- 3 -
The custody order provided a detailed schedule of placement that
was to operate on 2-week intervals. The custody order granted
physical placement of the children with petitioner for 3 days in
the first week and 4 days in the second week. Ms. Brittingham
was granted physical placement of the children for 4 days in the
first week and 3 days in the second week. This 2-week placement
schedule was to be maintained as long as the custody order was in
effect. Additionally, the custody order provided that neither
petitioner nor Ms. Brittingham would seek child support payments
from the other. The custody order was silent as to which parent
could claim dependency exemptions for Federal income tax
purposes.
Petitioner lived in and maintained the family home after the
divorce. Petitioner and Ms. Brittingham reached an agreement at
the time of the divorce whereby Ms. Brittingham deeded her
interest in the family home to petitioner.1
Petitioner began to experience financial difficulties in
1997. He claimed that the divorce had detrimental effects on his
credit. Petitioner stopped making mortgage payments on the
family home at the end of 1996 or in early 1997. The family home
was foreclosed upon in August or September of 1998. After
relinquishing the family home to foreclosure, petitioner was
1 It cannot be determined from the record if the
agreement was a part of or incorporated into the divorce decree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011