APPEAL: THE ISSUES: 4th ISSUE - HIS ANSWER

Excerpted from his Answer Brief, this is his counter to my fourth issue.  Interesting enough, his Summary (contained in a section called Summary of the Arguments -- required under the Florida Appellate Rules of Procedure) is almost identical to his actual argument.  He has one more sentence in the first paragraph of the summary (last sentence) than he has included in his argument.  So much for one being a summary!  Also, he changes the word "should" (in his summary) to "could" in his argument (last paragraph of each).

He must have thought he did such a fabulous job that he didn't have to rewrite it.  And yes, he's a lawyer, and I'm not.  (Pardon me mocking him, but he truly is a joke of a lawyer.  However, if I had to recommend a divorce lawyer in that part of Florida, I'd recommend him because he's ruthless!)

Once again, he includes attacks about "objectionable" and "bizarre" allegations.

As usual, I counter in my Reply Brief here.


IV.  The Trial Court Did Not Commit Error in regards to the Former Wife’s Objectionable and bizarre allegations that Former Wife was barred from participating from the Final Hearing; in attributing funds that no longer existed, and in denying Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Summary

There is nothing in the record to indicate in the record that the Trial Court ever barred the Former Wife from participating in the Final Hearing. The Former Wife contradicts herself in her own Amended Initial Brief. On one hand she states “After Wife’s pleadings were stricken, she was defaulted. However, Wife was never served with any notice of the final hearing. The hearing occurred on the original trial date, set before her pleadings were stricken (emphasis added), but could have been set by Husband any time.” The Former Wife admits that she had knowledge of the original trial date in her own Initial Brief.

Even in the Former Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration of Final Judgment, she makes absolutely no claim that she did not receive proper notice. 2 R. 256-313. In fact, in her motion, she claims that Husband’s counsel informed her that “she was thereby prohibited from participating in any further proceedings”, a claim which is completely false and not supported by the record.

The Former Wife simply seeks to re-litigate issues in her Amended Initial Brief that should have been addressed at the Lower Tribunal in the proper course of litigation. The Former Wife simply cannot re-litigate her case in the guise of an Initial Amended Brief in the course of an appeal.

Argument

There is nothing in the record to substantiate that the Trial Court ever barred the Former Wife from participating in the Final Hearing. The Former Wife contradicts herself in her own Amended Initial Brief. On one hand she states “After Wife’s pleadings were stricken, she was defaulted. However, Wife was never served with any notice of the final hearing. The hearing occurred on the original trial date, set before her pleadings were stricken (emphasis added), but could have been set by Husband any time.”

Even in the Former Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration of Final Judgment, the Wife makes absolutely no claim she did not receive proper notice. 2 R. 256-313. In fact, in her motion, she claims that Husband’s counsel informed her that “she was thereby prohibited from participating in any further proceedings”, a claim which is completely false and unsubstantiated. It is clear that the Former Wife was never barred from attending the Final Hearing, and will do and say whatever she feels is necessary at any particular time, in an attempt to re-litigate her case. The Lower Tribunal has the discretion to deny Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The Former Wife simply seeks to re-litigate issues in her Amended Initial Brief that could have been addressed at the Lower Tribunal in the proper course of litigation. The Former Wife simply cannot re-litigate her case in the guise of an Initial Amended Brief in the course of an appeal.