05192008 - Court Hearing Transcripts - Divorce Case - CAUSE NO: 64D01-0708-DR-7804/Porter County Superior Court, Valparaiso IN

This settlement was vacated in September 2008, due to both attorneys Rice and Shaw not adhering to Rule 2100 - Mandatory discovery / Financial Declaration forms; deviations between the oral agreement and agreement placed on record; and deviations between the written agreement and the court transcripts.

Attorney Rice led me to believe that we had a court date for contempt charges against my ex and for an increase in my maintenance on May 19, 2008. My ex was refusing to pay my maintenance; repairs on the vehicle; and utilities. He was also violating the protective order.

For some reason, Attorney Rice was adament that my financial advisor not attend this hearing.

When I arrived at the courthouse, I found attorneys Rice and Shaw in a conference room with my ex. Rice sat down with me in another room and told me that my ex was willing to make an immediate cash settlement offer of $50,000 cash. I wasn't prepared for this. My ex had never produced any of his financial records. I balked at the offer and told Rice that I wanted my financial advisor to review any offers.

Rice became impatient with me and told me it was a great offer. He reminded me that I would now be able to go home to Michigan. The more I hesitated, the more Rice reminded me of my chance to go home.

Knowing I wasn't going to budge at this out of the blue offer, Shaw kept walking into the conference room and calling out the time, "She only has x amount of minutes to make a decision. If she doesn't take the offer, Johnson won't hear her case today..."

Finally, both my ex and attorney Shaw came into the conference room and pressured me with promises of $50,000 cash immediately. Shaw and Rice promised me that I would receive $10,000 within 2 days and the remaining $40,000 in cash within two weeks. I buckled under the pressure and manipulation and agreed to the offer.

However, when we got into the courtroom, the $40,000 cash portion of the settlement was put on the record as a 401K distribution [taxes and penalities would eat a large portion of the settlement]. 

In the written order, Attorney Shaw deviated even further from both the oral agreement and the agreement placed on record, and claimed that I was not entitled to any portion of my ex's 401K.

Although Magistrate Johnson listed the discrepanices the attorneys made between the oral agreement; the agreement placed on record; and the written agreement [09182008], as his reason for vacating the May settlement, he did not report the attorneys' dishonesty to the proper authorities.

How many other women were victimized by this type of manipulation and dishonesty by these attorneys?