190 DIVorCe wItH DeCenCY
where she had signed to be admitted in and out of the room with
the safe deposit box, were not hers. The problem with that expla-
nation, however, was that the bank officer certified on the last
page of the documents that he had seen her driver’s license at the
time she closed the box. Next, she tried to say that the box had
been empty when she visited it. I think the whole courtroom won-
dered why she made three trips to an empty safe deposit box.
The court called a recess. Then the judge proceeded to rule
against Sue Schmidt on a wide range of issues that extended far
beyond the contents of the safe deposit box. As my client and
I walked down the hallway, I overheard Sue’s attorney telling
her that there was no way he could have saved her after her
testimony.
Lessons learned:
The point is credibility. Any party heading into court must realize
that they are obligated to tell the truth. Not only is it illegal to tes-
tify falsely under oath, it is often just plain stupid. Frankly, in any
case that involves more than just the parties themselves as witnesses
(and certainly whenever there are extensive documents involved),
the chances are pretty good that you will be caught in your lie.
Moreover, being caught in a lie about one issue can lead to an
adverse ruling, not only on that issue, but also on others. In this case,
the judge gave John Schmidt a favorable ruling not only on the safe
deposit box issue, but also on several others. Basically, the judge dis-
counted Sue’s testimony in general and gave John a favorable ruling
on several ancillary issues as well.
It simply doesn’t pay to be greedy or dishonest in court.
— Contributed by attorney Paul W. Soenksen, Senior Counsel,
Coates & FreySeparation ≠ Divorce... Otherwise
It’s ’Til Death Do Us Part
Alvin was a career firefighter who was looking forward to his
upcoming retirement. He had a full government pension, had
been adding to his IRA annually, and had purchased a couple
of houses that had appreciated over the years. However, he had