- 5 -
Mr. Raymond and Ms. Raymond anticipated filing a joint
return for 1990, and they did not designate in the support
stipulation that was incorporated into the temporary order that a
portion of the 1991 temporary order payments was alimony and that
a portion of such payments was child support. At no time during
1990 or 1991 did the Probate Court conduct a review of the 1991
temporary order payments or take any other action with respect to
those payments. Nor did Mr. Raymond and Ms. Raymond enter into a
stipulation or agreement during 1990 or 1991 that superseded the
support stipulation that was incorporated into the temporary
order. However, during September 1991, Mr. Freiberg, Mr. Ray-
mond's attorney, and Robert L. Hernandez (Mr. Hernandez), whom
Ms. Raymond employed (in lieu of Ms. Foley) to represent her in
the divorce proceedings sometime after the support stipulation
was executed, exchanged letters on behalf of their respective
clients in an unsuccessful attempt to clarify and modify certain
matters relating to that support stipulation.
On April 27, 1992, the Probate Court entered a judgment of
divorce nisi relating to Mr. Raymond's claim for divorce and a
judgment of divorce nisi relating to Ms. Raymond's counterclaim
for divorce. (Those two judgments are referred to collectively
as the 1992 divorce judgments.) The 1992 divorce judgments
provided in pertinent part:
Husband is to pay to wife the sum of $2,600.00 per
month beginning May 1, 1992 as alimony and child sup-
port ($1,000.00 of which is alimony and which shall
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011