- 12 -
B. Discussion
The State Court ordered support for Ms. Hodson and Meagan by
the September 8, 1994, order. In the preamble to that order, the
State Court found that Ms. Hodson and Meagan were in need of
support of $2,500 a month. The court also found that, since
petitioner did not have the ability to provide that amount from
earnings, it was necessary to liquidate assets of the parties (to
the divorce case). The court ordered the liquidation of various
assets and the payment of proceeds to Ms. Hodson’s attorney, to
be held in trust for the benefit of Ms. Hodson and Meagan.
Ms. Hodson’s attorney was ordered to pay out $2,500 a month (the
$2,500 payments).
During his testimony in this case, petitioner conceded that
he had no evidence that the $2,500 payments were made. His
argument, as expressed on brief, is as follows:
These payments were made in cash through the
petitioner’s former wife’s attorneys, officers of the
court, by said attorneys liquidating certain assets of
the petitioner and making periodic payments and by
direct payment from the petitioner and through pay role
deduction. The assets liquidated have been summarized
for the court and monies paid in alimony far exceed the
deduction taken by the petitioner. These assets were
not distributed by any other means and a finding that
they were not paid in alimony would return ownership of
these assets to the petitioner. Additionally, since
collection for alimony was the only authority to
liquidate these assets, the officer of the court
executing these liquidations may have defrauded the
United States government and AAL [no definition of the
term “AAL” appears in the record].
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011