- Litigation over high-tech products is rife, but major benefits for consumers can be hard to discern [Low End Mac]
- “United settles with female ex-pilot who found p0rn in cockpits” [Obscure Store]
- California suit charges negligent “laying on of hands” at church service [Lowering the Bar]
- UN resolution against “defamation of religion” imperils free speech [Paula Schriefer, Freedom House/CSM, Steyn/NR “Corner”, National Secular Society (U.K.), Ilya Somin @ Volokh
- DivorceNetwork.com, social networking for those caught up in family law battles? [Ambrogi, Legal BlogWatch]
- Prosecutors behaving badly in Wayne County (Mich.), Miami, Santa Clara County [Radley Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”]
- After nine years, the notorious Bill Lerach California-unfair-competition-law suit against Kwikset (over several screws from Taiwan in a lock marked “Made in America”) finally winds down [California Civil Justice, earlier]
- Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson to poultry companies: my pals will bankrupt you with massive verdicts unless you settle [Rizo/Legal NewsLine; more]
Posts Tagged ‘divorce’
March 23 roundup
- Probate court in Connecticut: bad enough when they hold you improperly in conservatorship, but worse when they bill you for the favor [Hartford Courant]
- Does “Patent Troll” in World of Warcraft count as a character type or a monster type? [Broken Toys]
- 102-year-old Italian woman wins decade-long legal dispute, but is told appeal could take 10 years more [Telegraph]
- “This Cartoon Could Be Illegal, If Two Iowa Legislators Have Their Way” [Eugene Volokh]
- David Giacalone, nonpareil commentator on attorneys’ fee ethics (and haiku), has decided to end his blog f/k/a. He signs off with a four-part series on lawyer billing and fairness to consumers/clients: parts one, two, three, four, plus a final “Understanding and Reducing Attorney Fees“. He’s keeping the site as archives, though, and let’s hope that as such it goes on shedding its light for as long as there are lawyers and vulnerable clients. More: Scott Greenfield.
- Even they can’t manage to comply? Politically active union SEIU faces unfair labor practice charges from its own employees [WaPo]
- Judge in Austin awards $3 million from couple’s estate to their divorce lawyers [Austin American-Statesman]
- “Keywords With Highest Cost Per Click”, lawyers and financial services dominate [SpyFu]
Connecticut divorce: $43 million post-nup isn’t enough
Marie Douglas-David, wife of former United Technologies CEO George David, “says the money isn’t enough to maintain her $53,000-per-week living expenses”. [Chicago Sun-Times, Hartford Courant]
“Firm offers ’60 Minute divorce’, free lunch included”
Uncontested ones with no issues over money or kids only, though, please.
Difficult divorces dept.
The divorce between Dr. Richard Batista of Ronkonkoma, Long Island, New York, and his wife Dawn has taken an unfortunate turn with Dr. Batista’s demand that she return his left kidney, which he had donated to her in a transplant operation. (Or at least its fair market value) Experts predict that the court will be less than sympathetic to his request [SSFC; Sally Satel, Daily Beast] And in Nebraska, the essential level of trust and goodwill that one would hope to see in a divorce has been undercut by William Lewton’s discovery of a secret recording device concealed in his four year old daughter’s teddy bear [WSJ Law Blog]
Iowa Husbands: Knock Before Opening the Bathroom Door
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that a wife can suffer an invasion of privacy in her home, even from her husband, according to this Associated Press story. Inconsiderate husbands and wives in the Hawkeye State shouldn’t make too much of this holding, which can probably be limited to its bizarre facts. Upholding a trial court’s award of $22,500 in damages, Iowa’s high court held that Cathy Tigges had a cause of action for invasion of privacy against her husband, Jeffrey Tigges, who placed multiple hidden cameras in the couple’s bedroom. Necessarily, the Court held that Mrs. Tigges did have a reasonable expectation of privacy from her husband in her marital bedroom, particularly when she thought she was alone.
For the nosey among us, neither the story nor the Court’s opinion reveals Mr. Tigges’ reason for placing the cameras, but one assumes he feared he was being cuckolded. Whether that was true or not, the Tiggses, who appear to have been a pair of amateur spymasters (each secretly recorded the other’s telephone conversations as well), have also been granted what sounds like a long overdue divorce.
Despite their concerns about privacy, the Tiggeses have succeeded in making their unhappy marriage a worldwide public spectacle, which I am doing my part to promote. That’s the funny thing about defamation and privacy lawsuits; in a society that values open courts, one often broadcasts the injury to a far larger audience by taking it to litigation. Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.
$25M suit for affair with priest
The plaintiff alleges she gave in to the defendant priest’s sexual advances after confessing her marital difficulties to him. She alleges the priest assured her the sex was “ordained by God” so she thereafter engaged in intercourse with him. This, of course, is all due to the negligence of the local Catholic diocese according to her suit and not her own poor judgment in falling for such a lame pickup line. (“Confession Obsession?”, The Smoking Gun, Oct. 29).
“Divorce, Connecticut-Style”
One Westport split cost the divorcing couple an estimated $13 million. It differed in degree, but not really in kind, from many lesser domestic catastrophes: “Divorcing couples in Connecticut regularly rack up bank-busting legal bills that can put the lesser earning party — and there often is an economic imbalance between warring couples — into bankruptcy. … the most expensive and sought-after divorce attorneys are commonly referred to as ‘junkyard dogs.'” Then there are the hefty sums you may be forced to hand over to lawyers who get themselves appointed guardians ad litem, to represent your kids against, well, you and your ex (Daniel D’Ambrosio, Hartford Advocate, Jul. 24).
July 13 roundup
- Nothing new about lawyers stealing money from estates, but embarrassing when they used to head the bar association [Eagle-Tribune; Lawrence, Mass., Arthur Khoury]
- Unusual “reverse quota” case: black job applicant wins $30K after showing beauty supply company turned her down because it had a quota of whites to hire [SE Texas Record]
- Who knew? Per class action allegations, pet food contains ingredients “unfit for human consumption” [Daily Business Review]
- U.K.: “A divorcee who won a £1.4million payout from her multi-millionaire husband is suing her lawyers because she claims she should have got twice that amount.” [Telegraph]
- UW freshman falls from fourth-floor dorm window after drinking at “Trashed Tuesday”, now wants $ from Delta Upsilon International as well as construction firm that put in windows [Seattle P-I, KOMO]
- After giant $103 million payday, current and former partners at Minneapolis law firm are torn by feuds and dissension — wasn’t there a John Steinbeck novella about that? [ABA Journal and again, Heins Mills]
- Small firm that used to make Wal-Mart in-house videos sets up shop at AAJ/ATLA convention hawking those videos for use in suits against the retailer [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, earlier]
- When the judge’s kid gets busted [Eric Berlin; Alabama]
13 Years, 16 Lawyers, 10 Judges, No Divorce Settlement
In 2001, a Florida court awarded Marlene Forand a $240,000 divorce settlement, plus $6,000 per month in permanent alimony and attorney’s fees, from ex-husband Bob in 2001, 6 years after their marriage ended. So why is she living with her mother and taking public support? The St. Petersburg Times reports that the lawyers who botched enforcement of the claim in Alabama, Bob’s new home state, somehow ended up with only a $162,000 judgment from her ex and took more than half that in legal fees, leaving Forand, after paying off some marriage debts, with nothing at all.
But wasn’t the ex supposed to pick up the bill?
No, her lawyers said. She signed contracts with them. She owed them. If she wanted Bob to pay her legal fees, she would have to sue him. Of course, that would mean more legal fees.
Marlene was famous for her fiery e-mails. She sent one to Haas:
“Why should I suffer and have to pay attorney’s fees to make him pay for what was already ordained in the Florida court? I’m still left holding the debt from the marriage judgments for 20 years and he walks free. This I will not tolerate. What’s the next move?”
…
Forand kicked Haas off the case (for the second time) in 2006 and is now representing herself. “This is not the end,” she told the Times. “If I’ve learned anything about the law, I’ve learned you can always file another motion. You can always object.”
But after 13 years of litigation, the Florida judiciary has a less rosy view of Forand’s prospects. Responding to Forand’s motion to compel Bob to swear that he had no documentation of any of his assets, a Tampa judge despaired, “Even if I rule 100 percent in your favor, I’m just going to add another piece of paper [to your casefile] — the next page of Volume 13.” (“A Divorce, Unsettled,” St. Petersburg Times, Jun. 22).