This page is not complete, but it gives you an idea of some angles on the case.
Let me know what you think we should focus on and I'll dig up the exact details.
|
Mr. Brown |
Mrs. Brown |
|
| Pre-marital retirement savings |
$93,000 |
less than $500 |
| Pre-marital cash savings |
$19,000 |
$0 |
| Pre-marital real estate equity |
$4,000 |
$0 |
| Pre-marital debt |
auto loan $14,000 |
student loan $45,000 |
| Pre-marital automobiles |
1997 Saturn SL2 |
Honda Civic |
| Value of pre-marital automobiles |
$17,000 |
$2,500 |
| Number of pre-marital bankruptcies |
0 |
1 |
| Number of times previously married |
0 |
2 |
| Pre-marital education |
1982 - 1984 |
three years as Chem/CSI major |
| Education during the marriage |
none |
none |
| Total earnings prior to the marriage |
$ |
$ |
| Total earnings during the marriage |
~$525,000 |
$4,528 |
| Money contributed for step-daughter's school tuition during the marriage |
~$15,000 |
$0 |
| Payment for counseling for the kids since the separation |
~$900 |
$0 |
| Payment for school tuition for the kids since the separation |
~$11,612 |
$0 |
| Payment for Mr. Brown's legal expenses |
~$30,000 |
$0 |
| Payment for Mrs. Brown's legal expenses |
~$2,800 |
$0 |
| Earnings since the seperation |
~$80,000 |
we don't know, maybe $3,000 |
| Portion of time marital children are in household |
~60% |
~40% |
| Portion of time step-daughter is in household |
~35% |
~35% |
|
Age |
Mr. Brown |
Mrs. Brown |
|
|
1979 |
15 |
$189 |
|
|
1980 |
16 |
$774 |
$545 |
|
1981 |
17 |
$584 |
$437 |
|
1982 |
18 |
$1,657 |
$2,479 |
|
1983 |
19 |
$712 |
$7,425 |
|
1984 |
20 |
$707 |
$9,734 |
|
1985 |
21 |
$4,099 |
$11,285 |
|
1986 |
22 |
$3,275 |
$10,765 |
|
1987 |
23 |
$1,030 |
$11,731 |
|
1988 |
24 |
$1,113 |
$14,188 |
|
1989 |
25 |
$27,814 |
$15,919 |
|
1990 |
26 |
$28,697 |
$17,122 |
|
1991 |
27 |
$32,621 |
$17,706 |
|
1992 |
28 |
$35,373 |
$14,426 |
|
1993 |
29 |
$36,185 |
$11,566 |
|
1994 |
30 |
$43,547 |
$10,009 |
|
1995 |
31 |
$43,300 |
$23,348 |
|
1996 |
32 |
$45,476 |
$7,538 |
|
1997 |
33 |
$49,555 |
$0 |
|
1998 |
34 |
$65,530 |
$3,718 |
|
1999 |
35 |
$64,582 |
$810 |
|
2000 |
36 |
$77,180 |
$0 |
|
2001 |
37 |
$86,300 |
$0 |
|
2002 |
38 |
$90,051 |
$0 |
|
2003 |
39 |
$91,004 |
$0 |
|
2004 |
40 |
$104,185 |
$0 |
|
2005 (before seperation) |
41 |
$0 |
|
| 2005 (after seperation) |
41 |
$0 |
|
|
2006 |
42 |
unknown |
| Mrs. Brown's pre-marital student loan Mrs. Brown told Mr. Brown prior to their engagement that her student loan was "[her] student loan, not [his]." She said, "This student loan is mine, not yours. You have been so good about saving, and all I have to show for myself is a large debt. You are not responsible for this debt. I promise you that if we ever get married, I will work to pay off this debt. It wouldn't be right for you to have to pay this debt." Two e-mails from the period that support this account: e-mail message from Mr. Brown to his sister e-mail message from Mr. Brown's sister to him For the first year of their marrige, Mrs. Brown earned money ($4,528 in total) by babysitting a friend's infant son while the friend worked. This was considered to be covering the student loan payments. Mrs. Brown stopped working in February 1999 due to the upcoming birth of their first son in May 1999. The couple agreed that they would plan for Mrs. Brown to begin working again to pay off the loan when their children were all in school full time. The loan was a 30 year loan at a 9% interest rate. This meant almost all of the payment was going merely to pay the interest on the loan. (And this was prior to the federal tax laws changing, which now allow student loan interest to be deductable.) 1n 2000 (?), Mr. Brown received $40,000 in stock as an inheritance advance. (The stock came from his granparents.) He told Mrs. Brown that he thought it would be wise if at some point they sold the stock and paid off her student loan. He recalls them sitting in the bedroom of their townhouse discussing the matter. He said, "I know you don't want me to pay off this loan. But as it stands now, these payments we're making are like flushing money down the toilet, because they're barely paying down any of the prinicple. It would be nice if we could replace your [Honda Civic] which we had to scrap, but these loan payments are preventing us from being able to afford another car payment. How about I pay this off now and you can work to make up for it after the kids are in school?" Mrs. Brown agreed to this plan. Mr. Brown held onto the stock for a couple of years in order to see if it might rise in value. Instead, it decreased in value, until in June of (?) he sold the stock for $37,000 (?). Then he took his original pre-marital cash savings to make up the diffrence between the ~$37,000 and the current loan balance of ~$44. As it stands now, Mr. and Mrs. Brown's youngest child is not yet in school full time. So in compliance with their agreement, Mrs. Brown never again earned money during the marriage. Post-seperation over spending Mrs. Brown testified under oath at the permanent orders hearing in March that she was very frugal during the marriage. Mrs. Brown increased her spending above the customary marital level during the separation. She also was unwilling, in spite of repeated requests by Mr. Brown, to account for any of her spending. Mr. Brown repeatedly and specifically told her that he was concerned that he had no way to verify that her spending was in compliance with the court injunction. Despite her attorney's refusal, Mrs. Borwn turned over some of her bank statements to Mr. Brown two days prior to the permanent orders hearing. The statements showed that much of Mrs. Brown's spending was above normal levels for the couple. Post-seperation frivolous spending Mrs. Brown's bank records include many examples of frivolous spending. (Lots of sports bars, restaraunts, clothing stores, etc.) Mrs. Brown's spending level during the summer Never once did Mrs. Brown discuss with Mr. Brown her withdrawls [link] from their bank account, and she refused to account for the use of any of that money. It is very important to note that during the time, Mrs. Brown was living at the couple's home, and Mr. Brown was making the mortgage payments, utility payments, and credit card payments [link]. Mrs. Brown was using the credit card for customary living expenses like food and clothing for her and kids, as well as gasoline. Use of all of this excess cash was definitely over and above the couple's customary sepending. Purjury: misrepresenting her intentions to work In the temporary oders hearing, Mrs. Brown was asked repeatedly by her counsel if she intended to get a job. Her response was affirmative. However, Mrs. Brown had told Mr. Brown prior to the hearing that she had no intention of working for the next two years. And after the hearing, she again told Mr. Brown on more than one occasion that she had no intention of getting a job. When asked how her job hunt was going, she told him, "I went into an employment agency a couple weeks ago, but I haven't heard anything from them. I don't what use there is in working. I'll have to quit when school starts." Mr. Brown's attorney has requested on several occasions in writing, including an interrogatory, for some record to evidence Mrs. Brown's job hunt. Although it has been promised by her attorney, it has never been provided. And it was not even referred to in the interrogatory response. Misrepresenting her employment status At the permanent orders hearing Mrs. Brown testified that she would be working for two companies she mentioned by name, doing crime scene clean-up. She testified that she two weeks earlier these companies had agreed to have her on their call list, but that she had not yet been called by them, nor knew at what rate she would be paid. There is no eveidence, (though it has been requested of her), that Mrs. Brown has ever performed work for these companies. And an entiere month after the hearing, Mrs. Brown told Mr. Brown that she was getting fitted for a resperator at National Jewish Hospital so she would be equiped to be able to do the clean up work. Also, in May [date?], Mirs. Brown told Mr. Brown that she was taking a trip to Phoenix, Arizona to receive training on how to do the clean up work, a prerequisite for doing the work. All of this points to a half hearted effort to be working, but giving a false impression to the court that she was actually taking some financial repsonsibility for herself and her children. Mrs. Brown is voluntarily underemployed In temp orders, the court imputed to Mrs. Brown $1,500/mo income. We have a vocational evaluation that says she can earn between $23,000 and $30,000 (need to confirm the numbers). Mrs. Brown refuses to disclose Mrs. Brown was non-responsive on some interrogatory items. With few exceptions, neither Donna nor her attorney have disclosed to us information regarding Donna's use of money, Donna's income and source of income, Donna's employement and job searches. When she did give an accounting of her use of funds, it was contradicted by her bank records. Mrs. Brown's refusal to work full time Mrs. Brown refuses to work full time, saying that doing so would require her to work on days she has parenting time with the children. Mr. Brown has offered to watch the children for her so she can work, but she refuses. [the offer is seen in the transcript from the temp orders hearing] Mr. Brown has reminded her that it is not customary for single mothers to have half the days of the the year off of work to correspond with their parenting time. Unauthorized withdrawal and use of marital property In violation of the court injunction, Mrs. Brown withdrew $8500 from one of the the couple's IRAs without Mr. Brown's knowledge or concent. She testified at the permanent orders hearing that she had no particular reason for not informing Mr. Brown of the withdrawals. [court transcript] In and interrogatory, Mr. Brown requested an accounting of the use of the $5000 by Mrs. Brown. The accounting Mrs. Brown's provided in her response is contradicted by her bank statements form the period. Mr. Brown requested an accounting of Mrs. Brown's use of the $3500, and was falsely told by her attorney that it was used for living expenses. On the stand in the permanent orders hearing, Mrs. Brown testified that she loaned the money to a friend. Mrs. Brown's failure to disclose income Mrs. Brown received a sum of money from her father in December which she has never disclosed to the court or Mr. Brown (except vaguely). Mrs. Brown's failure to pay her attorney anything Mrs. Brown's attorney is working without a retainer. And even though her financial records show that she has had some abiltiy to pay him, she never has. Mrs. Brown's refusal to pay for mediation Mrs. Brown refused to help pay for mediation, claiming she couldn't afford it. Her bank statements show she definitely could. Mrs. Brown's failure to help with the children's expenses During the separation, Mr. Brown has paid entirely for counseling for his step daughter, Mrs. Brown's biological daughter (~$500), and their son Logan (~400). In December Mrs. Brown told Mr. Brown that she did not have the ability to help pay for the counseling. Her bank records show that this was not the case. Mrs. Brown's failure to help with the children's expenses Recently, Mr. Brown has had to pay the entire amount for dental work for the children because Mrs. Brown claims she doesn't have the ability to help pay. He also had to pay two $100 ER co-payments for their son Logan because Mrs. Brown would not help out. Mrs. Brown ignored warnings from Mr. Brown that funds would dry up Mr. Brown began warning Mrs. Brown as early as January that he would soon run out of money to pay for support -- that his expenses were higher than his income. Mrs. Brown told him that "[she didn't] have a solution." He told her that he didn't have a solution either. In early May, Mr. Brown complained to her about her insistance on receiving so much financial support, saying, "How do you expect me to come up with the money for this?" to which she glibly replied, "I'm sure you'll come up with something." Mrs. Brown has a "free ride" mentality When Mrs. Brown first insisted upon a separation in May 2005, she read to Mr. Brown a list of her demands that she had written down. It read something like this: "I will remain a stay-at-home mom. I will live here with the kids. You will live somewhere else. You will continue to pay the mortagage and all the utilities. You will give me a $300 a week cash allowance. I don't know how long it will take for me to warm up to you again, whether it will be five months or five years." Mr. Brown was resistant, but decided to give her "some space" and moved out. He told her that, rather than have a set allowance, she could just use the credit card as she always had, and that he would pay the bills at the end of the month as he always had. Over the next ten days, Mrs. Brown spent $800 on the credit card, primarily at clothing stores. Seeing this dramatic increase in spending, Mr. Brown took Mrs. Brown off of his credit card and very nicely asked her to give him a proposed budget so they could come up with some resonable plan for spending. He asked for this on more than one occasion, yet Mrs. Brown never honored the request. (She later characterized the request as asking her to "beg on hand and knee for money," which was not it at all. [The first request was in writing, and I have it. It is very gentle in tone.]) Mrs. Brown instead opted for making large unaccoutned-for withdrawals of money behind Mr. Brown's back. And at the same time, Mr. Brown had felt guilty for taking her off the credit card and put her back on three days later. As a result, Mrs. Brown took advantage of free use of the credit card as well as free use of the couple's savings for undisclosed purposes. Since her first instance on seperating last May, Mrs. Brown's attitude has consistently been that she has the right to spontaneously discard of Mr. Brown as her spouse -- providing no explanation and answering no questions, in spite of his enourmous efforts to restore the marriage -- and at the same time, be entitled to maintain Mr. Brown as her sole breadwinner. Her attitude is so brazen that at one point last summer, she told Mr. Brown in response to being challenged for having this attitude, "Well then, I guess I want to have my cake and eat it, too." Issues with Children: Donna Brown is somewhat emotionally detatched from her children. I don't know that it rises to such a level that the court would grant me the majority of parenting time. But I highly suspect that if her sysmtoms of detatchment were present in a father, the court would have little problem awarding the mother the majority of the parenting time. (I may be wrong about that.) Mike, please read these over and let me know if you think it would be worth bringing these up. If I could get the majority of the time with the children, I would. I don't believe Donna appreciates the kids and shows them the love they deserve. Leaving Peter in the car - On May 17, 2006, left our 4 year old alone inside and open car for 20 minutes. Donna places our kids in front seats with air bags in spite of my strong objections Donna left an infant that she was babysitting alone in our townhouse for an extended period of time. The mother of the child is willing to submit an affidavit. She has left the kids in the care of my 9 year old step daughter and has encouraging me to do the same more than once I have had the kids much over 50% of the overnights. She is flexible with me and never has asked for makeup time with the kids. At the time of perm orders in March, I had had the kids 69% of the overnights. In October 2005, Donna only took the kids for three nights. In August, Donna offered me to have all the parenting time with the boys for the next two years (so she could go to school) except for every other weekend. She changed her tune because her attorney said it might not be easy to get the sechedule changed after the two years were up. In January, Donna refused to agree to take the kids to their weekly AWANAS childrens' program on Wednesday nights. The program is at a church a half block from the marital home, from 6:30 to 8:00. With our parenting schedule, she would only need to take the kids every other week. Her objection was that it was too far and would take too much of her time. Her new residence is 12 miles from the marital home. I suggested she grocery shop while the kids were in the activity. Her solution was to just offer me every Wednesday night with the kids. When we were at mediation, this came up, and Donna's attorney pulled her out of the room, cam back, and accounced that Mrs. Brown wants 50% of the days with the children, so the offer of every Wednesday was off the table. (I'm sure it was an issue of child support money.) This in spite of the fact that the kids were already in the program, and Regularly leaving for baseball games without telling the kids goodbye ("It's as if mommy doesn't love us anymore.") On her birthday (June 26) last year, Donna never contacted the children, even though they had gifts and a cake prepared for her. They were crushed. 1st grader Logan in June: "I hate you, mom, and wish you had never been born!" Donna's response was to get angry with him. Hannah, my 10 year old step daughter, has taken down everything in her room that reminds her of her mother. About three years ago, refused counseling for herself, blaming her inability to cope with the kids on their "terrible behavior." Has throughout the marriage said things like, "I don't like being with the kids." "I don't love Hannah [step daughter]. I just don't like her." This was when Hannah was about five years old. The neighbor lady, Donna's hairdresser, adn her own mother have both volunteered the opinion to me that Donna acts like mothering her kids is an irriation to her. Donna went on a week long trip to Florida in November and didn't call the children once. The children went with me to California for a week in August, as well as a week in December. During both trips, Donna did not contact the kids. The only exception was on Christmas day, when she called them mid-afternoon. Donna told me in September that, when she the boys were at her boyfriend's house where she was living, they were "acting like animals." She said she told the kids, "You boys don't make me want to be around you. If you want me allow you to come over here anymore, you're going to have to start behaving better." I told her, "Donna, you don't want to tell them that, even if you're thinking it. It communicates that your love for them is conditional." Just last month she offered Hannah's father every holiday with Hannah. They were dumbfounded as to how a mother could do such a thing. |