Object to a GAL?

[reagantrooper]

Soc here is the motion in full.

THANK YOU!!!

Now comes the respondent and hereby moves for a court order compelling the petitioner to pay the GAL expense in full. In support of this motion the respondent states the following.

1.   By order 20 May 05 this court grated the respondents motion for appointment of GAL and entered an appointment order which provided among other things that the parties would share in the expense of the GAL on a 50 / 50 basis.

2.    Currently your respondent is a full time student, unemployed and applying for SSI which she expects to receive but not until August 2005. Your Respondent does not have the ability to pay the GAL by the deadline set by the appointment order. (June 3, 2005).

3.   However, Respondent notes that as part of prior orders of this Court the Petitioner owes your Respondent money as reimbursement for certain obligations that arose from the foreclosure of the former marital residence.

4.   The Court ordered the Petitioner to reimburse the Respondent certain sums in connection with monies she paid the IRS and the VA. Although the Petitioner challenged the accuracy of the IRS figures he never challenged the accuracy of monies paid to the VA. In applying the formula ordered by the court, Petitioner must pay the VA directly $1282.89 in order for to clear Respondents account (which he has failed to do to date). In addition, he must pay Respondent directly $670.17 as reimbursement which would equalize the obligation of the parties for the VA reimbursement obligation.

5.   Since at a very minimum, it is undisputed, the Petitioner already owes your Respondent $670.17, Respondent is unable to pay the retainer to the GAL by the date specified in the courts order and most importantly, Petitioner has ignored his obligation in connection with the VA, Respondent request that the court order Petitioner to pay the GAL her share of the $1000 retainer and allow Petitioner to deduct that amount  from what he owes Respondent for the VA reimbursement.

Wherefore, the Respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the following relief:

A.   Order the Petitioner to pay Respondents share of the GAL retainer in the amount of $500.
B.   Allow the Petitioner an offset against the amount he owes Respondent from that portion of the VA claim the he owes her directly
C.   Such other relief as is just and equitable.

[socrateaser]

Respondent raises an new issue re the VA payment. Do you dispute that you owe this money to Respondent, and if so, then on what basis?

[reagantrooper]

>Respondent raises an new issue re the VA payment. Do you
>dispute that you owe this money to Respondent, and if so, then
>on what basis?

Soc

The VA and IRS money is lumped together as "obligations that arose from the forclosure of the former marital residence" granted the IRS is the major part of it.

The VA portion is probley somewhat legit as far as I can tell she paid the money to the VA. However its not broken down into two cases or two different orders. The order gives an ammount and orders me to pay her directly except for the portion I am to pay the VA directly.

I am disputing the amount as a hole. However the amount she claims she paid the VA seems to be correct. I hope to get the court to dismiss most of if not all of the money that I "owe" her.

She has now given the Court three different total amounts that she believes I owe her and/or she paid as a result of the "forclosure of the former marital residence".

Thanks!

[socrateaser]

I'm still a little hazy on the facts, but assuming that what I think is going on, is actually going on, and you can prove your case with objective documentary evidence, then a little "fill in the blanks" of my motion below, should give your ex and her attorney something new to think about.
--------------------

Petitioner's response to Respondent's Motion for Order Compelling Petitioner to pay entire Guardian Ad Litem Retainer Fee

Petitioner, YOURNAME, in propria persona, hereby appears and requests that Respondent's motion for an order to compel Petitioner to pay Respondent's one half of the court ordered Guardian Ad Litem retainer, be denied, on grounds that Respondent comes to the court with "unclean hands" in this matter.

In support of the above-made request, I, YOURNNAME, Petitioner, after first being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:

1. On, ??/??/????, the court ordered me to pay Respondent $X, based upon the pleadings, affidavits and testimony of Respondent, that said money was not reimbursed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The court, at that time, however, also expressed concern that the exact amounts alleged owed to Respondent by Petitioner were questionable, based on the lack of objective supporting evidence, and ordered Respondent to provide more credible evidence of said amounts of the refunds paid by the IRS to Respondent, before the court would give a final ruling on Petitioner's alleged indebtedness to Respondent.

2. As part of the same motion hearing, the court also found that Petitioner owed Respondent $Y as reimbursement for _____ (explain the VA bill here).

3. On ??/??/????, Respondent filed an affidavit with the court stating that ________ (tell the court exactly what Respondent stated in the affidavit).

4. This second pleading of Respondent, is also in error, as ______ (explain exactly why, and attach your documentary evidence proving that Respondent has materially falsified her claim).

5. Ordinarily, had Respondent requested reimbursement for the VA bill in a separate motion to the court, and had Respondent's evidence not been tainted by her deceitful failure to properly account for her IRS reimbursement, I would have little argument on the merits of this separate bill.

6. However, in as much as Respondent, has so clearly chosen to try to manufacture evidence, so as to use this court, sitting in equity, to compel me to provide an unjust benefit to Respondent, and as Respondent has chosen to combine both her claim for tax reimbursements along with her request for reimbursement for healthcare expenses, as part of a single motion, this court, should not cast a blind eye to Respondent's unclean hands in this matter, and should instead deny Respondent's request for me to pay the Guardian Ad Litem retainer from funds allegedly owed Respondent by Petitioner.

7. Furthermore, even were the court to decide not to find Respondent's behavior improper in this matter, until such time as I have had an opportunity to be fully heard on the now-pending separate motion concerning the amount of Respondent's claim, to be heard on ??/??/????, the debt that Respondent seeks to impose on me in this instant motion is currently unliquidated, and, Respondent has no right to any offset.

8. Therefore, and for all of the foregoing reasons, I hereby request that the court deny Respondent's motion and leave its prior order in place, instructing Respondent to pay one half of the GAL appointment retainer.

By: ___________
YOURNAME
Petitioner, Pro Se
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP
CONTACTFONE

Subscribed and sworn to, this ____ day of _______, 2005,

By: _____________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ________________

[reagantrooper]

SOC

WOW!!! Thanks for your time on this. You have pointed me in the right direction. I will tweek this motion to fit and file it. I will let you know the outcome.

Thanks again!

[jilly]

There's a typo in Paragraph 1.  Indebitness should be indebtedness.

[socrateaser]

There were actually a number of little errors that I've now fixed (and they're probably others that I still don't see), but, hey, wadaya want, perfection???

[jilly]

A God cannot be anymore perfect than He already is :D

[reagantrooper]

Soc

6. However, in as much as Respondent, has so clearly chosen to try to manufacture evidence, so as to use this court, sitting in equity, to compel me to provide an unjust benefit to Respondent, and as Respondent has chosen to combine both her claim for tax reimbursements along with her request for reimbursement for healthcare expenses, as part of a single motion, this court, should not cast a blind eye to Respondent's unclean hands in this matter, and should instead deny Respondent's request for me to pay the Guardian Ad Litem retainer from funds allegedly owed Respondent by Petitioner.


1. What does "sitting in equity" in the above paragraph mean?

Thanks!!

[socrateaser]

>1. What does "sitting in equity" in the above paragraph mean?

Welcome to internet law school. Although it is not obvious, there are two types of courts -- courts of law, and courts of equity. Both courts originated in England. Courts of law were established to deal with claims established by proof of an injury. To make a case, one had to show very specific facts, for example, Trespass is "entry on to the land of another without consent or privilege," and assault is, "intentional creation of an apprehension in another of imminent harm without consent or privilege."

The pleadings for such claims were required to be extremely accurate, as was the proof -- the slightest mistake would cause the case to fail. So, as the centuries passed, and the lords of the kingdom began to lose such cases regularly against the lowly (albeit clever) merchants, those lords went to the king and asked for a different kind of law -- "equity," it was called. Equity is literally, "fairness," and the lords, who couldn't necessarily prove every point of whatever their claim may be, would tell their story to the king's advisor, and plead for equity in an effort to gain a direct and more favorable ruling from the monarch that would overrule a judge of a court of law. After all, the King "is" the law, so he/she can change it at his/her leisure.

When the colonists came to the Americas, they brought with them the common laws and courts of England, but it quickly evolved that American courts would sit "at law" and in "equity" simultaneously, because there was no King to complain to, unless one was to get on a ship and run back to England. And, so when you go before a modern American court, the judge can grant relief to a complainant on the grounds of the specific pleadings made "at law" or "in equity."

So, how does this affect your case and your pleading? In a court of law, one need only prove the exact facts necessary to satisfy one's claim. But, in a court of equity, one must satisfy the claim, and also satisfy the legal maxim that "one who seeks equity (fairness), must do equity." That is, you can't pray to the King for fairness, when you, yourself, have acted unfairly in the transaction at issue before the court.

If you do, and you are found out, the King will cut off your head.

This principle is also known as the "clean hands" doctrine, which explains my reference to Respondent's "unclean hands," in the pleading I wrote for you.

And, so endeth the lesson for today.

PS. Start a new thread, if you need to continue this conversation. This thread's too long to manage. Thanks.