For some, the end of a marriage seemingly represents a never-ending saga. In some cases, disputes about children keep the friction going between formerly married couples. Meanwhile, alimony arrearages are yet another reason for post-divorce proceedings. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville’s ruling in Patricia Gay Patterson Lattimore v. James S. Lattimore, Jr. provides some valuable insight concerning noncompliance with making alimony payments. Unfortunately, the parties have returned to court on multiple occasions since they divorced in 1994. When the trial court executed the divorce decree, it approved and incorporated the Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”) signed by Patricia and James. The provision concerning alimony stated that James agreed to pay Patricia $4K monthly starting in June of 1996. (This represented an increase over the payments for the first couple of years.) According to the MDA, the alimony payments would go directly to…
Read more detail on Recent Family Law posts –
Related news:
- New York Court Discusses Standard for Granting Judgment as a Matter of Law in Medical Malpractice Cases
- S.E.C. Wants Elon Musk Held in Contempt of Court for Tesla Post on Twitter
- Supreme Court to Decide if Marks With Scandalous Matter May Be Registered
- Florida Court Rules that a Husband Who Lost His Job Was Entitled to an Extra 10 Months of Retroactivity on His Alimony Modification
- Court Discusses Jurisdiction of Distributees and the Doctrine of Laches in Probate Matter
- Contempt of Court in Family Law Cases: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Contempt of Court, Due Process of Law, and Child Custody/Timesharing Cases in South Florida
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- What Is Contempt of Court in Relation to Divorce Orders?
- Supreme Court will hear PAGA arbitration case and another Prop. 47 matter
