Blogs home A Family and Criminal Law Blog
I did the work, can he really take half my retirement?
Q. I got married in Kansas but worked and earned retirement in Missouri. Does my husband have legal rights to half my retirement if I file for divorce?
A. Retirement benefits are generally considered marital property and, as such, in Kansas the courts have the power to equitably divide marital property in a divorce. Where you worked, or even where you were married, will not matter when the court decides whether your soon-to-be ex-husband should get any portion of your retirement benefits. That doesn’t mean he will get half of the retirement. Before the Court can divide assets it will consider “evidence regarding changes in value of various assets before and after the valuation date in making the division of property.” In making the division of property the court is required to consider “the age of the parties; the duration of the marriage; the property owned by the parties; their present and future earning capacities; the time, source and manner of acquisition of property; family ties and obligations; the allowance of maintenance or lack thereof; dissipation of assets; the tax consequences of the property division upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties; and such other factors as the court considers necessary to make a just and reasonable division of property.” So, your lawyer may have many points to make in arguing you should keep all of your retirement benefits.
I hope this was helpful.
David J. Brown, Managing Attorney The Law Offices of David J. Brown, LC 1040 New Hampshire, Suite 14 Lawrence, Kansas 66044 785-842-0777
Because every legal situation is different, no response or comment in this blog can be considered legal advice to any one person, even the person who posed the original question that prompted a discussion because the answers will be generalized to provide basic information for all readers. Anyone with a real or potential legal problem should seek the advice of a practicing attorney who is educated and experienced in the area of law in question. Use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and The Law Office of David J. Brown, LC.
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- On the street: Which do you prefer, white meat or dark meat? November 26, 2009 · 23 comments
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009 · 23 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 32 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 76 comments
- United Way support November 26, 2009 · 16 comments
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 125 comments
- Heeding heart attack’s message November 26, 2009 · 11 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 84 comments
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009 · 21 comments
- Douglas County Chief Judge says it's likely 12 days of furloughs will be needed next year for court employees November 25, 2009 · 22 comments
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009
- Extraordinarily grateful November 26, 2009
- Pie Lady makes holidays sweeter November 26, 2009
- KU says student didn't follow proper lab procedures before exposure to toxic chemical November 25, 2009
- Gary Bedore’s KU basketball notebook November 26, 2009
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009
- Pound by Pound: Danny Pound confronts his 'existential angst,' emerges with intimate second solo album November 26, 2009
- KU gobbles up Grizzlies November 26, 2009
- Heeding heart attack’s message November 26, 2009
25 September 2009
at 9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Nice free advertising for a law firm.
I wonder if I can get away with advertising my marketing campaigns under a similar ruse?
26 September 2009
at 12:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This blog pi**es me off to no end.
It is plain and pure unpaid advertising and therfore *SPAM* .
Unapproved external links and the whole deal.
TOS; no meaning, evidently!
If I did this biosolids, I would be deleted in a heartbeat.
“Esquires”, anyway.
26 September 2009
at 12:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, if the Esquire can, I can and so can everybody else.
26 September 2009
at 12:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Now, see, if the LJW really had its biosolids together, it would say, like, “OK, you can do a blog with links to your biz but it will cost you X number of $ a month”.
I would sign up in a heatbeat and make bank, as would the LJW from the clicks or the CPA.
26 September 2009
at 7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“If I did this biosolids, I would be deleted in a heartbeat.”
Oh, please do…….
26 September 2009
at 7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
He wasn't selling anyone articles of incorporation and a couple of ATM cards, now was he Marion?
Selling those articles of incorporation over the internet just might be considered practicing law too. You better watch out.
26 September 2009
at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
And Marion, you should full well remember how much you regularly violate the LJW's Terms of Service before you start complaining.
26 September 2009
at 8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
Silly Marion!
Mistaking required legal disclosures as unpaid advertising.
How cute!
26 September 2009
at 10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Katara (Anonymous) says…
“Mistaking required legal disclosures as unpaid advertising.”
If it wasn't advertising, there would be no required disclosure. And just a guess, but including his office address and phone number just *might* be considered advertising.
Might also be interesting to know where the question came from. If he just put up a blog and that question had been posed by you, or sven, or snap, or anyone but the blog's author, it might be considered providing a public service of some sort. But posing and answering a question yourself followed by your office contact information - if that's not advertising, katara, what is?
26 September 2009
at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Also, our good attorney has been a member of this site for 8 months, but hasn't posted a single comment. Again, that tends to question the motives for his blogging.
26 September 2009
at 10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
If it wasn't advertising, there would be no required disclosure. And just a guess, but including his office address and phone number just *might* be considered advertising.
Might also be interesting to know where the question came from. If he just put up a blog and that question had been posed by you, or sven, or snap, or anyone but the blog's author, it might be considered providing a public service of some sort. But posing and answering a question yourself followed by your office contact information - if that's not advertising, katara, what is?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh I see. Former attorney is part of your resume too?
If it is general legal advice given by an attorney, disclosure is required. I don't know if it applies to other professions but in the legal profession, it does.
One might also want to include one's credentials (such as mental health clinician, former tax examiner for the IRS, etc) as to why one is qualified to answer the question. It is also good that one is willing to back up those credentials instead of simply posting that one is in XYZ profession so you should trust what they say.
I wasn't aware that there was a requirement to post comments in other threads in order to blog here. Perhaps you could point that requirement out to me?
26 September 2009
at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
How is this any different than a blogger posting details of their business while identifying themselves through a verfied account; for instance, life coach, Internet marketer…………?
26 September 2009
at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thebcman (Anonymous) says…
Admit it Marion, you're only mad because you didn't think of it first.
26 September 2009
at 11:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
thebcman (Anonymous) says…
Admit it Marion, you're only mad because you didn't think of it first.”
Marion writes:
Oh, for Heaven's sakes!
This method of blogging is as old as the internet!
Where have you been for the last few years?
Just surprises me that the LJW will allow what is an overt advertisement to stand as a blog.
Seems to me that there are TOS violations all over the plce.
We'll find out what is what when I try the same thing and I will expect the same treatment.
27 September 2009
at 12:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
The poor sap probably REALLY did the work, paid the bills, mortgage, car payments etc, while the lady racked up tens of thousands in debt, probably screwed around on him more than once, and now she doesn't want him to get anything from her at all -except half her debt, and the odds are she will come out the winner because she's a woman. I feel sorry for this guy.
Of course the attorneys will require a retainer, never mentioning how fast the retainer disappears through the amount of time they waste chit-chatting to the other attorney while on their clients dime, then when the divorce is done and over, the poor sap will get billed for an amount about equal to the retainer - maybe more, just because there was some surprise they had to smooth over at the eleventh hour that was very time consuming just to make the divorce finalized, with the guy finding out about it after the fact.
There's a reason women file 85% of the time. It's about being greedy.
27 September 2009
at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
Marion you ought to be grateful.
You regularly dish out legal advice on these boards which is total hogwash. You mislead the public. Maybe you should be sued for fraud.
When an real attorney provides real advice for no fee, that is actually a public service. It is called education. And you complain.
If the attorney is misleading someone, he can get spanked or have his license removed by the supreme court. On the other hand, you are not accountable to anyone.
27 September 2009
at 6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
BigPrune: Bitter much? That comment was very telling.
27 September 2009
at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Often professionals answer question via websites. Sometimes the columns or blogs have actual questions that are posed. Other times they are based on frequently asked questions.
The disclaimer is little more than a protection measure for the professional in the event aomeione tries to sue him.
On the LJW I can think of two examples that are regular features. Wes Crenshaw has a column in this paper where he answers questions on teen issues. The Kovels have a syndicated column that both answers questions and informs on random information.
Anyone can search the web to troubleshoot car repairs, home inprovement or even medical symptoms.
27 September 2009
at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
svenway_park, Just telling the truth. I've heard it happen from too many friends.
27 September 2009
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Blatant ad — delete.
27 September 2009
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Oh, this is rich.
Maroni the SPAM king is upset with actual legal advice.
toooooo funny.
Yea. Go ahead and write an advice column Marion. The problem is you simply are inable.
27 September 2009
at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
I appreciate the point Marion made. I write blogs and am not allowed to advertise my business by mentioning what I do, address, or phone number. Why is this any different?
27 September 2009
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
“Does my husband have legal rights to half my retirement if I file for divorce?”
You've come a long way, baby! Men have always been forced to split their retirement benefits in divorces, so welcome to the club! Equality works both ways.
27 September 2009
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
Ronda, it isn't any different. You have mentioned on more than one occasion, your occupation(s). That was my point - not difficult in a town the size of Lawrence to find a life coach/mediator especially if you already know their name.
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/justbeg…
27 September 2009
at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Katara (Anonymous) says…
“If it is general legal advice given by an attorney, disclosure is required. I don't know if it applies to other professions but in the legal profession, it does.”
Does that requirement include posting your business's phone number?
“I wasn't aware that there was a requirement to post comments in other threads in order to blog here. Perhaps you could point that requirement out to me?”
Perhaps you could point out where I said it was a requirement? I said it questioned his motives for posting this blog.
“One might also want to include one's credentials … as to why one is qualified to answer the question.”
One might also want to say where the question came from, or whether it was a hypothetical question posed to get some free advertising. If this was a specific question posed to the attorney by a real person, what need was there to post the reply to the question on a public message board? It is evident that the question was not asked in that manner.
Incidentally, sweetie, when I post my own credentials, it's to support my own opinion, not to give advice to others.
**********************************
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
“Often professionals answer question via websites.”
Usually on their own websites or a website set up specifically for the purpose. Marion's objection is not that the attorney is answering people's questions online - it's whether or not the blog violates the TOS of the LJW message boards, specifically:
>> “By contributing to this Web site, you:
>> “Agree not to solicit others. You agree not to contribute for the purposes of advertising or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services, or to make donations of any kind, or to promote other web sites, without our express written approval, or where expressly permitted.”
“Sometimes the columns or blogs have actual questions that are posed. Other times they are based on frequently asked questions.”
So you think the question above, including the specifics of where they were married, what state the income was earned in, etc., was a FAQ? If the question posed was more general, like 'Are retirement benefits marital assets' or 'In a divorce, does my spouse have a claim on my retirement,' maybe.
But this was a specific question applying to a specific person's specific situation. The question appears in the blog itself, not the comment section, so it was not submitted by another poster - if the question was not posed in that manner, what was the purpose of answering it in that manner if not for advertising?
“On the LJW I can think of two examples that are regular features. Wes Crenshaw has a column in this paper where he answers questions on teen issues. The Kovels have a syndicated column that both answers questions and informs on random information.”
Again, those are regular features specifically set up to answer questions posed from readers. This is a blog.
27 September 2009
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
big P:”There's a reason women file 85% of the time. It's about being greedy.”
true to an extent-of course this is just my opinion, which coincides with big prunes.
also, it seems that women like to “go to daddy” (ie-a lawyer) when their marriage is failing. Men will typically try to work it out, or just ignore the problems and hope they go away.
but once a lawyer gets involved, the first thing they try to do to the woman is isolate her from the husband, so the lawyer will make more money. it is divorce law-school 101.
don't blame them, they have to make their living somehow.
I went to my good ol' lawyer to get a divorce and he wanted me to give him $5000 up front, plus another $5000 within 6 months. and I even had a prenuptial!
I did it myself for $120.00 (filing fee).
the next month, I enrolled in law school.
27 September 2009
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… >> “Agree not to solicit others. You agree not to contribute for the purposes of advertising or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services, or to make donations of any kind, or to promote other web sites, without our express written approval, or where expressly permitted.”
~~~~~~~~~~~
And you know this was done without their express written approval or where expressly permitted how?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… Again, those are regular features specifically set up to answer questions posed from readers. This is a blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Blogs are regular features on this website. This one is set up specifically to answer questions regarding criminal & family law. Which is probably why it is titled : A Family and Criminal Law Blog.
Incidentally, I don't see you questioning the coupon ladies' blog which is chock full o' unpaid advertising for the grocery stores in the area. Stranger still, Marion has no issue with it either even though he popped in to provide his unsolicited advice about the coupon printer application.
27 September 2009
at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
I appreciate the point Marion made. I write blogs and am not allowed to advertise my business by mentioning what I do, address, or phone number. Why is this any different?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's odd. You mention what you do all the time in your blogs. That is how we know you are a life coach.
Are you obligated by your professional guidelines and regulations to include disclosures when you give general life coach advice as you have in your blogs here?
In fact, your most recent blog is borderline professional advice from some in your field and with your credentials.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/at-ra…
“A mother of two, Ronda writes blogs for the World Company as well as other media. She is a self-employed Health and Fitness Coach and offers support services to those who have lost some one to homicide or suicide”.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/the-c…
27 September 2009
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Females crying because they have equal rights! NOW's got your back gal. Oops, it ain't PC to call ladies gals is it. ha ha Anyway, my wife has never been equal to me…..she's always been a better person in my book.
27 September 2009
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
'true to an extent-of course this is just my opinion, which coincides with big prunes.
also, it seems that women like to “go to daddy” (ie-a lawyer) when their marriage is failing. Men will typically try to work it out, or just ignore the problems and hope they go away.'
—
I'm not going to let that one just slip by there.
From the couples I know that have divorces, I can't agree with this.
In a few cases, both parties did try to work on the problems, but this was rare. I know some men that remain married, simply because they will lose too much if they do get divorced. I know many many couples who simply cannot raise they children alone, but neither spouse can stand the sight of each other.
For the most part, the men, using your terms 'typically just ignore the problems and hope they go away” while the women are the ones who notice early on there are real issues, but stick it out for years, trying to honor those wedding vows of 'forever', trying to find ways to improve the marriage, but he just isn't interested. You've heard the jokes about “What's a man thinking about?…Nothing.”
That's just it. They prefer to ignore it. If dog poop on the carpet didn't smell, some guys would leave it right there.
Figure it would dry up, flatten out when people stepped on it and the vacuum would pick it up later.And they wouldn't be the ones doing the vacuuming, or changing the bag in the vacuum either.
They treat the problems in their marriage the same way.
Eventually, time and probably increasingly worsening conditions DRIVE her to seek help, a way to get her children, and herself either away from his abuse, his neglect, the arguing, or out of just what never should have happened in the first place. A bad recipe is a bad recipe. Why reheat it everyday for dinner.
Sometimes, you just have to split up, so that two people can move on with their lives. And that requires a lawyer.
27 September 2009
at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
Kathy, thanks for the free advertising for me, but I still can't list my phone number, my occupation or address in a blog I write.
27 September 2009
at 6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Katara (Anonymous) says…
“And you know this was done without their express written approval or where expressly permitted how?”
The same way you know it was, sweetie. Although it's appearence in the blog section instead of the editorial or colums section might have given you a clue - if you were capable of having a clue.
“Blogs are regular features on this website. This one is set up specifically to answer questions regarding criminal & family law. Which is probably why it is titled : A Family and Criminal Law Blog.”
It's hard not to be condescending, sweetie, when you make such stupid comments. You really don't understand the difference between a column that appears in the print as well as the online version, that the publishers pay the author to write, and a blog that anyone with an e-mail address can create? Are you seriously that dense? And one more time I'll ask, sweetie - who posed the question? It appears in the author's section, that only Mr. Brown can post to. He posed the question himself, it wasn't an open forum with another reader seeking advice.
“Incidentally, I don't see you questioning the coupon ladies' blog which is chock full o' unpaid advertising for the grocery stores in the area.”
Did the stores themselves post the coupons, little one? Did the coupon lady post any advertising for her own services?
I retract my earlier question - apparently you *can* be that dense.
“Are you obligated by your professional guidelines and regulations to include disclosures when you give general life coach advice as you have in your blogs here?”
You really are clueless.
Perhaps you can cite the professional qualifications necessary in the state of Kansas to call oneself a life coach, katara? Maybe put us in touch with the proper office in the KSBSRB that handles those applications? Or any other state agency/regulatory authority that sets the minumum standards for someone “in [Ronda's] field and with [her] credentials?”
27 September 2009
at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
Notajayhawk,
Given that the mods have not taken it down nor have they taken the previous one down probably indicates that they are pretty cool with this blog.
All other blogs that have violated the ToS have been removed and fairly quickly.
27 September 2009
at 6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/…
27 September 2009
at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
faceit (Anonymous) says…
I think if she'd been a better wife should wouldn't be asking this question.
27 September 2009
at 7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
No doubt it's knee-jerk for divorce courts to favor the woman. This I know due to my personal experience and the experiences of many, many male friends and relatives. And woman complain about being minorities.
I knew of a guy who was a UPS driver, making around $55k, wife had an affair, *SHE* filed for divorce, kept the kids and sacked him for $1600 of his take home pay every month. That's fair?
It all boils down to how good your attorney is and how much you want to lawyer up and outspend your soon-to-be ex-wife. Even then, there are certain state mandated divorce criteria that most definitely favor the maternal side. They simply whip out a “formula” form and plug in the numbers and viola!! –––cheating wife now gets a healthy tax-free (hubby already got socked for taxes on her behalf) paycheck that usually nary a dime is in any way spent on the kids, but on her personal habits/nightlife etc etc.
27 September 2009
at 7:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
Yea those kids don't cost a dime, Tom.
27 September 2009
at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
Mmmmm…. misogyny.
27 September 2009
at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Katara (Anonymous) says…
“Given that the mods have not taken it down nor have they taken the previous one down probably indicates that they are pretty cool with this blog.”
Nice A$$umption, sweetie. Oh, except the TOS says:
“It is important to know that we DO NOT review every contribution made on this Web site. More than likely, you will see user contributions before anyone on staff here does. This may include information and opinions from a variety of individuals and organizations other than official content from this Web site and its staff.
“We do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any user contribution, regardless of whether it comes from a user, celebrity, “expert,” or other source.”
Oh, and if those TOS are violated?
“we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions”
27 September 2009
at 8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
(puts plastic sheeting over head like at Gallagher concert)
-
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
Yea those kids don't cost a dime, Tom.
—
ditto.
I'm thinking of the men who were out dating and living with their girlfriends and secretaries while the wives could barely pay the normal bills, taxes, insurance, no frills what so ever for the kids..and she herself couldn't by anything to replenish what wore out of her necessary low budget work wardrobe (ie cheapest bras, underwear, required hosiery) even though she worked full time. No lunches out, no nights out at all. At home, always.
And this isn't just 'words from the mouths of the wives'…I was out dating and saw these men out on the town, with their dates tossing money around while their families were scrounging.
27 September 2009
at 9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Katara (Anonymous) says…
“Given that the mods have not taken it down nor have they taken the previous one down probably indicates that they are pretty cool with this blog.”
Nice A$$umption, sweetie. Oh, except the TOS says:
“It is important to know that we DO NOT review every contribution made on this Web site. More than likely, you will see user contributions before anyone on staff here does. This may include information and opinions from a variety of individuals and organizations other than official content from this Web site and its staff.
“We do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any user contribution, regardless of whether it comes from a user, celebrity, “expert,” or other source.”
Oh, and if those TOS are violated?
“we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you believe that Marion didn't call LJW attention to this blog?
He has to others he believed were in violation and some of those were yanked as well. And pretty quickly too.
27 September 2009
at 9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
Turn about is fair play. Welcome to equal oppertunity!
27 September 2009
at 9:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Yea those kids don't cost a dime, Tom. ”
Yes they do. I got full custody 20 mos. ago and the child support I payed (that never saw it's way to a thing for my boys) is a drop compared to the proper way they're cared for now. At least they have a chance in life now, emotionally and physically, compared to the miserable existence that court appointed “evaluators” and “mediators” sentenced them to years ago.
I bet those idiots never in a million years knew their mother was in for no less than three abusive relationships and a raging crack addiction, did they? I knew–I have friends in the town they lived in. My kids, myself and my current wife won in the end.
The court appointed “evaluator”? I filed a formal complaint against him with The State of Kansas and we're still contemplating a malpractice lawsuit. He was a far-left idealogue who thought he knew best. Big bad angry Tom in his Lexus against poor little x-wife with two kids to raise–judged and 'evaluated' by a far-left zealot. Joke if there ever was one. Long story and I'll spare the REAL gory details.
27 September 2009
at 9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
svenway_park (Anonymous) says…
Sounds like your judgment wasn't very good on at least one matter, Tom.
27 September 2009
at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
I'll just add, to snuff any of the “she was strapped for cash” argument, she was fired from two jobs who she stole from, one she was making around $40k , the other around $10k–-to support her drug habit, and she had the $8k I payed her a year. You can (in a town like hers) raise a couple of kids on $55-60k a year, unless you have a crack addiction. To you hubbies out there: don't ever agree for a 'parental evaluation'……it's a state ordained, liberal inspired dog and pony show. They'll give “an opinion” and guess what? The court goes with it, end of story, no more info needed. Not even that your x-wife's second husband was fired from a career job making $60k for a dirty drug screen. The court “couldn't get the discovery in time”. Just get a pit-bull attorney, a right winger who does not take the wife's side automatically. Again, get a good attorney–do your homework on him (don't use a female attorney).
27 September 2009
at 9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
If you mean marrying a narcissistic woman svenway, you're absolutely correct. Justice is always served in the end, I'm a firm believer in that.
27 September 2009
at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Tom,
Everything you disagree with is not liberal inspired, so get off your d*** high horse. I've been shafted royally in a republican / conservative controlled state. I know many men who've been shafted in similar situations. That disproves your statement and broad brush stroke. Took me years to fight back. You have absolutely no idea other than your own myopic, tunnel-visioned “personal” experience to go by. Give it a break and think about what you're saying before you start spouting drivel instead of continuing to define yourself online as a pusillanimous b*****d.
On another note. I'm glad you finally got your sons out of a toxic environment. I understand how you feel. I fortunately raised one of mine, and the other finally left his toxic environment. I didn't get to raise him, but he knew where he could run to ground and where family would support him.
*****
Those of you who are complaining about the question and saying that it's a given “she” will get everything, go back and read the question. A woman is asking it. Depending on the circumstances, expecially if she made more than he, her (ex) husband should of course get half of her retirement. Ask any soldier what happens when they get divorced. Their spouse gets a large portion of the retirement - there is no prenup. I know too many men and women who've been screwed like that.
27 September 2009
at 11:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
How can the response be an ad?
Nobody was forced to read the blog.
27 September 2009
at 11:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
http://nomarriage.com/
28 September 2009
at 12:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Just another “Esquire” trying to convince that ordinary citizens are disenfranchised from the legal system.
Don't worry; be happy and prepared to fork over a couple of hundred bucks an hour to pay some guy for stuff that you could do for yourself if you had half a brain.
“Pro Se” mean anything to any of you?
“Lawyers” are why the ordinary citizen gets it up the Strada Chocolata so frequently.
Lawyers are not concerned about what is right; they are only concerned about “billable hours”.
“Lawyers” have convinced the American public that they are Gods of some sort and that they and they only, can help out ordinary citizens.
Not true at all.
As far as I am concerned, lawyers rank right in there with “Realtors” and both are members of what might be well called “unions” and I don't do biz with members of “unions”.
28 September 2009
at 12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
See, the deal is with “Lawyers” that they want you to believe that they, the “Lawyers” are the only ones how can “represent” you in any kind of action.
Nonsense.
“Lawyers” fear most and lose sleep at night over those who take the time to research their rights and act on them.
“Lawyers” are scared biosolidless of “Jury Nullification”; an action by a jury which says that the jury doesn't care what the law is; the jury is going to do what is right.
Terrible thing; doing what is right and so terrible that absent special circumstances, the “Judge”; a member of the same union as the “lawyers” will not allow other members of that union to fully inform citizens who may sit on a jury of their right to engage in nullification.
Our legal system?
The fix is in.
28 September 2009
at 1:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says…
“How can the response be an ad? ”
“Nobody was forced to read the blog.”
Um - WTF? Geez, merrill, please go back to cut-and-paste, you make even less sense when you try original thinking.
Maybe you could explain how we're “forced” to view *any* advertising?
28 September 2009
at 8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
headdoctor (Anonymous) says…
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Just another “Esquire” trying to convince that ordinary citizens are disenfranchised from the legal system.
Don't worry; be happy and prepared to fork over a couple of hundred bucks an hour to pay some guy for stuff that you could do for yourself if you had half a brain.
“Pro Se” mean anything to any of you?
__________________________________________________
Yes it does. That anyone who represents their self in court is a fool. Oh, and that Marion is usually wrong with his advise on most issues. I feel sorry for those who really honestly do not know any better.
BTW Marion, Doing something legal for yourself is one thing. Giving legal advise to others is another. It is called practicing law without a license.
28 September 2009
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
This blog will go into the record book as documenting Marion's understanding of the legal system.
29 September 2009
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
brujablanco (Anonymous) says…
So true headdoctor and last time I checked the definition of UPL is very clear.
“definition of the practice of law
A. General Definition: The practice of law is ministering to the legal needs of
another person and the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the
circumstances or objectives of another person which require knowledge of legal
principles or the use of legal skill or knowledge. This includes but is not limited to:
(1) Holding one’s self out in any manner as an attorney, lawyer, counselor,
advisor or in any other capacity which directly or indirectly represents, or
creates any perception, that such person is either (a) qualified or capable
of performing or (b) is engaged in the business or activity of performing
any act constituting the practice of law as herein defined
(2) Giving advice, counseling or rendering services to any person concerning
or with respect to their legal rights or any matter involving the application
of legal principles to rights, duties, obligations or liabilities.
(3) Selecting, drafting, or completing any legal document or agreement
involving or affecting the legal rights of a person.
(4) Representing of another person in a court, or in a formal administrative
adjudicative proceeding or other formal dispute resolution process or in an
administrative adjudicative proceeding in which legal pleadings are filed or
a record is established as the basis for judicial review.
(5) Negotiating or settling of a claim, legal right or responsibility on behalf of
another person.
(6) Engaging in an activity which has traditionally been performed exclusively
by persons authorized to practice law, and
(7) Engaging in any other act which may indicate an occurrence of the
unauthorized practice of law in the State of Kansas as established by case
law, statute, ruling, or other authority.
“Documents” includes, but is not limited to, contracts. deeds, easements,
mortgages, notes, releases, satisfactions, leases, options, articles of incorporation
and other corporate documents, articles of organization and other limited liability
company documents, partnership agreements, affidavits, prenuptual agreements,
wills, trusts, family settlement agreements, powers of attorney, notes and like or……”
KBA
UPL Committee
quo warranto, Maude?
29 September 2009
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
mario's last post is getting referred to http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
29 September 2009
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
Uh on, once I start seeing Girlfriend posts stamped after midnight, I know I'm about to get knee deep in lunacy.
30 September 2009
at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
“In fact, your most recent blog is borderline professional advice from some in your field and with your credentials.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/at-ra…
“A mother of two, Ronda writes blogs for the World Company as well as other media. She is a self-employed Health and Fitness Coach and offers support services to those who have lost some one to homicide or suicide”.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/the-c…
The above wasn't a blog - it was an article written about me and posted by a fellow CJA student as a means of congratulating me. It was written about me - not by me.
The blog I wrote about grief does not state anything about Life Coaching that I recall. It certainly does not give my phone number or address. It is written in very general terms.
Nota, since you seem to question my credentials and sound somehow threatened for those in your field, I went through an accreditation process that took over a year of my time and several thousand dollars to complete. I continue working on an MA in my field - yes, you can get an MA in Life Coaching, but you could have found that out yourself if you would have chosen to search for yourself instead of discounting someone elses credentials.
And my phone number is 841-4150 should anyone wish to consult me. I specialize in working with people who have lost someone to suicide or homicide. Thanks! I charge thirty dollars for a half hour session and fifty dollars for an hour session. You must sign a three month contract (with pay) in advance, but the initial consultation is free.