COMES NOW, Petitioner, and responds to Respondent’s Response to Notice and Request for Reconsideration of Sanction, and states as follows:
1. Though Respondent did “agree” to pay Petitioner $711.81, her pro rata portion of the children’s uninsured medical expenses incurred since November 2007, Petitioner believed that arbitration was necessary, as Respondent has made multiple past claims of agreement to pay, and has always failed to follow through on payment, even making claims that payment has actually been made—including false check numbers and payment dates—when payment has not been made.
2. The fact that Respondent would not agree to pay sums due prior to arbitration, but rather after arbitration, caused Petitioner to believe that Respondent was using her offer of agreement as a way to manipulate Petitioner into dropping his request for arbitration so Respondent could get out of paying sums due.
3. Additionally, Petitioner believed that the arbitrator could issue a judgment for the sums due, thereby reducing the issues at hand for the Court during the May 14, 2008 hearing. Petitioner communicated this to Respondent’s counsel, via e-mail, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
4. During arbitration on May 8, 2008, Respondent agreed to the sums due Petitioner, and agreed to pay the sums due on May 9, 2008, via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), which would result in an immediate and traceable credit to Petitioner’s bank account. Petitioner provided Respondent’s counsel with his bank account number and bank routing number on May 8, 2008. Memorandum of Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
5. No deposit was made to Petitioner’s bank account on May 9, 2008. Petitioner notified Respondent’s counsel on May 10, 2008 that he had not received the payment in the amount of $711.81.
6. Respondent’s counsel provided a transaction number to Petitioner as verification that this payment had been made. However, Petitioner was advised by the bank that only Respondent could verify because she was the account holder.
7. Petitioner sent e-mail to Respondent’s counsel, notifying counsel that only the account holder could verify the transaction number, requesting another form of verification of payment, and offering to schedule a conference call with the bank to verify that payment had been made, prior to the May 14, 2008 hearing. E-mail between Petitioner and Respondent’s counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
8. Respondent’s counsel replied again with the transaction number, but did not offer any additional proof of payment, nor agree to the conference call with the bank.
9. Respondent’s counsel was to sign and return the Memorandum of Agreement to the arbitrator, so that the Agreement could be filed with the Court. However, as of May 13, 2008, the arbitrator had not received a signed agreement from Respondent’s counsel. E-mail from the arbitrator stating such is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
10. Because of the reasons listed above, Petitioner had reason to believe that Respondent had not made payment.
11. During the May 14, 2008 hearing, the Court requested proof of payment of the $711.81, as well as proof of the payments Respondent claimed to have made towards the $1044.39 Respondent was ordered to pay during the November 1, 2007 hearing, from Respondent.
12. Respondent again offered the transaction number as proof of payment of the $711.81 and offered no proof that any payments had been made toward the $1044.39 in outstanding medical expenses. The Court advised Respondent and her counsel that the transaction number could not be verified and requested another form of proof of payment.
13. Respondent did not provide any further proof of payment to the Court or to Petitioner.
14. Petitioner believed that the Court’s sanction of $1423.62 against Respondent was a punishment for her continued Contempt of Court, and did not include the $711.81, as Respondent is already Court ordered to pay for her pro rata share of the children’s uninsured medical expenses. It was Respondent’s continued failure to pay these expenses that resulted in the Court-imposed sanction.
15. On May 23, 2008, Respondent deposited $642.00 directly into Petitioner’s account, but did not communicate to Petitioner the purpose of the deposit.
16. Because May 23, 2008 coincided with Respondent’s pay date, Petitioner believed the funds to be for child support ($500) and payment towards outstanding medical expenses ($142) for April 2008, which totaled $157.48 and had been communicated to Respondent via e-mail on May 15, 2008. Petitioner tried to clarify the purpose of the funds deposited by sending e-mail to Respondent and Respondent’s counsel, but received no response. E-mail from Petitioner to Respondent and Respondent’s counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
17. On May 27, 2008, Respondent deposited an additional $70.00 directly into Petitioner’s bank account, but again did not communicate to Petitioner the purpose of the deposit.
18. Petitioner denies Respondent’s claims that he filed the Notice to the Court in a vexatious or harassing manner, or in order to confuse matters before the Court. Instead, Petitioner notified the Court of Respondent’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders based on the reasons listed above.
19. If the Court’s intention was for the $711.81 in Respondent’s pro rata portion of the children’s uninsured medical expenses to be included in the $1423.62, and if Respondent wishes to allocate the $642 and the $70 deposits toward the $1423.62, Petitioner agrees that the total of $1423.62 has been paid. However, Respondent is then in Contempt of Court for non-payment of child support and again for non-payment of her pro rata portion of the children’s uninsured medical expenses.
20. If the Court’s intention was for the $1423.62 to represent a sanction against Respondent, and did not include the $711.81 in Respondent’s pro rata portion of the children’s uninsured medical expenses, then Respondent will still owe a balance of $711.62 and will be in Contempt of Court for non-payment of child support and again for non-payment of her pro rata portion of the children’s uninsured medical expenses.
21. Petitioner requests that the Court not reconsider its sanction of Respondent for the following reasons:
- Respondent had ample time prior to the May 14, 2008 hearing to provide proof of payment, but failed to do so;
- Arbitration would have been unnecessary had Respondent paid her pro rata portion of the children’s uninsured medical expenses as they were provided to her by Petitioner and as directed by order of the Court, rather than waiting seven months to do so;
- It was Respondent’s failure to pay any portion of the $1044.39 she was ordered to pay in the Order of November 2, 2007 that prompted Petitioner to file the third Contempt of Court motion;
- Respondent had ample time (seven months) to attempt to make payment of the $1044.39, or of additional medical expenses, but did not do so, prompting the Court to find her in Contempt of Court for the third time;
- Respondent has still not made payment of the $1044.39, causing Petitioner to file a Writ of Garnishment in order to collect sums due; and
- Reversing sanctions for Respondent’s consistent failure to abide by orders of the Court would encourage Respondent to continue to ignore Court Orders.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court clarify its intention with regard to the sanctions issued against Respondent.
Petitioner also respectfully requests that the Court NOT reconsider sanction of Respondent ; and for such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Gah.
It will never end. She’s a loon. And her FAP is even worse…
Recent Comments