Do
not fund your enemy's army. Do not
ever pay these ordered amounts.
It is a civil debt and they can
go through normal collection processes.
Even if you are held in contempt,
which should not happen, you can
not be jailed for this type of debt,
like you can before child support
due to this being treated differently
than a civil debt by law.
Divorce is the
#3 reason for bankruptcy due to
the insane orders of courts that
look only at the mothers financial
to make determinations and often
leave fathers unable to support
themselves. With 40% of take-home
pay (average with 2 children) going
to the wife TAX FREE a man earning
$50,000 per year takes home $357/month.
Not even enough to rent an apartment,
never mind a car, food and other
living expenses.
Normal civil debt
requires a "meeting of the
minds", contract or agreement.
None exists so collection is VERY
difficult.
NEVER PAY YOUR
SPOUSE'S LEGAL BILLS!
Every war is a war of attrition
and funding your enemy is just plain
stupid!!
You will be amazed at how quickly
things move along, or how quick
the spouse's attorney exits,
when they realize they will never
collect from you. :)
Lawyers are mercenaries! No cash
no service!
Each person pays
his own attorney fees.
102
Costs
102VIII
Attorney Fees
102k194.16
k. American Rule; Necessity of Contractual
or Statutory Authorization
or Grounds in Equity.
Most Cited Cases
As a
general rule, a litigant must bear
his own expenses including attorney
fees, except where a statute permits
the award of costs, a valid contract
or stipulation provides for costs,
or rules concerning damages permit
recovery.
Krock
v.
Krock
46
Mass.App.Ct. 528
46 Mass.App.Ct.
528, 707 N.E.2d 839
--------------
2. Attorney's fees. Aurora urges
that the award of attorney's fees
by the second judge in the amount
of $2,000 must be vacated as there
is no statutory basis for the award
and no contractual provision for
fees in the parties' separation
agreement.
"As a general rule in Massachusetts,
a litigant must bear his own expenses
including attorney's fees, except
where a statute permits the award
of costs, a valid contract [or]
stipulation provides for costs,
or rules concerning damages permit[
] recovery."
Judge Rotenberg Educ. Center, Inc.
v. Commissioner of Dept. of Mental
Retardation (No. 1), 424 Mass. 430,
468 (1997);
Krock v. Krock, 46 Mass.App.Ct.
528, 531 n. 2 (1999).
See
Police Commr. of Boston v.
Gows, 429 Mass. 14, 17 (1999)
("Massachusetts generally follows
the 'American Rule' and denies recovery
of attorney's fees absent a contract
or statute to the contrary.")
Additional exceptions to the general
rule have been created, where, for
example, an insured under a homeowner's
policy has successfully established
an insurer's duty to defend,
Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v.. Gamache,
426 Mass. 93, 95-97 (1997),
or a party has been forced to litigate
to obtain what previously had been
awarded by a court even though the
opposing party's conduct did not
constitute contempt.
Police Commr. of Boston v. Gows,
429 Mass. at 17-19. See
the case summaries in
Krock v. Krock, 46 Mass.App.Ct.
at 531-532 n 2.
Beato
v. Beato 60 Mass.App.Ct. 110
60 Mass.App.Ct. 1102, 798 N.E.2d
1045 (Table), 2003 WL 22724007 (Mass.App.Ct.)
----------------------
The
following case is the biggie which
most lawyers cite on appeals to
demand fees:
YORKE
MANAGEMENT
v.
ELIZABETH CASTRO & ANOTHER
546
N.E.2d 342, 406 Mass. 17
the
relevant section is
| [22] |
We have
recognized the explicit language
of G. L. c. 186, § 14, which
provides for payment of attorney's
fees, and this language is
not limited to attorney's
fees for trial proceedings.
See Darmetko v. Boston Hous.
Auth., 378 Mass. 758, 765
(1979). Similarly, we approved
the award of attorney's fees
under G. L. c. 186, § 18,
where the statutory language
is equally clear and not limited
to attorney's fees for trial
proceedings. See Ianello v.
Court Management Corp., 400
Mass. 321, 325 (1987). The
language of G. L. c. 93A,
§ 9 (4), leaves no doubt as
to the right to recover attorney's
fees without any suggestion
that fees for the appeal are
excluded. See Kohl v. Silver
Lake Motors, Inc., 369 Mass.
795, 801 (1976). The statutory
provisions for a "reasonable
attorney's fee" would
ring hollow if it did not
necessarily include a fee
for the appeal. The right
to appellate attorney's fees
under these statutes is beyond
dispute.
|
| [23] |
2. Procedure
for the award of attorney's
fees for appellate work. A
more difficult question is
whether the rule which we
announced in Mellor v. Berman,
390 Mass. 275, 284 (1983),
to the effect that "either
appellate costs nor attorney's
fees for the appeal can be
imposed by a trial court absent
authorization by an appellate
court or by virtue of a rule
or statute," applies
to attorney's fees for appellate
work under the statutes in
the present case. We have
treated as discretionary in
the appellate court the award
of attorney's fees on appeal
where a statute provides for
the payment of reasonable
attorney's fees. Patry v.
Liberty Mobilehome Sales,
Inc., 394 Mass. 270, 272 (1985).
Although, in Mellor, the court
was deciding the issue under
G. L. c. 186, § 15B, a statute
which does not figure in the
present case, the rule has
been extended to the award
of appellate attorney's fees
under the statutes in the
present case. See Patry v.
Liberty Mobilehome Sales,
Inc., supra.
|
| [24] |
We are
asked to abandon the Mellor
rule in favor of a practice
which would permit a trial
Judge to award attorney's
fees for appellate services
without any authorization
from an appellate court. Despite
the force and diversity of
the arguments for abandonment
of the Mellor rule, we conclude
that the rule is sound.
|
| [25] |
An appellate
court is in a far better position
to evaluate the worth of the
appellate work than the trial
Judge. The Justice of the
appellate court who writes
the opinion for the court
develops nothing short of
an intimacy with the record
on appeal and the briefs.
An appellate Justice on the
quorum or panel which hears
and decides the appeal develops
a knowledge of the case and
the value of the work of the
attorney who seeks compensation.
A trial Judge simply cannot
bring to bear this familiarity
with the appellate work.
|
| [26] |
3. The
procedure under Mellor v.
Berman. If Mellor has left
the bar unclear as to the
procedural requirements of
an award of legal fees for
appellate work, we set them
forth.
|
| [27] |
A party
who seeks an award of appellate
attorney's fees should request
them in his brief. If such
party does not prevail, he
is not entitled to fees, though
no harm accrues from the request.
If such party prevails, he
may then submit his petition
for fees together with the
necessary back-up material
and details as to hours spent,
precise nature of the work,
and fees requested. The other
party should be given a reasonable
time to respond. The appellate
Justice who considers the
petition may request more
data and may set down the
matter for hearing with notice
to the other party. This procedure
places no greater burden on
the parties than the procedure
requested before the trial
Judge.
|
| [28] |
Judgment
of the Superior Court affirmed.
|
Advice from fathers
who have been through this: (reverse
chronological order so you might
want to read from bottom up)
What
the probate judges do and what is
legal are almost certainly two different
things. They will intimidate you
to do their will without regard
for the real law, knowing the 95%
of people will not understand it
is illegal or appeal. I was
found in contempt for not paying
the mortgage when I did not have
the money and wife was living in
my house protected by my prenup -
TOTALLY ILLEGAL by case law and
prenup contract!!!!
He
sentenced me to 30 days and never
enforced, though wife moved out
and kind of acquiesced making the
order moot after the pretrial on
the prenup where they admitted the
prenup was valid (except for a small illegal
carve out her attorney try to get).
But the contempt finding still hangs
there.
It
is your responsibility to fight
these. As a civil debt with no contract
collection is difficult and I have
heard most attorneys don't even
try to collect these.
My
appeals forced judge to take me
more seriously - though this pisses
them off a bit too. He now has 3
different appeals hanging over him
from me, so if I file civil rights
suit against him there is a clear
history and pattern of judicial
abuse there (if I fight and win,
which is very likely). If
no appeal you are accepting his/her
ruling. I asked for a finding
of facts on this, as you always
should, and this was granted
but never done by judge. As I understand
it most judges will not enforce
the sentence while under appeal.
He is getting more and more irritated
as I learn more and more and he
knows I know he is doing illegal
things. I count about 22 illegal
things my judge has done now - averaging
about 4 per hour in front of him
or on illegal act each 15 minutes.
He is just no realizing that I know
these things are illegal and most
people don't. Knowledge is power!!
He will have to be more careful
moving forward as I hint that a
record of real abuse and prejudice
is being built here.
You
can also motion for a Stay of this
sentence at both the probate and
appeals court level (must do in
that order) giving you 2 bites at
the apple to hold it off during
a LONG appeal process. By the time
the appeal is done the order and
sentence may be moot anyway or it
may be dropped due to the expense
and other progress.
LESSON I LEARNED: You should always
appeal such an order (notice of
appeal to reserve that right is
just a letter within 30 days saying
you will appeal X) and fight both
the order itself and the contempt
(2 chances to win). Most of us are
so poor after this process it is
easy to make the case you can not
afford to pay it anyway. Case
law says you can not be found in
contempt unless it is PROVEN that
you have the ability to pay on the
day of the contempt hearing. They
would have to bring in a 3rd party
financial statement showing you
had all that cash hidden somewhere.
So in other words if you can not
afford to pay it then you should
be able to get out of it easy. The
lawyer will forget it long before
you recover financially from your
divorce. BTW I think that pension
money does not count so if the money
is in a 401K, Roth IRA or other
retirement fund I THINK you can
still have lots of assets. So if
this is coming put all your funds
into retirement accounts. (not sure
about Coverdell, but since you can
put $250,000 in these if this is
exempted too then you have lots
of place to put funds that cannot
be taken for these legal fees. Not
paying legal fees is the best way
to get the divorce resolved more
quickly - it is amazing how these
will go on and on for rich folk
and poor folk get this resolved
without any real legal costs!
From: The Fatherhood Coalition [mailto:FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM]
On Behalf Of George Mason
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
7:55 AM
To: FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: anyone know if Plaintiff
attorney bill protected like child
support?
So while still in a temporary order,
the marital estate would have to
file bankruptcy, not just one of
the individuals?
"Marasa, Fred" <Fred.Marasa@SPHS.COM>
wrote:
Well now, that is interesting
information that I didn't know.
As a matter of fact, now that
you mentioned that, I do recall
something in the judgment that
the judge ordered me to pay
her attorney's fees amounting
to something like $17,000.00.
But I have not paid any of that
myself. That was in N.Y. and
I am in R.I.. Do you think that
may play a role as to why I
haven't been notified that I
am in contempt?
In a contempt
situation this is not true.
So you were lucky, I wasn't
and he might not be so. All
they have to do is find him
in contempt and order him
to pay. I can show you
a copy of such resulting in
a deferred 7 day sentence
if you don't believe me.
John
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S
LAWYER'S BILL (UNLESS YOU'RE THE
PLAINTIFF). HER ATTORNEY KNOWS THAT
HE/SHE WILL NOT GET PAID (FROM YOU
ANYWAY). THEY MAY BE SO BOLD AS
TO SEND YOU A BILL OR EVEN SEND
IT TO AN OFFICIAL BILL COLLECTING
AGENCY, LIKE SOME OTHER ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. JUST IGNORE IT. THE SAME
HAPPENED TO ME AND IF YOU ARE SO
STUPID TO EVEN PAY A PORTION OF
IT, THEN THEY'LL TREAT IT AS IF
YOU MUST PAY IT. I IGNORED THE BILL
AND I NEVER EVEN RECEIVED A SECOND
BILL AND IT NEVER WENT TO A BILL
COLLECTING AGENCY. THERE IS NOTHING
THAT THEY CAN DO. PERIOD. YOU NEVER
CONTRACTED THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
SO IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
File the lawyers
invoice in the bankruptcy.
Also send him a notice denying any
liability for that debt. Just write
DEBT DENIED on the bill and send
a copy back.
Unless the Judges
orders you to pay her fees,
its not a legal debt. Even if
the Judge orders it, you can "bankrupt
it." or just ignore it. It is
a civil debt and should be treated
as such.
It is my practice
to just ignore these bills and claims
of debt. I have never had a lawyer
try to collect a court ordered fee
from me. They have better things
to do with their time that will be
MORE profitable. Should they ever
decide to try to collect, I will run
them through an unbelievable process
taking hours and hours of billable
time, and final result is they will
still not collect. I would demand
all their billings for all their clients
for the last 5 years for a starter.
I did this to Bank of America collectors
last year and the lawyers retreated!!
I currently have
over $20,000 in alleged attorney debts
ordered by Judges over the last 10
years. I have never determined
if I owe the lawyer or the EX from
the order. It 's unclear who to pay.
The Judge just orders you to pay it. There
can be no contempt from an unclear
order. The above advice is based
on real experience.
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
8:27 AM
Subject: anyone know if Plaintiff
attorney bill protected like child
support?
Anyone know if filing bankruptcy the
plaintiff's lawyers invoice is treated
like taxes due or child support?
Child support
can NOT be bankrupted. Period. Neither
can alimony, nor some other
things, like taxes, and even student
loans (the last one is usually not,
although there are exceptions for
this under proven "undue hardship").
See the federal law itself:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sec_11_00000523----000-.html
specifically - 11 USC 523(a)(5)
Also, a person can get into SERIOUS
trouble for even trying it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sec_11_00000110----000-.html
11 USC 110, generally HOWEVER, there
are ALSO laws that protect people
against child support garnishments
that are too high. If a judge ordered
an amount of child
support that violates either 15 USC
1673, or your own state's mandatorily-same
law, then that child order (1) may
NOT even be made in the first place,
(2) may NOT be executed [like via
income withholding or other means],
and (3) may NOT be enforced in any
manner (like contempt or criminal
charges for arrearages). Indiana's
version is IC 24-4.5-104 & 105,
specifically the latter's version's
section (c)...
regards,
Torm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Amir H. Sanjari"
<
sels56@yahoo.com
To: <
victimsoflaw@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Indiana CRC" <
IndianaCRC@yahoogroups.com;
<
FRCMich@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:06
PM
Subject: [IndianaCRC] RE: [victimsoflaw]
Child Support
Hello Dorothy,
1-
Lewko doesn't say explicitly that
one can bankrupt child support. But
as it is a debt "Like any
other debt", by implication,
it would be subject to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and other
consumer credit laws because it has
been declared to be a common, commercial
debt (see below excerpts from Lewko).
Therefore, as such a debt, it maybe
discharged in bankruptcy.
Any other relevant case laws in this
regard addressing the bankruptcy issue
explicitly would be useful. Are there
any case laws or statutes that explicitly
state what categories of debt are
dischargeable ?
2- That child support payment "enforced
through civil remedies. "
could mean that the court can NOT
use contempt against the non-custodial
parent for non-payment (unless non-payment
arises out of fraud). So,
hopefully this should reign in the
judges from their excesses.
3- Additionally, and maybe even more
importantly, one should note
what it says about accountability
by the custodial parent that s/he
must
"demonstrate that he or she is
using that money for the care and
upbringing of the child. " Using
this, a non-custodial parent could
sue the custodial parent for accountability.
Best Regards
amir
--------------------- Excerpts from
Lewko
------------------------------------------------
Lewko case regards child support
as ' a "thing" in
commerce.
Bongiorno,
106 F.3d at 1033. '.
...
"Although the non-custodial parent
has a duty to provide financial
support, the custodial parent must
also demonstrate that he or she is
using
that money for the care and upbringing
of the child. Regardless, a child
support obligation arising from a
court order, whether family court
or
another civil court, is a debt that
may be enforced through civil remedies.
See Mussari, 95 F.3d at 790 ("True,
the court order arises from the
family relation. Once in place, the
order creates a debt. Like any other
debt, it is a thing of value, one
of millions of obligations that make
up the
stream of commerce subject to congressional
control."); see also Bongiorno,
106 F.3d at 1032 (holding that state-court-imposed
child support orders
are "functionally equivalent
to interstate contracts" and
rejecting idea
that child support payment obligations
are somehow "different")
(citing
Sage, 92 F.3d at 106).
Therefore, ......attempt to carve
out child support payments from other
types of interstate monetary transfers
in satisfaction of a financial
obligation fails."
..
"Just as we have previously determined
that the payment is a "thing
in interstate commerce," we similarly
have no trouble finding that the payment
must travel through "channels
of interstate commerce" to reach
the
deserving party, and therefore falls
within the purview of Congress'
Commerce Clause authority. See Bailey,
115 F.3d at 1227. Whether
transmitted via wire transfer or through
the mails, these payments
necessarily change hands as a result
of travel through interstate
commercial channels. See also Mussari,
95 F.3d at 790. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 09:32 AM 11/25/05 Friday, you wrote:
I'm totally confused. Please cite
the case and the ruling itself
related to child support being a 'commercial
debt" and/or 'consumer credit
laws' i cannot locate it.
From: AHS <
sels56@yahoo.com
Reply-To:
victimsoflaw@yahoogroups.com
To:
victimsoflaw@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [victimsoflaw] You can
get out of Child Support
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:27:11 -0500
Dorothy,
I realize that Lewko doesn't say one
can bankrupt child
support, but by implication, if it
is a commercial debt, as it has
been declared, it would be subject
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, and other consumer credit laws,
one may try arguing that as it is
declared to be a common, commercial
debt, then it could be
dischargeable.
Wouldn't you agree ?
Best Regards
Amir
At 09:35 AM 11/24/05 Thursday, you
wrote:
Amir,
It would be a lot easier for you to
understand if you actually read
the
opinions. The First Circuit explained
the situation.
See:
<
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=011231http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=011231<?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns
=
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
/U.S. v. LEWKO, 269
F.3d 64
(1st Cir. 2001)
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. RICHARD
C. LEWKO, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 01-1231.
United States Court of Appeals, First
Circuit.
October 25, 2001.
D.
From: "Dr. Amir H. Sanjari"
<
sels56@yahoo.com
Reply-To:
<mailto:
victimsoflaw@yahoogroups.comvictimsoflaw@yahoogroups.com
To: "FRC-yahoogroups.com"
<
FRC@yahoogroups.com,
Victims Of Law
<
victimsoflaw@yahoogroups.com,
Indiana CRC
<
IndianaCRC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [victimsoflaw] Fwd: [IndianaCRC]
Re: [FRC] You can get out
of
Child Support
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:11:34 -0500
Sorry, 1st circuit incorporates MA,
NH, ME & RI (not the other ones
I mentioned in my
earlier posting, below).
My apologies.
Everything else in the email (below)
stands.
Amir
Hello,
a lawyer recently said if the
court awards attorney fees to the
custodial parent, then those expenses
would be viewed as child
(<== I DON'T BELIEVE THIS - NO
LAWYER FEE IS CS though they would
LOVE to have you believe this!!)
support and therefore NOT dischargeable
in bankruptcy here in 1st Circuit
(<== legal fess are definitely
dischargeable in bankruptcy and they
know this well)
(Massachusetts, N.Y., ...) . He also
said that neither would child
support be dischargeable in bankruptcy
(yes CS is not dischargeable). He
relied on the authority that the
US Congress devised the child support
laws, therefore, they take
precendent.
But the Congress can legislate laws
that court could strike down as
unconstitutional, etc.
Yet, 1st circuit court of appeals
(Lewko 2001) says that child support
is
like a normal commercial debt, which,
by implication, and under fair
credit act, would be dischargeable
in bankruptcy.
So, which one is right ? Has anyone
got a straight answer / case laws?
Best Regards
Amir
At 08:20 PM 11/22/05 Tuesday,
BunsCatsDogsKids@aol.com
wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I'm just a bit amazed right now, so
forgive my sarcasm. This is
happening
to a custodial Dad right now in MI.
Mom's arrears are approx.
$3200.
She's avoided paying in every way
possible by giving the court incorrect
information, but this takes the cake.
This is an update sorta to
my last post.
OK, Did you know that you can file
bankruptcy in MI, get an automatic
stay from collections from your creditor's
and get out of enforcement
of your CS arrears? Then post bankruptcy
if you don't pay your weekly
support obligation for months, you
can get out of enforcement of those
arrears??
Even if there is an Income withholding
given to your employer, you can
manipulate that employer not to take
out CS from your wages on certain
weeks, up to as many as you want until
someone from the court says
Please send a payment. Then the employer
can send as little or as much as
they want? Did you know you could
do this?? Welcome to reality!
Now I'm not recommending this route,
because I think both parents
shouldsupport their children. Good
Lord, where is the justice?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the laws?
Amir H. Sanjari
Amir H. Sanjari (Dr)
Member: American Nuclear Society
American Association of Physicists
in Medicine
