11232009 - Divorce Court Hearing Transcripts - Ex's attempt to have me removed from marital home in violation of his probation/criminal no-contact order - CAUSE NO: 64D01-0708-DR-7804/Porter County Superior Court, Valparaiso IN

At this hearing, my ex wanted me removed from the home so he could have possession of it. I had possession of the home since August 2007 when my ex had been removed from the home by the police via a protective order. Per the Indiana Protective Order Act, I would retain possession of the home during the duration of the protective order - which was to remain in effect until ALL matters concerning the divorce were concluded.IC 34-26-5-9 -Relief; Effective dates; Violations - Indiana Protective Order Act
http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2013/06/indiana-protective-order-act-ic-34-26-5_15.html　
　
In addition, my ex was on probation for his threat to kill me. Conditions of his probation included his exclusion from the marital home:Ex's Criminal Conviction - PPO as condition of probation - September 21, 2009
http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2009/09/exs-criminal-conviction-ppo-as.html


　
　
During this hearing, my was attempting to have the maintenance order and the provisional orders revoked. My ex claimed he was unemployed. However, my ex did not produce any documentation to the court regarding his unemployment status. During his testimony, my ex claimed that he was receiving unemployment from Illinois. If he was unemployed and receiving unemployment, he would have received in through Indiana [his driver's license and CDL at this time was for Portage Indiana].
It was believed that my ex was still working and that he had transferred from Dunkin Donuts Distribution Center in Mokena Illinois to another DD in another state, in order to avoid the wage garnishments for my maintenance; his child support [from his first marriage]; and an unpaid funeral bill [for one of his children].
　
Indiana maintenace and provisional order laws specify that proof must be submitted for revocations and modifications. My ex submitted no proof to his unemployment.

IC 31-15-7-3 - Modification or revocation of order for maintenance
http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2013/06/indiana-family-law-ic-31-15-7-3.html　


IC 31-15-4-15 - Provisional order; revocation or modification
http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2013/06/indiana-family-law-ic-31-15-4-15.html 　
　



Apparantly Magistrate Johnson forgot that my ex had lied about his income at a November 2008 hearing and took my ex's word on his unemployment status [without any documentation]. After this hearing, Johnson reduced my ex's maintenance payments from $400 a week to $200 [which my ex never paid].



Court Transcripts - November 24, 2008 Hearing http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2008/11/court-transcripts-november-24-2008_24.html　

Under Indiana Trial Rule 37, my ex should have been paying my attorney fees, because of his dishonesty in presenting incorrect information regarding his income at the November 2008 hearing.
Rule 37 - Failure to make or cooperate in discovery: Sanctions - Indiana Rules of Trialhttp://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2013/06/rule-37-failure-to-make-or-cooperate-in.html

Magistrate Johnson did not hold my ex in contempt of the maintenance order because he took my ex's word at being unemployed.
　
Magistrate Johnson had not issued a written ruling from the June hearing, regarding the household bills that I was to pay out of the maintenance.

 Court Transcripts - June 24, 2009 Hearing
http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2009/06/court-transcripts-june-24-2009-hearing_24.html

Court Transcripts - June 24, 2009 Hearing

http://abbiandbaileyfromtheheart.blogspot.com/2009/06/court-transcripts-june-24-2009-hearing_24.html

Court Transcripts - November 23, 2009

Attorney Shaw falsely claimed during this hearing that Johnson had directly ordered me to pay the mortgage payment at the June hearing.

I would bring Attorney Shaw's incorrect statement to the court's attention at the April 19, 2010 hearing.

Indiana Rules of Court - Rules of Trial Procedure

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/trial_proc.pdf

November 23, 2009 Court Transcripts:

My ex / Attorney Shaw had no documents / exhibits regarding my ex's income / unemployment status. The only exhibits / documents during this hearing were mine / respondent's.

My testimony regarding my ex not paying my maintenance of $400 per week; I have no funds for the utilities.

For some reason, Attorney Shaw did not want my ex's 401k statement from Dunkin Donuts  admitted into evidence.

Attorney Shaw's cross examination of me - I have to defend my need for a phone when his client / my ex is on probation for threatening to kill me?

My ex and Attorney Shaw submitted no documentation / proof of my ex's unemployment status...They are asking that the maintenance and provisional orders be revoked with no valid proof of income status. They are also asking that my ex not be held in contempt because he is unemployed...

Cross examination of my ex by Attorney Rhame

Examination of my ex by Magistrate Johnson. My ex stated to Johnson, " If you can order for me to get back into my home..."

My ex was on probation and had not one but two protective orders barring him from the residence!

Magistrtate Johnson replies: "I understand what you're asking. Generally I can't issue orders until the evidence is concluded."

No, Johnson cannot go against a protective order and conditions of probation.

Recross examination of my ex by Attorney Rhame. My ex claims that he does not want to take a job driving a truck -which he has done for the past twenty years. Could it be that he was already driving for another company / Dunkin Donuts?

Attorney Rhame - Summation

Attorney Shaw - Rebuttal - Asking that my ex not be held in contempt because he is unemployed - for which they have no proof / documentation.

Magistrate Johnson regarding my dire financial straits - due to my ex not paying the maitenance for almost a year: "So it's not going to get better. It's going to get worse..."  And true to his word, it did - at least for me, as I was forced to live without basic necessities and even utilities.

Magistrate Johnson refused to hold my ex in contempt of the provisional and maintenance orders - Johnson did this without proof of my ex's unemployment status - Johnson went on my ex's and Shaw's word alone.