- 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 his
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