NOTE: Names have been omitted.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
This is an Answer Brief to an appeal from a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage filed by Appellant (Wife, Former Wife, or Appellant). The Former Husband (Husband, Former Husband, or Appellee) filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on March 22, 2011 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 1 R. 1-4. After a hearing, a Final Judgment was entered on June 18, 2012. 2 R. 250-254.
It is apparent from the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Appellant’s Initial Brief that the Former Wife continues to completely distort and/or fabricate the facts in a self-serving and legally insufficient manner. During the entire course of this litigation, the Former Wife was represented by a total of five (5) different successive attorneys. Finally, on June 13, 2012, the Former Wife’s last attorney withdrew only 5 days prior to trial, whereby the Former Wife continued to represent herself pro se.
Throughout the litigation, and throughout this Appeal, Appellant attempted to present herself as a “domestic violence victim.” There is absolutely nothing in any court record recognizing the Former Wife as such. In fact, the parties entered into an Agreed Final Judgment of Injunction (2 R. 210-218) which specifically states “By agreement of the parties, the Court makes no findings of fact.” This Agreed Final Judgment of Injunction is not the subject of this Appeal and has no bearing on this Appeal. The subject injunction did not prohibit the Husband from having knowledge of the Wife’s whereabouts. In fact, at the time the parties entered into the Agreed Injunction, the Wife was residing in the marital home located in Palm Beach County, Florida, in which she remained for many months, until such time as she unilaterally liquidated the parties’ marital funds, and fled to an unknown location. Once the Wife abandoned the marital home, she simply alleged that she was an “abused spouse,” in an attempt to prevent the Husband from defending against her claims against him in the dissolution action. The Husband could not adequately defend himself against the Wife’s claims for spousal support, equitable distribution, and attorney’s fees, while she continued to refuse to provide mandatory discovery, refused to submit to deposition, and refused to provide discovery regarding the marital funds she absconded with.
On or about February 16, 2012, after receiving inadequate discovery from the Wife, the Husband filed an ex parte Motion to Compel Discovery. 1 R. 61-62. The Court granted an Order Compelling Discovery on February 22, 2012, ordering the Former Wife to fully comply with the Request for Standard Family Law Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, within ten (10) days from the date of the order. 1R. 70-70.
On April 9, 2012, the Former Husband filed a Motion for Contempt (1 R. 131-133) as the Former Wife still refused to comply with the prior Order on the Motion to Compel. On May 2, 2012, Former Husband filed a Motion to Compel Attendance at Video/Teleconference Deposition Duces Tecum. 1 R. 190-192. On May 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order Compelling Wife’s Attendance at Video/Teleconference Deposition Duces Tecum. 1 R. 195-195. The Court specifically ordered, “The Wife shall appear in person for Deposition Duces Tecum via Video/Teleconference on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon.” Because the Wife had relocated to the Washington DC area, and because she continued to make unfounded claims that she was in fear for her life, the Husband agreed to accommodate the Wife and arranged for video deposition, at his costs. It was arranged that the Husband and his counsel would appear by video in West Palm Beach, and the Wife could appear at in the deposition in offices located in the Washington DC area. The time, date and place were coordinated by the Husband’s counsel and the Wife’s counsel, and the amended notice of deposition (amended only as to the location of the Washington DC location) was duly noticed on May 16, 2012. 2 R. 224-225.
Additionally, on May 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order on Husband’s Motion for Contempt (1 R. 196-199), ordering the Wife to provide specific delineated missing discovery material to the Husband’s counsel. After numerous warnings, the Court specifically ordered the following: “If the Wife does not provide the above listed discovery by the time proscribed, May 21, 2012 by 5:00 p.m., the Wife’s pleadings, including her Counter Petition and Motion for Temporary Relief, will be stricken in their entirety”. 1 R. 196-199. This order was not objected to nor was it appealed.
On May 14, 2012, the Wife, in a last ditch effort in an attempt to circumvent the Court’s prior Order on the Husband’s Motion for Contempt, filed a Motion for Protective Order (2 R. 208-218), seeking to block standard discovery information already ordered by the Court to be provided to the Husband. On May 17, 2012, counsel for the Wife and for the Former Husband entered into an Agreed Order on Wife’s Motion for Protective Order (2R. 223 – 223), whereby the Wife agreed that she will provide her home address to the Former Husband’s counsel, but Former Husband’s counsel would not disclose the Former Wife’s address to the Former Husband. It is relevant to note that Former Husband continued to reside in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Former Wife had relocated permanently to the Washington, D.C. area. Therefore, the parties resided hundreds of miles apart from one another.
The Wife ultimately refused to attend the Video deposition as previously ordered by the Court, and on May 24, 2012, the Husband filed a Motion to Strike Wife’s Pleadings Based on Wife’s Refusal to Comply with Order on Husband’s Motion for Contempt, and Wife’s Refusal to Attend Court Ordered Deposition. Wife’s counsel filed a “Motion In Opposing of Motion to Strike” (sic). 2 R. 226-240.
On May 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Husband’s Motion to Strike Wife’s Pleadings (2R. 241-242), stating “The Wife acted and continues to act in a deliberate, willful, and contumacious manner, whereby she continues to act in defiance and disobedience of numerous orders issued by this court.” The Court struck all of the Wife’s pleadings, including but not limited to her Counter-Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, and Wife’s Motion for Temporary Relief, and ordered Wife to pay Husband’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the necessity of bringing the action.
Pursuant to the Order Setting Trial entered on January 19, 2012, on June 18, 2012 (1 R. 60-60), a final hearing was held, with the Husband, and Husband’s counsel in attendance. The Wife chose not to appear. The Court signed the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage on June 18, 2012. 2 R. 250-254.
The Former Wife the filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Final Judgment on June 28, 2012, which was never served on opposing counsel. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on July 10, 2012. 2 R. 314-314.
Former Wife then filed an Appeal and Appendix, which were struck by the Appellate Court based on the Former Husband’s Motion to Strike, because the Former Wife had in fact submitted an improper and incomplete record to the Court. The Former Wife then filed her Amended Brief and Appendix, of which this Answer Brief is filed in response thereto.
No comments:
Post a Comment