Her Day in Court: Family Court
This was the day. As scheduled we got up early, drove over to our daughter's house to pick up our granddaughter and drive her to school. We were going in the opposite direction to the prevailing rush-hour traffic, so it took us only one hour to accomplish this. I told our daughter she looked good, confident, kissed her and wished her luck. She would meet up with her best friend and confidant in an hour's time and they would then drive together to the Family Court in l'Orignal. A long drive. A long time it has taken for this day to arrive, since she placed her deposition with the court about two months ago, and has waited with great trepidation since. Her former partner, through the lawyer he hired, responded to her claims. He denied he owed her anything, despite that she had handed him $24K in cash toward co-ownership of the house they shared. Moreover, he claimed she would have to pay his legal fees. And, of course, leave 'his' house instanter. He claimed through his lawyer that he was the sole owner of the house and property, and that was because he had deliberately failed to register her as co-owner despite their agreement six years earlier, when they began co-habiting. He claimed that her pets, 7 dogs, 1 cat, 7 rabbits had trashed his house, despite the fact that he had himself allowed the house to become run down simply through his unwillingness to enact ordinary household repairs when needed. She had painted and decorated, cleaned and brightened the house. When a window in the garage shattered because his nephew threw a ball, the window remained broken. When one of the double panes of the glass sliding doors leading to the deck shattered, leaving only one layer in place, it remained like that, even though cold winter days caused ice formation to build in the interior of the house. When the sink countertop in the main bathroom began to wear badly it was left that way, despite the fact that she had offered to pay for a replacement if he would install it.
So this was her day to prove to the Family Court judge that her claims were above-board, and his were not. Yesterday while at work she had received a telephone call from his lawyer, wanting to know when she planned to file her deposition. It had long ago been done, she said. He hadn't a copy he said. She had hand-delivered a copy to her former partner upon initial filing, before the lawyer had been hired. How, she wondered, was he able to proceed professionally without the documents? She offered to make a copy, and he could have them picked up by a courier. Could she fax them to him? he asked. Yes, she could, she did so. It is to wonder: if he hadn't been in possession of these documents how could he have sent her those dunning, damning letters of demand to vacate the premises?
They arrived at the courthouse for a scheduled ten o'clock hearing, but due to the press of other cases they waited in the corridor. And waited. On enquiry it was established by the court personnel that she had not availed herself of the services of a lawyer, so a court lawyer was directed to speak with her, to prepare her for what was to come. This young man, she said, was kind and considerate, said she was not to be alarmed, but he was going to prepare her for a worst-case scenario. As an aside, he mentioned he had seen her former partner, who had arrived with his lawyer, wearing his postie uniform. In his words: "I saw the bastard, it looks as though he has a good job, why is he trying to screw you?". She would be entitled, he said to her $24K investment in the property, that was assured, but if things did not go entirely well, she should be prepared to engage the services of a lawyer, and if matters went to court, she might lose a sizeable portion of that money in payment of lawyers' fees. It was important, he cautioned her, to obtain a favourable impression, to have the judge notice and care about her as a person. He apologized for giving her information which might intimidate her, but she thanked him and said she needed that as a reality check.
While they waited, his lawyer approached her for a private chat. She left her friend and joined the lawyer's immediate space. He continued his demeaning, intimidating manner which she had experienced when he had spoken on the telephone with her the day before, trying to prod her into an impromptou settlement between themselves, telling her that he and his client had a good case against her receiving all the monies she felt should be coming to her, that they would whittle it down unless she agreed to his terms. She cut him off, told him he was presumptuous and it was not up to his discretion to determine the outcome of the matter; rather it would be the judge who would weigh the matter and reach a decision which she would accept. He tried again, she dismissed him again, then rejoined her friend.
At 2:00 p.m. they were ushered into the judge's chambers. His lawyer began an initial verbal submission, and the judge cut him off short, turning to our daughter, inviting her to present a statement. She had prepared just such a statement, a precis of her deposition two days earlier and now she handed a copy to the judge and began to read from her original. When her presentation was complete, the judge turned to the lawyer and informed him that he had read all of the material deposited with the court, and he knew what was happening here. The lawyer said nothing, her former partner mumbled something under his breath. The judge asked her if her former partner had ever acted in the capacity of a parent to her daughter, and she said no he had not. The lawyer interjected with a protest, indicating the difficult living conditions which included a coterie of animals filling up the house. The judge looked startled and slightly askance: "rabbits, living in the house, along with the dogs?". Yes sir, she responded, at which time her companion spoke in her defence, to inform the judge that our daughter had photographs she could show him.
These were the photographs our daughter had taken earlier in the week, and which I thought were completely inconsequential. The judge asked to see them, and our daughter handed them to him, the first being a recently-received school photograph of her daughter. The judge smiled, looked impressed, then began looking through the other photographs, while his smile broadened as he saw the neatness and cleanliness of the house, the healthy vivacity of the animals in it, and he swept any concerns off the table. What, he asked my daughter, was the value of the house and property? It was stated as $130K by her former partner and was thusly reflected in the papers filed. But our daughter had had two real estate agents evaluate the house and property the previous Saturday, one of whom concurred, while the other had assayed $159K. And the mortgage, how did it stand? Upon which he tallied by using an intermediate figure for value, deducting the outstanding mortgage and arrived at the figure he determined was owing our daughter: $27,500.
But, protested the lawyer, the house and property is registered solely in my client's name! The judge looked askance at the man, and commented that registration clearly was not everything in this case, and the facts spoke for themselves. He turned to our daughter's former partner and asked if he agreed to the payment owing, and he responded with a dull 'yes'. The lawyer said our daughter should vacate the property, and by the first week in February at the very latest. Our daughter demurred, it would not give her sufficient time to find a replacement house, and the judge agreed, stating she would have until the first week of March to leave the house. I don't want that judgement whittled down, she said, I don't want him to be able to say that I owe him rent toward the mortgage and deduct it from the total. And the judge agreed, telling the lawyer and our daughter's former partner that since she was paying the bills, she was entitled to stay and no additional payments should be extracted from her.
For the first time her former partner spoke, whining about the changed locks in the house and that he was unable to retrieve his belongings, his winter clothing. Our daughter calmly reminded him that she had offered to permit him entry to the house with prior notice and in the presence of an observer. The judge, after turning to our daughter felt that the locks should remain, given that her former partner had demonstrated he was capable of being physically violent. And there the matter stands.
Without a lawyer, and admittedly with the encouragement of her good friend who had herself gone through similar failed partnerships with abusive men, our daughter had prevailed. She had represented herself in the most professional of ways, both written and verbally, had refused to be intimidated by a lawyer seeking to represent his client's interests despite a slight trifle of confused ethics. She had dispassionately and calmly presented her case and obdurately refused condescension. She had indeed made a good impression on the Family Court judge who had felt compelled to deal fairly with her.
Clouds do sometimes have silver linings. There are still many details to be resolved, but she will overcome them too, and her future awaits her with security of person and encouraging promises of better to come.
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, December 08, 2005
<< Home