The Decision ...
On the 25th and on the 26th days of June, 1996, petitioner appeared in
person and by William A. Wear, Jr. and James R. Sharp, her attorneys; and
respondent appeared in person and by Daniel W. Imhof, his attorney. Evidence
was adduced on those days and the attorneys were granted leave to submit
memorandums, the memorandums having been received, the case is taken up again
on this day.
The Court finds that the parties have been residents of Greene
County, Missouri, for more than ninety days next preceding the commencement of
this proceeding and that more than thirty days have elapsed since the filing
of the petition; and that there remains no reasonable likelihood that the
marriage can be preserved and it is irretrievably broken and should be
dissolved.
The Court finds that no children were born to the parties, and petitioner
is not pregnant.
The Court finds that any remaining proceeds from the sale of her house in
Little Rock, Arkansas, is non-marital property of petitioner that should be
set apart to her. Respondent owns non-marital property that consists of a
portion of former marital residence, and this portion should be set apart to
him. All property not specifically denominated as non-marital property is
marital property that should be divided and awarded to the parties as
hereinafter decreed.
The Court finds that the former marital residence was owned solely by
respondent prior to the marriage and the title thereto was never changed,
although marital funds in the amount of $17,000 (rounded) were expended during
the marriage to pay the purchase money note and deed of trust. The Court
computes the non-marital portion of the property as follows: ($9,000/26,000) X
36,000 = $12,461.54 The marital portion is computed as follows:
($17,000/26,000) X 36,000 = $23,538.46.
The Court Finds that the parties owe debts that should be allocated; and
that to effectuate a just division of the property and allocation of the debts
petitioner should have judgment against respondent in the amount hereinafter
stated.
The Court finds that it should grant a limited non-modifiable maintenance
order to petitioner, and if this time limitation as requested by petitioner is
invalid, then no maintenance at all should be ordered.
The Court finds that respondent should be ordered to pay $12,500.00, in
addition to the amount that he has already paid, as his portion of the fee for
petitioner's attorneys.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the
marriage of Vicki Lorraine Perkel and Marc Perkel be and it hereby dissolved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that respondent pay maintenance
to petitioner in the amount of $1,000.00 per month for only twelve months,
commencing September 1, 1996; and this order with respect to maintenance is
not modifiable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that respondent pay $12,500.00
to petitioner's attorneys; judgment is entered in favor of the law firm of
Wear & Sharp and against respondent in that amount; and it is ORDERED that no
process be issued to collect this judgment prior to September 1,1996.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that petitioner be restored to
the name of Vicki Lorraine Stringfellow.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the non-marital property
consisting of any remaining proceeds from the sale of petitioner's house in
Little Rock, Arkansas, is set apart to petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the following described
real property in Greene County, Missouri, is awarded to petitioner subject to
all liens and encumbrances thereon:
[Description of 78 acre Fair Grove Property]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the following property is
awarded to petitioner subject to all debts, liens and encumbrances against
this property except as noted:
New outdoor portable building
1989 Honda automobile (free and clear)
All Assets, capital, and liabilities of Peak Productions
Color laptop computer NEC (free and clear)
All musical instruments, and household goods and furnishings in her
possession.
All of her clothing and personal effects, and all other property in her
possession not specifically awarded to respondent.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AN DECREED that respondent pay to
petitioner $60,000.00 in lieu of a further share of marital property in kind,
and judgment is entered in favor of petitioner and against respondent in that
amount. It is further ORDERED that petitioner not be liable for any advances,
loans, or distributions of any nature to her by Computer Tyme, Inc., or
respondent; nor shall she be required to repay Computer Tyme, Inc., or
respondent, for any charges or claims by it or respondent against her.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the non-marital and
marital portions of the following described real property are set apart and
awarded to respondent:
[Marc's House on Clay Street]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the following property is
awarded to respondent subject to all debts, liens and encumbrances against
this property:
- West Plains note receivable
All royalties from McAfee
Grandfather clock
1991 pickup truck and Nissan Sentra
Novell network and computer at his residence
All copyrights and copyrighted material including MarxMenu
All computer hardware, software, components, equipment and supplies of
every nature, except Jessica Haylon's computer and the laptop computer
awarded petitioner.
All shares of stock, and all assets (except charges or claims against
petitioner and the property that is specifically awarded to petitioner),
capital and retained earnings, and liabilities of Computer Tyme, Inc.
All household goods and furnishings in his possession.
All of his clothing and personal effects, and all other property in his
possession not specifically awarded to petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that petitioner pay the
following debts and hold respondent harmless therefrom:
- Discover Card
Discover
Family Medical Center
O'Bannon Bank (on Fair Grove Property)
NSI
Loan from Jessica Haylon's social security benefits
Citibank MasterCard charges after March 1, 1994.
Citibank Visa charges after March 8, 1994.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that respondent pay the
following debts and hold petitioner harmless therefrom:
- Citibank MasterCard balance as of March 1, 1994
Citibank Visa Balance as of March 8, 1994
American Express
Commerce Visa
Note on 1991 Ford pickup truck
All debts and liabilities of Computer Tyme, Inc.
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, "Jesus Christ! I have 3 kids and I can't get the mother fucking
father to pay his measly $400 a month! What the fuck 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.
