Truyện Ma Có Thật Lời nói đầu tiên gửi đến các bạn . Đây là trang web truyện ma có thật được sưu tầm từ nhiều nguồn trên mạng . Tại TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn có thể Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma cực kỳ rùng rợn. Được những nhân chứng sống kẻ lại mang đậm tính ma quái Việt Nam. buc anh ky quai 2 Truyen ma Co That Ma là một khái niệm trừu tượng, một phần phi vật chất của một người đã chết (hay hiếm hơn là một động vật đã chết). Theo quan niệm của một số tôn giáo và nền văn hóa, con người gồm thể xác (mang tính vật chất) và linh hồn (mang tính phi vật chất). Khi thể xác chết, linh hồn xuất khỏi thể xác. Nếu linh hồn đó không có cơ hội đầu thai hoặc nơi trú ngụ chung với các linh hồn khác mà tương tác với cõi thực có con người sẽ gọi là “ma”, “hồn ma”, “quỷ”; nhưng nếu các phần phi vật chất đó tương tác với cõi thực của con người theo tình cảm, theo trách nhiệm được giao của các tôn giáo thì lại gọi là “hồn”, “linh hồn”, “thánh”, “thần”, “thiên sứ” . Và khi Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma của TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn nhớ là nó chỉ mang tính chất giải trí thôi nhé các bạn đừng nên tín quá nhiều cũng như cố gắng tìm mọi cách để nhìn thấy ma nhé thật không tốt chút nào ??? . Chúc các bạn có những phút giây giải trí thật sử thoải mái cùng với TruyenMaCoThat.Net Truyen Ma Co That – Doc Truyen Ma Co That – Nghe Truyen Ma Co That miễn phí tại TruyenMaCoThat.net truyen ma nguyen ngoc ngan truyen ma kinh di mystoningtongarden.com

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES IN DIVORCE COURT – HOW NOT TO COMPOUND MISTAKES MADE DURING MARRIAGE

A recent decision of  the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Felicia Pierot Brody vs. Cary Brody illustrates what can happen when the focus of a divorce case shifts from the issues in the marriage to the credibility, or lack thereof, of one of the parties to the case.  In the Brody case, one thing that happened was that a lot of personal information became public – e.g., the husband’s awkward excuse for stashing condoms in his travel bag.  Another consequence: Brody was ordered to pay $2.5 million in lump sum alimony even though his prenuptial agreement was meant to prevent that and even though the court  was unable to ascertain his income.  The trial took place in 2010. Recently the Appellate Court has ruled against Brody on all six issues he raised in his appeal.

For all most of us know, Mr. Brody might have told the truth from start to finish. However, the judge found him not to be credible which, as the finder of fact in a civil case, she was privileged to do.

Any judge will tell you that the best way to appear to be truthful is simply to tell the truth.  Still, any divorce lawyer who’s practiced as long as I  have, has encountered more than one client who is shocked to learn that their lawyer expects them to be honest.

What kind of  lawyer wouldn’t help you hide your assets, understate your income or cover up your extramarital affairs?  The answer:  any good one.  Yet, despite our best efforts, there are plenty of folks who remain unconvinced that honesty is the best policy even when the truth isn’t pretty.

The fact is, there isn’t much that happens in a marriage that the judge hasn’t heard before.  Also, there can be two very different sides to every story even when the story is told by honest people.  Your secret spending or infidelity might have led to enormous drama in your household, but in divorce court, might barely cause a ripple.  Unless, that is, you  deny the deed and the judge isn’t buying it.

Brody was not a divorce between members of the 99% although the basic issues were fairly universal. There was an issue of   irresponsible spending — in this case  buying  one too many Ferrari automobiles , a  wine cellar, and an airplane.  There was an issue of suspected infidelity with no proof other than a few unused condoms.  There was a business purportedly in decline — in this case the Defendant’s hedge fund.  There were some  “he-said-she-said” claims of verbal abuse.  All matters divorce judges deal with day in and day out.

No case in Connecticut goes to trial without first going through at least one formal attempt at settlement usually with the assistance of a judge or court-appointed Special Master.   Most cases settle before trial.  Of the small percentage that do not, only a handful are appealed and those few find little success in overturning the decision of the trial judge.

In this case, the Defendant raised a number of issues that might have served him well during settlement  negotiations.  His business really had been embroiled in litigation with the SEC, for example,  and the prenuptial agreement arguably  offered him protection from a lump sum alimony award that would have to be funded by liquidating personal assets.

At trial, however, the judge found him not to be a credible witness.  For one thing, he had admitted testifying falsely under oath in an earlier divorce proceeding that his wife had commenced but later dropped.  Back then he had denied removing his wife’s jewelery from a safe, but had later come clean.   Added to that was the finding that the Defendant had stonewalled during the discovery phase of the trial  pretending that certain documents sought by the Plaintiff didn’t exist.  With those two strikes against him,  the case was pretty much over.  The Plaintiff, whose  personal net worth at the time of the marriage had been 29 million, and whose dividend income from her separate property was approximately $100,000 annually was awarded alimony and, tacitly, the designation of honest litigant.

Advertisements

ALMOST DONE WITH ALIMONY? NOT SO FAST

In an opinion scheduled to be officially released on May 29th, 2012,  the Connecticut Appellate Court  has confirmed  the notion that even  time-limited  alimony can be extended unless the decree of dissolution  specifically says it can’t.

In 2001, Faith Whitehead was awarded alimony in the amount of $1500 per month that was to terminate the earlier of her remarriage, cohabitation, death, or her 60th birthday.  In 2010 when she was about to turn 60, Ms Pite went back to court asking for an extension of the term beyond her 60th birthday.   The reason?  Her her interest in her ex-husband’s retirement — something awarded to her in original decree– had shrunk with the economy.  This meant that her income from that source would no longer be what she originally hoped it would be.

While the trial court did reduce the amount she would receive each month,  it nevertheless extended the term alimony indefinitely.  The court  said it did this in order to effectuate the original intent of the judgement.  Otherwise, according to the court, Ms Pite would need to invade her assets in order to maintain her lifestyle, while her husband would not.  The court noted, also, that Ms. Pite had not obtained full-time employment which was also part of the original plan.

At the same time Ms. Pite moved to extend her alimony, Mr. Pite sought to terminate his child support on the grounds  he had been paying  $46,000 in annual tuition for his child at a private boarding school in addition to paying $26,000 in court-ordered child support directly to Ms. Pite.  The court did grant a small reduction in periodic child support but refused to terminate the order saying that the decision to send the child to boarding school had been voluntary and in the nature of a gift.

While the trial court did reduce the child support order, the reduction fell far short of offsetting the extra $46,000 Mr. Pite was reportedly paying in tuition.

As it so often does, the Appellate Court cited the very broad discretion enjoyed by trial judges in family matters and, by contrast, the limited scope of review afforded to the appellate court. On appeal, it is never enough that one or more of the appellate judges would have decided a case differently.  Instead, in order to alter the results, the reviewing court must find either that the lower court did not correctly apply the law or that the court could not reasonably have concluded as it did.

The take-away lesson –especially for the vast majority of  individuals who settle their cases short of trial — is this:  It is not enough to say when alimony will end.  Instead, your agreement, which will eventually become part of a court order, must also state in clear and unambiguous language that the term of alimony is to be non-modifiable.  Otherwise it may someday be up to an individual judge to decide what  you really meant when you scheduled a date for the final alimony check to change hands.

As always, we welcome your comments.

 


SCHOOL BULLYING – ARE THERE DIFFERENT RULES FOR TEACHERS AND KIDS?

In a decision to be released next week, the Connecticut Appellate Court sided with a sixth grade teacher who had been officially labeled an abuser by an investigator  Department of Children and Families.

Here’s the case in a nutshell:

  •   In the fall of 2008, the parent of a sixth grade student, identified in the decision simply as “K”  complained to school administrators that K’s teacher, Nicholas Frank,  had pinched K’s cheeks and  called K names like “cheeks” and “fish out of water”.
  • The following spring, K’s parent complained that she suspected K’s teacher had lowered K’s grades as retaliation for her earlier charges of bullying.
  • After a brief police investigation and two internal investigations, the Department of Children and Families was asked to investigate the allegations three separate times. The Department twice declined to investigate and finally agreed on the same day The New Haven Register ran a story about the dispute.
  • The school system had meanwhile conducted its own hearing as a result of which the teacher was suspended for 8 business days for “[joking] with students and at times identifying them by nicknames” The teacher was also required to participate in mandatory training and to refrain from similar conduct in the future.
  • DCF then held a hearing after which it was determined that Frank’s behavior had been abusive. The Department’s hearing officer ordered that Frank’s name be placed on a central registry of child abusers.
  • Frank appealed to the Connecticut Superior Court which affirmed the decision of the DCF hearing officer.
  • An appeal followed which resulted in this week’s decision.  In it, the Appellate Court, in a unanimous decision reversed the decision of the trial court and held that Connecticut’s definition of  child abuse, as applied to Frank’s behavior was unconstitutionally vague. The court also specifically declined to consider the case under Connecticut’s anti-bullying statute noting that the legislation was “not meant to regulate teacher-student bullying.”

We believe that this case raises some very important questions:

  • First, is there a difference between physical bullying and “horseplay” ?
  • Is there a meaningful difference between name-calling and nickname-calling where the nickname is imposed rather than chosen?
  • Assuming that Frank’s behavior did constitute bullying that did not rise to the level of abuse, does Connecticut’s current legislative scheme fail to address all but the most egregious teacher-student bullying?
  • What could the Department of Children and Families have done differently in this case?

Please let us know what you think.