Automatic Temporary Injunction

[mistoffolees]

In Oklahoma, once a divorce if filed, there is an automatic temporary injunction which prevents both parties from doing things like fleeing the state with the child or taking money out of the joint accounts. Both parties receive this as part of the divorce filing papers. The papers say that violation of this injunction is contempt of court and can be punished with fines and/or imprisonment.

My stbx took $2,000 out of the joint account after I explicitly (and in writing) told her not to.. She had $17,000 in her checking account, so she wasn't in danger of starving or anything.

My attorney sent her a letter reminding her of the injunction and asked her to refund the money or allow me (in writing) to take out an additional amount and to refrain from doing it again. (she considered filing for contempt immediately, but decided to take the high ground and give stbx rope to hang herself).

I'm pretty certain she is going to do it again (stepdaughter's $4,500 tuition is due soon). Total assets are substantial - this is a small percentage of the total..

1. If she violates the injunction again, is a judge likely to consider this to be a big deal or let her go with the warning?
2. STBX is filing for sole custody (she told me that she's doing it to get more money from me, but I can't prove that). If she continues to take money out of the joint accounts, how likely is judge to let it influence custody decision?

Thanks.

[socrateaser]

>I'm pretty certain she is going to do it again (stepdaughter's
>$4,500 tuition is due soon). Total assets are substantial -
>this is a small percentage of the total..
>
>1. If she violates the injunction again, is a judge likely to
>consider this to be a big deal or let her go with the
>warning?

It's a big deal, but the solution is to order her to pay it back immediately or sit in jail until she agrees.

>2. STBX is filing for sole custody (she told me that she's
>doing it to get more money from me, but I can't prove that).
>If she continues to take money out of the joint accounts, how
>likely is judge to let it influence custody decision?

I would have given the other spouse 2 business days to put the money back, and then I'd file for a contempt order and ask that all remaining joint liquid assets be placed in a new account requiring signatures of both parties for release, so that no further money can be obtained except with consent of both parties, pending final judgment.

This would probably speed up the settlement process, because when no one can spend any dough, it tends to bring them to the bargaining table.

[mistoffolees]

Thanks for the feedback. My attorney decided not to press it on the first infraction due to the small amount of money involved and because the law is relatively new and not thoroughly tested. She'd rather build a case for repeated, willful violations.

However, you answered my question. It sounds like even if we had filed the first time, it would be taken seriously. I was concerned that the judge would say it's not a big deal and let it go. I'm glad that won't happen.

I wish you were right about the settlement process, but unfortunately, we each have enough of our own money that the stbx isn't feeling enough pressure to settle soon. Her entire strategy seems to be to drag things out as long as possible (I filed 4 months ago and we still haven't had a single hearing and nothing is scheduled yet).

I hope that works in my favor. We're sharing custody of my daughter 50:50 and the longer we keep going with that with no problems, the easier it should be to keep it that way. Or at least that's how I hope it works.

Thanks.

[socrateaser]

You could just ask your attorney to file for the order to place the joint assets into a trust account requiring both parties' signatures to release funds. The grounds would be that the other party is violating the automatic restraining order.

And, you could still ask that the court order the other party to return the money already taken.

You would preserve your right to a criminal contempt and you would stop the money outflow.

[mistoffolees]

I need to talk with my attorney later today about other issues, so I'll bring it up.

I guess I hadn't considered that I could put a stop to it and still file for contempt at a later date if I needed to. I assumed that the judge would say "contempt is no longer an issue since we've stopped the outflow and the money has been returned". I'll discuss that option with my attorney.

Thanks.