Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal

Fake Service – Missouri Court of Appeal didn’t bite in Schwermer vs. Schwermer

When the Court of Appeal busts a lower court judge…it’s always a bit of a surprise.

Albeit a welcome surprise.  Which was why this Opinion by the Court of Appeal, was so richly layered.

The machinations of the divorce and custody are seldom so well documented.  In the ten years this site has been documenting cases, attorneys, fake attorneys, fake therapists, and judges with mental problems, in California the Tharp case remains one of the best examples of the court of appeal justices doing their homework.

What’s also clear from this case is litigants falling down on the job of protecting their rights, and attorneys who were less than “zealous” on behalf of their clients.

Watch this space for further developments regarding the nation’s worst, family court judges.

We keep track so you don’t have to.

California:  Oy.

San Diego Court of Appeal.  The last fallout from Judge Gregy Pollack’s
“Pay your rapist’s legal fees” is “immediate reunification” with the boys after the rapists is out of prison.   Harrris vs. Harris 
to be heard.  (Dateline’s coverage of the case omitted Judge Pollack’s identity.)

Best example of the Court of Appeal righting wrongs is the Tharp vs. Tharp which demonstrates just how badly collusion permeates the divorce and custody industry.

Lake County attorney running for judge, Judy Conard was just spanked by the Court of Appeal, for filing frivolous Appeal on behalf of her rich client, (no news there) Theodore Parfet.  The court wrote:  “The complete lack of merit of the appeal supports the inference that the only motive for this appeal was delay,”

Attorney malpractice

Shifren vs. Spiro.
  Case stemmed from a marital dissolution and what’s separate, and community property.  Attorneys for defense presented weak argument because they couldn’t count.

Abuse of discretion
 .  As this happens more often than most suspect, we made a separate page featuring this type of judicial abuse.

Content copyright 2019. Family Law Courts. All rights reserved.