bbm
Because as long as it's not a marital liability, it's none of his (Kaine's) business.
This is untrue. It's not what the law says.
I found this to be the most intersting part of the argument. can anyone speak to this?
It states that it is husband's burden to prove whether or not wife has the ability to pay attorney's fees. In order to do that, he has the right to discovery - meaning the right to investigate and ask specific questions regarding all sources of any funds, income and assets TH has access to. And TH has the obligation to answer. I guess that's what the abatement is about - preventing her from having to answer such questions.
IANAL so I can't speak to it, but I will say: YOWZA! You've picked one of the key elements of Bunch's arguments. And it's simple "husband refuses to accept..." etc. I think it's a very elegant legal way of saying that a temper tantrum doesn't work in a courtroom. Again, I was shocked when I read that whole document and understood how much work has gone into going over and over this issue and providing an answer.
Bunch's document is so impressive. JMO, of course.
Not so much to me. It's a legal argument but not that genius. Interesting but I saw flaws in it. We now have to see what the other side responds with.
IMO, Bunch laid out an excellent argument as to why Kaine is NOT legally entitled to that information.
I don't believe Kaine will win on this one.
I guess you will just have to trust me that as a divorcing spouse, he is entitled to any and all information regarding any and all sources of income, assets
and/or funds that TH has access to. And this is true regardless of whether TH's attorney was paid by a third party and she never touched the funds. That's the law.
The wrinkle in this case is that TH wants to keep private something that normally would be, but for the fact that TH's income, assets and access to funds from third parties is relevant and discoverable in a divorce. Does it prejudice TH in the context of a possible future criminal case, if she is forced to reveal this info? Possibly. And I think that's a better argument to make than what they have made which is basically, "We told him the funds are not marital assets or debts and he is not satisfied with that and must be." That is not a solid argument IMO because even if that were true, TH's access to funds from third parties is very relevant in regards to several issues that must be discussed in a divorce. That's why questions about third party payment of expenses, gifts, loans, bank account records, how a party paid their attorney, etc., are all standard discovery questions in family law.
Just in my uneducated opinion, but what he says is that KH has the burden of proving that TH has the ability to pay suit money, not to prove where the money came from. She has demonstrated this ability by paying a ton of money to houze -- whether from marital assets or not. maybe a lawyer can weigh in on whether he has gone forward enough on that burden to shift the burden to th as to why she can't also afford to pay bunch. Also, it seems to me that bunch is mixing apple and oranges. As I understand it, kh is also, or exclusively, interested in whether the retainer is a marital asset or debt. I don't think bunch addresses the burden on that issue. jmoo
BBM. That's exactly right.
I thought he answered that pretty completely when he stated that he had provided Kaine with documentation that the retainer was paid by a third party and was not paid by Terri. It was not her money, Kaine's money, Marital asset and was not a loan that would qaulify as a marital debt. Did I misread?
IMO, not good enough. He is entitled to legal discovery regarding this because it could show that TH has access to funds and that may mitigate any attorney's fees award or support award in her favor. Ultimately, I think it would mitigate any attorney's fees award in connection with the disso, but not a support award. Depending on what the discovery shows, the argument would likely be that TH chose to spend money she had to access to from her parents, on her criminal attorney and not her divorce attorney, so she should not be entitled to any award of attorney's fees from KH to her.
In any event, I think JBean is right, that this issue can be decided later, not now. There is no urgency, except that KH wants to pressure TH. (Which is a good reason, IMO b ut not a good legal one!).
Oh, I so agree on the adversarial nature of the courtroom. That is normal procedure.
But what I find abnormal, and what I was trying to say, sleepy-eyed, is that the alliance between LE and Kaine, profiting both (they help with his divorce; he flanks TH by using a civil action as an investigative tool to gain what LE hasn't been able to do) is just plain...hinky. And something I've not seen before. All kinds of things that normally are separated are just being twisted up together in one great big snarled mess. JMO
IMO, it's not hinky. It's very smart. It is permissible by law and I understand the motivation and do not find it unethical at all.
Imagine this: Imagine TH really took and killed Kyron. Imagine that after hours of interviews of KH and DY about TH's life, personality, etc., by profilers, psychologists, LE determined that TH is a person for whom appearance is everything. A person who lies a lot and goes to other great lengths in order to maintain a veneer that she is someone she's not - better, prettier, more capable, whatever. Imagine that they determined that for TH, what her "friends" think of her is everything. They believe that revealing anything that could point to TH's guilt in the eyes of her friends, may be so devastating to TH that, it could cause her to crack and possibly do or say something that could aid in the investigation, even if only a little. Imagine a profiler telling LE, "You need to keep the pressure on. You need to disseminate info that makes her carefully crafted persona disintegrate, shows her friends she may be guilty. Makes her isolated, abandoned by her fragile social network. That's the only way you'll crack her." But LE does not want to actually publicize evidence they have accumulated because that could hurt the investigation. What do they do? Well, anything they can that may reveal a consciousness of guilt on TH's part. Like forcing her to respond to allegations in an RO or look guilty if she doesn't. Or forcing her to reveal the large amount she paid to the best criminal defense attorney around, to show that she is so guilty, she had to have the best and pay dearly for it.
If that is what is going on, if something like that is this is true, I think it's darn savvy. Anything legal that can be done to help solve the disappearance of a small child or to get justice for a horrid crime, is fantastic, IMO.
I agree filling out a financial form is typical in divorces. Houze is not her divorce attorney, and Terri got him as an attorney after Kaine had filed for divorce, and her attorney states that at that point, since Houze was not paid with marital assets, 'suit money', marital property, gift, or anything else, that it is not relevant to Kaine's divorce from Terri. The money went to Houze, not Terri.
This just is not correct. As I have said, there are other reasons why the source of her fees payment to her criminal attorney could be relevant to the divorce.
Husband says "My wife is unemployed and as far as I know, has no assets with which to pay a criminal defense attorney."
Wife says "Prove it."
OK, how does he prove she has no job and no money? He can only point to what he knows about her--she is living in Roseburg with her parents and as far as he knows, she has no money and no job. She had to ask him for money in order to move out of his house.
Since she says "I did get money, but where is none of your business," she is shifting the burden of proof to herself with her affirmative defense. Because of that, she has to prove that she does have money that does not constitute marital assets.
JMO>
I agree with this. That's about how it goes.
