- 16 -
case, such approval does not operate as a waiver of counsel’s
objections to the terms of the order or the application of
substantive law in the order). We believe that the signature of
Ms. Miller’s attorney in this case merely signified that Ms.
Miller’s attorney had reviewed and approved the form of the
Permanent Orders while preserving Ms. Miller’s right to appeal
from the rulings reflected in the Permanent Orders. See id.
The signature requirement of section 152(e)(2) demands more
than simply an acknowledgment regarding form; the signature of
the custodial parent must confirm the custodial parent’s
intention to release the dependency exemption to the noncustodial
parent and signify her agreement not to claim the dependency
exemption herself. The signature of Ms. Miller’s attorney
approving the form of the Permanent Orders does not satisfy the
mandate of section 152(e)(2).8
Is the Signature of the State Court Judge on the Permanent Orders
Sufficient To Satisfy the Signature Requirement of Sec.
152(e)(2)?
Mr. Lovejoy’s principal argument is that the Permanent
Orders are sufficient to establish his entitlement to the
dependency exemptions because the State court gave him the right
to claim them on his tax returns. Ms. Miller and respondent
8Our conclusion is limited to the facts of this case. We do
not decide whether there are any circumstances under which the
signature of a custodial parent’s attorney can ever satisfy the
signature requirement of sec. 152(e)(2).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011