mistoffolees
Senior Member
I would suggest that you stop making recommendations without knowing if the court order allows it.If the life insurance policies are not set up to be part of alimony, the suggesting of the beneficiary being a trust would be a smart move.
And that is incredibly naive - and not legally accurate.I don't care how badly Bali PO'ed the judge. That doesn't give the Judge the right to financially penalize him. That's an abuse of power, plain and simple. I'm very surprised, Misto, that you would even comment on that. We all know that judges are human and bring their prejudices with them to court each day. However, to imply that a financial slap is not just expected but also deserved due to less than stellar behavior? That is not one of the components of calculating a financial decision. Saying no just because they can. Imagine that.
First, if the judge has the perception that Bali was hiding financial information, that allows judicial discretion. If Bali is not credible and ex was, that could easily AND LEGALLY sway the judge's decision.
Second, if Bali is uncooperative and unwilling to negotiate, the judge will have to choose. Bali's unwillingness to discuss or cooperate pretty much negates his right to complain about it later.