IMO/MOO/JMO
re
@sds71 above posted attachment 7-10-2019 Family Court Order JD v. FD:
At this point, it seems worth highlighting that the Court currently has at least two motions on which to rule with reference to the divorce/custody case (the “dissolution” action).
The first is GF’s motion to intervene in the proceedings.
The other is FD’s motion to dismiss the dissolution case in its entirety based on the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ) in the case (given that JD, the person who filed for divorce etc, is not present and is not pursuing the case).
It would seem at this point as a matter of law, the Court lacks power/ authority/ SMJ to grant a deceased person a divorce, even if there is substantial evidence of FD’s implication in JD’s absence from court proceedings effective May 24, 2019; even if FD is determined liable for JD’s wrongful death or a conviction obtained against FD for murder of JD or obstruction/ tampering/ evidence destruction with the specific intent to prevent her from obtaining a divorce from him and/or to destroy Family Court’s ability to require FD to produce financial discovery in the current proceedings or to “deprive” FD of custody (and, of higher priority to FD, the children’s trust money and JD estate funds that would follow the children in her absence, in the absence of a otherwise controlling order to the contrary).
I’ve not yet read FD’s motion to dismiss or memorandum of law in support of the m/dismiss based on lack of SMJ, but the short version of this argument, given publicly known facts today, presumably is “no plaintiff = no SMJ.”
While Judge Heller’s July 10, 2019 Order providing GF until this Wednesday, July 17th, to formally file any objection/s to FD’s motion to dismiss the dissolution/custody case in its entirety based on the Court’s lack of SMJ, the Order suggests that FD lumped into his arguments (delayed) objections that go to GF’s prior motion to intervene in the proceedings. Judge Heller’s Order notes that despite such garbling of the matters, GF’s motion to intervene is a separate (previously filed) motion that will be ruled on “irrespective of FD’s motion to dismiss the proceedings. (This might not have been the case had FD’s team gotten in front of GF’s m/intervene and filed the m/dismiss/SMJ prior to GF’s m/intervene.
Judge Heller’s July 10, 2019, Order seems well aware of the need for a full and complete written record in this case on both motions; no doubt all anticipate the substantial likelihood of appeals based on whichever way the court rules on either motion. There’s a decent chance the m/dismiss/SMJ will be fatal to the dissolution case, but that appellate court/s may view things differently given the FD obstruction of justice problem and terrible public policy takeaways if murdering a spouse in the context of a divorce and custody proceeding results in incentives and rewards for the homicidal and obstructionist defendant.
I’m hoping FD’s m/dismiss is denied and GF’s m/intervene is granted, but I’m not sure at all about Ct. law and procedure in this context. I fear it is not looking good.
Judge Heller wasn’t super pleased that FD waited until two weeks AFTER THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON GF’s motion to intervene before filing FD’s motion to dismiss the entire case based on the lack of SMJ. The order made it sound as if all the evidentiary hearings on the m/dismiss and the m/intervene have already occurred.
@gitana1 — any thoughts?
Many thanks to all
