Thursday, February 23, 2006

Amended minute order

I just got this in the mail:

HONORABLE Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, presiding CLERK: Janet Garland ...

Counsel/parties address(es) the issues now before the Court. The matter is submitted.

FINDINGS AND ORDERS: The Court states its findings which include, but are not limited to, the following:

The motion on calendar is not really a motion for reconsideration.

The motion fails to comply with CCP 1008 requirements as there is no evidence of changed or new circumstance or fact or law.

Respondent is incorrect re statement that citiations were not given by the Court as Respondent was told to see In re Sheriton; the Court now includes Dacumos, Disteen and DeGeigne; the dividends argument is fallacious; the co-habitation issue is incorrectly stated as the dissomaster does allow input of funds received from the new spouse/significant other; a Writ is the appropriate instrument to be filed re Judge Kelsay's rulings and the same for Commissioner Joseph's rulings; all the rulings of the court have been based on the best interest of the minors; and the issue of attorney fees is improperly brought and the prior order for payment in the amount of $6,500 remains.

Respondent's motion is denied.

Either party is directed to prepare the order pursuant to Rule 391.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The clerk apparently amended the minute order, but I was never sent the original minute order so I don't know what the change is. It might have made sense for the clerk to include the proper case citations, but "Sheriton" is still mispelled. It refers to Judge Kelsay's rulings, but his rulings were not involved at all.

The statement is a little different from what Commissioner Joseph said in court, so perhaps he is trying to improve his rulings after the fact so that they will look better on appeal.

The statement is still extremely lame. The order should be giving justifications based on the law, not on "dissomaster does allow input". The dissomaster is a silly computer program that the judges are dependent on.

The minute order also claims that "all the rulings of the court have been based on the best interest of the minors". That is certainly false. Commissioner Joseph has been the acting family court judge for about 8 months now, and I have yet to see him base a ruling on the best interest of children.

Update: Just to clarify, this was a rejection of my motion for reconsideration. The Comm. Joseph had issued some non-guideline support orders in December. Under California law, he has to give a justification for deviating from guideline, but he said that I'd have to make a motion for reconsideration in order to get one. So this is his explanation.

My ex-wife's remaining monetary complaints will be heard at the trial on April 17.


Masculiste said...

I'm alittle confused AD. Here's an excerpt from your previous post...

"B. Respondent will most likely claim that Petitioner is not entitled to anything acquired during marriage because she signed a Marital Settlement Agreement which he will claim gave away all of her interest in community property assets.

C. Respondent claims the "Marital Settlement Agreement" was invalid for the following reasons:

1. Signed under duress (evidenced by prior courtroom proceedings involving the children's safety while in Respondent's care);

2. Unconscionable and one sided;

3. Respondent did not disclose his net worth or the necessary information for Petitioner to make an informed decision;

4. This Marital Settlement Agrement was never presented to the Court, or incorporated into a Judgment therein. Had the Court seen this Agreement, and queried Petitioner about whether she was signing it under duress, she would have responded in the affirmative; and

5. If it is considered a valid contract, Respondent breached the Agreement."

I've read and re-read the above and it appears that the terms 'petitioner' and 'respondent' get turned around and mixed up.

For the record, whoever originally files for divorce is the petitioner and whoever responds to the original petition for divorce is the respondent. No matter who files what from that time forward, the respective titles remain the same.

When these terms get turned around, it can create quite a bit of confusion. Your ex filed a motion and you answered that motion. From the way I read it, it APPEARS that your ex's motion for re-consideration or modification was denied due to the fact that no new or unforseen changes in circumstances or law have occured.

Could you please clarify?

Anonymous said...

I still haven't gotten past the judge not seeing his address on the filing papers and all other legal papers, which there have been several.