house WAS sold. The ex sold his interest in the house to her new husband, for the specific amount of money that the ex was supposed to receive. She is not and will not be in contempt of court.

Look Bali, you are morally indignant that her ex didn't get 14k more than he got. We all get that, however you are not accepting the fact that legallythe ex got what he was supposed to get.

And there you go again trying to legally justify theft.