Local attorney Jane Tucker provides a valuable service on her law blog as she published and dissects the opinions handed down by the Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. There were interesting cases decided by the Court of Appeals this week. Ms. Tucker notes:
Neilson v. Dawson – defamation – former FBI agent sued the authors of the King of Torts (a book about Richard Scruggs) for defamation for stating that Neilson had lost the confidence of the United States Attorney investigating Scruggs. ...
The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants but denied their motion for sanctions. On appeal the Miss. Court of Appeals affirms summary judgment and also affirms the denial of sanctions. (KF note: Alan Lange is the owner of Y'all Politics and co-author of the book mentioned above.
There are some other interesting cases. There is one for termination of parental rights, one involving alimony, bad-faith actions by an estate, and some others if one is of a legal mind.
31 comments:
Hard to call it a book. Book only in the sense of the binding.
It is a very good BOOK douchebag. Why don't you author one?
I also thought it was a good book. A little dry, but it really laid out the complete story from the beginning to the end for me. Not being born and raised in Mississippi, the book really laid it out. Would it ever be a major motion picture? No. But I don't think that was the intent.
I enjoyed the book very much. It was clearly hastily arranged in an effort to be first to tell the story, and the editing was often sloppy, but the story was told in detail.
It was a good book.
Alan Lange is still a douchebag. And the fact that Frank Corder is his bitch-boy speaks volumes.
11:46 who is also 8:16......See 9:02.
Jane Tucker rocks for those updates and helping with your blog.
Nobody likes Alan Lange, notwithstanding his ability to get his mugshot in every artsy coffee-table rag in the Metro.
If his name had not appeared on the cover, I might have bought it; however, some years of experiencing his supreme arrogance and shit-don't-stink view of himself (am I being redundant?), precluded any purchase of the mentioned book.
Dear Jane: The name of the Lange/Dawson book is Kings of Tort. Not the John Grisham book, titled King of Torts. While the latter book is referenced in the opinion, the suit was about the former book, not the latter. Signed, Jane Gresham, Attorney Prose for Confusing Book Titles from Mississippi Lawyers, a wholly owned subsidiary of PlayGerIzum, Inc. and Dewey Cheatum and Howe, LLC.
Corrected. Thanks!
Jane Tucker rocks for those updates and helping with your blog.
Yes, she does!
Let me be honest about 2 things.
First, I don't know the facts in the Wylie vs Wylie divorce case.
Secondly, I'm coming up on my golden anniversary and unless my husband gets dementia, I should be safe. There's no bitter woman here.
That said, I question that alimony to " rehabilitate" applies very often. It is rare that a woman can return to a life style she enjoyed while married. And,the children never seem to come through a divorce without financially suffering.
But, far more disturbing is the what I keep seeing among my friends traded in, after decades of marriage, for a " trophy".
Divorces are being granted before a financial agreement ( I believe it's called " bifurcation"). This allows a husband to " starve" a wife into settlement.
Most of my friends divorces have take 3-7 years and during that time, husbands have hidden assets, sold assets despite court orders, and delayed contempt hearings. While that has been happening, wives lose their credit and have to run up astronomical legal fees due to the husband's lack of cooperation.
One husband who allow the house to go into foreclosure and the utilities to be turned off, managed to go to Europe for over a month and announce he was " bankrupt" upon returning.
Another husband, with no warning, cleaned out the house while the wife was at work, taking her family heirlooms and even a portrait of her that he
r parents had had done. There was no remedy.
I've watched children go without while father's who claimed they were broke, took girlfriends skiing in Aspen and wined and dined them , providing expensive jeweled trinkets at the end of the evening.
Wives have discovered that unbeknownst to them, the house, cars, vacation homes and furnishings were bought in the name of the husband's corporation and were not marital assets. There were NO marital assets to be found
Mississippi is no longer a community property state in reality. Women now, if financially independent have all the responsibilities, but if they stayed home as their husbands once wanted and have no marketable skills, there is zero protection EVEN when children are still in the home.
Men who don't want to give their wives a " dime" seem to fail to understand that their children don't just need the " frills" but a roof over their heads and food on the table.
The court no longer recognizes any monetary value for child care, career enhancement, decorating, cooking, cleaning if the men had had to pay for these things while pursuing their careers.
There is no question in my mind that divorce attorneys are causing divorces to last longer and be more expensive for profit.
The casualties are not just the women, but the children and the rip in the fabric of the family these divorces, which need not have been bitter, have caused.
So, I'm suspicious of the Wylie ruling. I'm suspicious of whether or not, in fact, there was equity in the financial situation.
@September 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM
I agree. Judge James's dissent was well written and well reasoned.
5:25
Why are you on this thread that is about a failed defamation case, not a divorce case?
The link to other cases includes a divorce case.
8:42 Read the whole section from KF up top. Focus on the word "alimony", then go look it up, then re-read the comments from 5:25.
There's no bitter woman here.
No, no, no. You're not bitter at all.
I am outraged on behalf of all women in MS who were in the upper middle to lower upper and upper class that ended up literally without a roof over their heads for themselves and their children while contempt hearings were repeatedly postponed and the husbands let the house go into foreclosure because THEY were bitter.
I am outraged that after the final court ruling, a man who claims " bankruptcy" can " miraculously start the exact same lucrative business under another corporate name.
I'm outraged that money can be so easily hidden and the courts seem to lack any curiosity about how a man who is "broke" manages to go on expensive trips and buy expensive things but can't pay for food for his child.
Why is it that his wife has to "find" the source of his money when it's obvious he has it rather than the burden be on him to prove how he was able to spend that kind of money?
I am outraged as a taxpayer that homes and cars etc. that are privately used can be claimed as business expenses, depreciated and then " sold" to the business owner at less than real value. Worse, I'm outraged that in a divorce when that tax fraud becomes known, that the judges and lawyers don't call the IRS!
I am outraged that the rules have been changed so that repeated claims for the need for " more discovery" can postpone a case for years without any contempt hearing for none payment.
I'm outraged as a neighbor that a house can be allowed to fall into such disrepair that it adversely affects my property value!
I am outraged at the consequences for children.
But, I am not, nor have I ever been at risk even though I was once a child of divorce.
My father was an honorable man and none of his children ever had to worry about their mother's well being , much less their own.
Protective laws existed then, but he went beyond anything required. Unlike too many men today, he was not a selfish, money hungry, punitive prick. His reputation in the community was something he regarded as priceless!
He never said an unkind word about my mother to anyone as he knew she was OUR mother. Even though she was responsible for their divorce, he always said, " I'm grateful to her for giving me these wonderful sons and daughter.
That is what it means to be honorable. Honorable people, not just the spouses, but the attorneys as well, have some respect for the possible " collateral damage" in a divorce. They can look beyond their monetary self-interest.
Fortunately, I married an honorable man. And, one who admired his father in law for good reason.
Do not confuse bitterness with compassion for my friends and with concern for what this is doing to society.
And, if you, sir are one of those husbands who keep your wife ignorant of finances, then when she outlives you. if you stay together, don't be surprised if she's a sitting duck for every dishonorable man out there who will "volunteer" to " help" her since YOU didn't.
I know where every dime and asset we have are. I understand our tax filings. The honorable man I'm married to wouldn't have it any other way.
Your reaction 9:40 am should have been at least curiosity. So, I suspect , you are one of those "bitter" white guys who feels " oppressed" these days because you can't compete without being able to oppress others!
Pity the guy married to that whack job.
Wow.
12:46 has some valid points but will never persuade anyone, anywhere, with such long-winded screeds.
yes, reading is such a chore, isn't it, 3:02 pm?
And, opinions are far more valid when they are based on snappy lines!
LOL 1:39 pm Given that men far younger than I, as well as those my age and older still make passes , and that my husband wakes up and goes to bed smiling, I don't think he needs your pity,
IF you have a woman in your life at all, she certainly needs mine!
How very male a response Granny. Though I'm disappointed that your braggadocio didn't boast that your Mr. Smiley is equipped like a Clydesdale. Well, I guess we can't have everything!
Well, when your talking with Martians, who apparently don't speak Venusian ...
Did you notice that not one attacked any of the points made, just the person making them?
So I guess divorces that take 7 years to resolve with the money that should be going to support children going to legal fees are " whacko". Expecting a fair and equitable distribution with the least with the needs of minor children as a priority is now a " crazy" idea! Devastating a family so the man can keep every dime he can is the new goal. After all he earned it and stay at home mothers contribute nothing of monetary value to a marriage, right?
So what if grandparents are now supporting grandchildren in such high numbers? That can't possibly have anything to do with how divorces are handled now, can it?
Just Wow. I feel I just stepped away from a lecture by Gloria Steinhem or Bella Abzug or Gloria Alred.
I do hope somebody makes off with that strap-on before that woman gets loose in public with it.
Size? How very male of you Pena!
You probably think women with big boobs can't be frigid!
Any more myths you'd like to share?
ROFLMAO
WOW, what an awesome fucking blog! Great stuff. It is also pretty educational. I haven't been exposed to these kinds of issues, having never been through a divorce, nor having any close friends or relatives having been through one. How very sad indeed, if our state of the law has become so tilted. And, yes, I'm a happily married male that has been lucky enough to escape what about 50% of the country has experienced - a divorce. Now that I think about it, I preferred being ignorant. I'm just kind of depressed reading this stuff. Shit, this wasn't such a good blog after all!!
Ok, depressing or not, it's a really good dialogue. And, I really wasn't aware of this.
Now don't go making any passes at Granny 12:34 PM no matter how irresistible you find her.
The Godwin countdown is on.
LOL 3:17 pm Good advice as Granny would have to very gently burst your bubble! And, alas, you guys just can't resist the appeal of that which you can't have!
Post a Comment