- 13 - The Florida court did find the petitioner in contempt for failure to provide one [sic] the assets ordered to be liquidated while accepting that the other assets were surrendered as ordered. The court did provide an order stating the alimony payments were not made but later reversed this finding after being provided with the same information provided to this court. * * * Petitioner’s argument that assets were liquidated in compliance with the September 8, 1994, order is completely at odds with findings made by the State Court in the supplemental final judgment. Among those findings are the following: (1) The Court found that the Former Husband, Robert L. Stahl, willfully violated the Order of this Court dated September 8, 1994 and refused to pay the child support or pay to or on behalf of the Former Wife the Hughes IRA account and other assets so as to pay the unallocated child support and alimony. * * * (2) It is this Court’s interpretation of the Former Husband’s actions that he is willing to take any action including voluntarily going to jail to avoid his obligations to his family and his disabled child. (3) [T]he Former Husband has made it clear that he has no intentions of paying any support as Ordered by this Court or complying with lawful Judgments of this Court. He has dissipated or hidden every asset which he could control since the pendency of this action. There is no evidence that, as claimed by petitioner, the State Court reversed its finding that alimony payments were not made. Moreover, there is no evidence to support petitioner’s calumnious claim that Ms. Hobson’s attorney defalcated. Petitioner was not a credible witness. Petitioner has failed to prove that, during 1994 (or 1995), in compliance with the September 8, 1994, order, any proceeds from a liquidation of hisPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011