176 DIVorCe wItH DeCenCY
When the dust settled (unfortunately with my client no longer
present), the judge then proceeded to recite the rest of his ruling,
which included making Henry responsible for the entire promis-
sory note as well as all other debts, and giving Denise the vast
majority of the assets. The judge further explained that alimony
would have been taxable income to the wife, and that Denise
would probably have had a difficult time getting a guy like
Henry to cough up the court-ordered alimony payments in any
event. Instead, the judge ruled as he did because he felt that an
immediate unequal division of the property would best com-
pensate Denise. Unfortunately, she hadn’t stuck around to hear
about it.
Lessons learned:
This case was a classic example of Hawai‘i’s “equitable distribution”
principles in action. It also exemplified the predictable phenomenon
that although clients can understandably tend to get really sick and
tired of the legal system, sometimes the best judges are crazy... like
a fox.
— Contributed by attorney Jack Durham, former associate,
Coates & FreyDrunk Dialing Costs Custody
A seemingly run-of-the mill custody motion came before the court.
On its face it seemed like the ordinary “dad never cared all that
much about the child before, but now hates mom enough to try
to reverse custody”–type case. The same matter had come before
the court year after year. Finally, the judge was resolved to end
the dispute once and for all, and ordered a trial on Dad Bob’s
motion. Mom Nancy seemed unconcerned. She had beaten him in
court before, she was a good mother, and she felt sure she would
beat him again. Certainly the judge would not reverse custody
of daughter Nadine, who had lived with her mother (often out
of state) ever since her birth. An additional factor was the fact
that once before father had even agreed to allow this very same
daughter Nadine to be adopted by another man. To an attorney,
this seemed a slam-dunk case on behalf of the mom.