up their sleeve

[wysiwyg]

Soc,

IN here

BM has a different pro supp hearing next week for her failure to pay our attorney fees resulting in automatic judgement.  Our attorney asked for copies of her home equity loan and court order that shows she paid over 10K in a previous pro supp/debt just 10 days ago vacating that order for garnishment.

1.  How do you think he will argue this with this information?

BM filed a motion in June that stated our refusal and or failure to pay cs, cs is paid via income with holding order.  BM's attorney refuses to respond to our attorney on how much they claim is in arrears and how/when I refused to pay.  My attorney has seen the state records and agrees with me that all is updated and paid and no arrears are in place.  I beleive that they might try and argue a situation 2 years ago that she went without CS for 2 months, however I had paid the CS (taken out of my pay) it was my employer that neglected to forward those funds to the state under order of with holding, I had no idea of waht was going on.  I believe that they have something up their sleeve that they refuse to respnd to my attorney's questions.

2.  Can they go back 2 years to this situation?
3.  Can we argue taht we followed the courts order and taht CS was paid via income with holding and that the failure was the employers not the employee?
4.  Can we also argue that her suit that we pay her attorney's fees becasue of her inability be argued that subsequent to that filing she paid off a 10K debt, and has a home equity loan of 75K?
3.  can we argue that if she was that hard up for money why did she wait until now to file on something that was resolved 2 years ago?

Thanks for your help!

[socrateaser]

>1.  How do you think he will argue this with this
>information?

I have no clue. He probably doesn't either. LOL! His client's a nutball, right?

>
>BM filed a motion in June that stated our refusal and or
>failure to pay cs, cs is paid via income with holding order.
>BM's attorney refuses to respond to our attorney on how much
>they claim is in arrears and how/when I refused to pay.  My
>attorney has seen the state records and agrees with me that
>all is updated and paid and no arrears are in place.  I
>beleive that they might try and argue a situation 2 years ago
>that she went without CS for 2 months, however I had paid the
>CS (taken out of my pay) it was my employer that neglected to
>forward those funds to the state under order of with holding,
>I had no idea of waht was going on.  I believe that they have
>something up their sleeve that they refuse to respnd to my
>attorney's questions.
>
>2.  Can they go back 2 years to this situation?

If the facts are relevant to some reason why you should not have your fees reimbursed, then yes. I can't imagine how the attorney will make this relevant, but, he's getting paid to try so he will.

>3.  Can we argue taht we followed the courts order and taht CS
>was paid via income with holding and that the failure was the
>employers not the employee?

Yes, you can testify to that, and you should. Hopefully you have more than just your word as proof of the circumstance, but if not, I still don't see how this is relevant to the present action.

>4.  Can we also argue that her suit that we pay her attorney's
>fees becasue of her inability be argued that subsequent to
>that filing she paid off a 10K debt, and has a home equity
>loan of 75K?

Absoultely. If you can argue that she apparently had no trouble raising money to pay off the other attorney, then that could cause the judge to wonder where the money's stashed, and that she doesn't really need to be reimbursed.

>3.  can we argue that if she was that hard up for money why
>did she wait until now to file on something that was resolved
>2 years ago?

Frankly, I would merely stand up and say: Objection: relevance. and then let opposing counsel explain why this issue should bear on the present action. Evidence must be relevant in time, place and event, unless it is a similar past occurrence, contract, injury, custom, or habit.

What you're describing seems to be none of these things, so it's not relevant, thus it should be excluded.