IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties execute such
titles or other documents as may be necessary to effectuate the division of
the property as aforesaid; and that the Missouri Department of Revenue
transfer the title to the above-described motor vehicles to the respective
party upon proper application and payment of the required fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the court costs be
assessed against respondent; that all the temporary orders and allowances are
hereby terminated; and that neither party receive any further additional
relief.
Entered this 31st day of July, 1996.
Paul McGhee
What's wrong with this decision ...
First of all, we were only married for 5 years and had no kids. She's the
one who decided to leave the marriage. She has a good resume and admitted that
she could work and chooses not to. She's in good health and has no minor
children. Her one daughter is not mine, is 18 years old, and she has a job.
According to the law she should at most get half of the marital property and
we would both get to keep our non-marital property. So, a court order for me
to give my wife more that 100% of everything I own is rather steep.
I make about $50,000 to $60,000 a year according to my last 6 years of
income tax records. My income was not disputed during trial. No one accused me
of hiding money and no evidence was presented nor allegations made that I had
any large sums of money or hidden assets to borrow against. However, the court
ordered me to pay her $61,000 by the end of the month plus $12,500 in her
attorneys fees. There is no way possible for me to do this. This order is not
only impossible, but the judge has to know it's impossible.
In theory, I get my house, (which I owned before I got married) and my
business. She gets the 78 acre farm with no house. The farm is worth $117,000
and has $80,000 owed against it. The payments are about $1000 per month. She
gets the loan too, but she doesn't have a job and has no way to make the
payments, unless I miraculously come up with the $60,000. But there's nothing
in the order that would require her to put any of this money against the land.
And knowing my wife, I think she would blow the money and still not be able to
afford the payment on the loan.
So, short of a miracle, she doesn't have the income to service the debt
she's been given. The reason this is important to me is because my house,
which I bought 7 years before I got married is collateral on the note on the
78 acres. Even if somehow she made the land payments, with my house as
collateral on the note I could neither borrow money against nor sell my house
until she pays it off. So, at best, the house is tied up for the next 12
years.
To award her an extra $1000 a month for a year makes no sense.
Separate maintenance was intended to help women with children or who can't
work to have some income until they can get back on their feet. She hasn't
worked since March of 1994 and just won't work. She is a legal secretary and
was the personal assistant to the Attorney General of Arkansas. She types 115
words a minute and has significant computer skills and experience. She could
find a job immediately by calling any temporary agency and have a good job in
less than a week. Thus, considering that there is no minor children involved,
that she can work, and that she has already had 2 1/2 years to find a job, an
order for more maintenance is not justified by the facts. Especially without
an explanation as to why she should receive additional money on top of the
$60,000 that I'm somehow supposed to pay!
I had to pay my lawyers. She ran up her own legal bills. I had to pay my
lawyers up front. Considering that she has already been awarded $72,000 cash
it seems to me that she would be in a much better position to pay her legal
bills than I would be. They are after all, her legal bills, not mine. I had to
gut my company and borrow against my truck to pay my legal bills.
I'm sure if I don't come up with $75,000 real quick she'll go after my
company and I won't have that either. Without that I won't have an income to
make any payments or to make a living for myself for that matter.
My company is a corporation an in theory a judge wouldn't be legally
allowed to take my corporate property unless he found that there was a reason,
such as fraud, to declare the corporation invalid. But the judge made no such
finding.
The judge also ruled that my software company, Computer Tyme Inc.
was marital property indirectly by not listing it as non-marital property.
Since I owned it before I was married it would normally be non-marital and to
make it marital requires an explanation.
By not mentioning my copyrights as non-marital property, the judge seemed
to consider them marital. Yet there is no explanation of how he concluded this
nor how he evaluated it.
In this decision the judge doesn't assign values to anything nor does he
explain his decisions. It's not surprising he doesn't explain anything because
I doubt that he could. There's no way in hell that a decision as irrational as
this could be explained. For a judge to make a decision that so strongly
favors one side and is obviously punitive in nature requires an explanation as
to why he has decided to punish me so severely as to force me into bankruptcy
and strip me of everything I own.
Besides that, there's nothing in this decision anywhere that requires her
to give up the title, "Her Royal Highness."
Where's the Justice?
I'm sure a lot of you women out there who are reading this are saying to
yourself, "!@#$%^&*! I have 3 kids and I can't get the !@#$%^&*
father to pay his measly $400 a month! What the !@#$%^&* is going on here?" I wish
I knew, but I don't. I can only Guess as to Why this happened. But I'm
sure you can agree that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see
this is grossly unfair. But, you know that it's actually illegal for a judge
to use common sense, at least it would seem so.
Why is it that a good husband and a good step father, with no kids of his
own, who was only married for 5 years, and was not the one to walk out on the
marriage have to not only lose everything, file bankruptcy, and go in debt for
over a 100 grand to pay her off? I'm going to owe a lot of money for a very
long time while my X gets a free ride.
As you can see the system punishes men who have jobs and have been good
providers to their family. What is my crime here? I am guilty of but two
things. I own property and I have an income. I didn't beat my wife, I didn't
cheat, I didn't abuse children. If I had it wouldn't have counted against me.
No, my crime is having some money and that attracts lawyers to take advantage
of my family and steal my stuff.
Marriage is not only the old-fashioned way, it is the right
way. I only want you to read the article below to make you think a bit
before you get married! The Bible commands us as Christians NOT to be
unequally yoked with unbelievers (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). It is a SIN for a
Christian to marry an unsaved person. If you do marry an unsaved person,
you will have the Devil for a father-in-law. Read this unfortunate man's
story and remember... love may be blind, but marriage is a real eye-opener! Be careful who you choose to marry.
If anyone out there is thinking about getting married, don't do it. Read
these pages first. Marriage gives the government and lawyers the ability to
steal everything you own. It makes it profitable for greedy lawyers to break
up your family for profit. Being married is like keeping a loaded gun on the
kitchen table. 