 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barrett v. Barrett4/26/2005
imony and report his findings to the Court . . . on the issues of spousal support and equitable distribution."
On May 12, 2003 and June 3, 2003, the commissioner received evidence pursuant to the decree of reference. During the proceedings, at which both parties were present and testified, husband continued to act pro se, examining witnesses, and presenting evidence in his own behalf. The commissioner heard testimony from Scott Etherton, a lawyer who had known husband and wife during their marriage, regarding the parties' marriage at the time of their separation and the success of husband's law practice. He also heard testimony from Hayden Dubay, husband's former employer at the Injury Law Center of H.I. Dubay, P.C. Dubay testified that he terminated husband's employment with the firm for misconduct, namely, for having an inappropriate relationship with one of the firm's female employees, and for viewing pornography on his computer at work. Dubay stated that when husband was fired, he took with him numerous case files on which he had been the responsible attorney. Dubay, with twenty-three years' experience as a personal injury lawyer, also testified as an expert, estimating the likely fees to be gained from the case files husband took from his firm ranged between $80,000 and $160,000. Husband did not contest Dubay's qualifications as an expert to value the case files in issue or husband's law practice. He did object, however, to Dubay's being allowed to testify in any manner, arguing that wife had violated discovery rules, i.e., that she had not identified Dubay as an expert to be called in response to his specific discovery request. The commissioner permitted Dubay's testimony, finding that it would aid him in making recommendations to the trial court as to the value of the marital estate.
During the two hearings, the commissioner received multiple exhibits from the parties relating to their claims of marital debts and assets. From the evidence, the commissioner found that, during the eleven-year marriage, wife was the primary caregiver for the parties' infant children and that she made substantial non-monetary contributions to the well-being of the family. He found that wife had received an undergraduate degree in education, had taken graduate level courses in education, but had never worked as a teacher and had never acquired a teaching certificate. He also found that wife assisted husband in establishing his practice, working as his secretary and meeting with clients in their home. He found that during the marriage, husband attended law school, during which time he also worked part-time as an investigator for the Dubay firm. After graduation, husband was employed for three years as an attorney in the Dubay firm until he was fired for misconduct. Thereafter, husband established a separate personal injury law practice, operating as The Injury Institute of Virginia, P.L.C. Among the exhibits received by the commissioner was a detailed listing, compiled by husband, of the parties' debts and assets and their respective values as of July 21, 2001, the agreed valuation date.
The commissioner filed his report, including the exhibits and transcripts of the testimony, with the trial court on July 11, 2003. Based on evidence he obtained from the parties, and considering the factors set out in Code ยง 20-107.3(E), "especially, husband's negative non-monetary contributions," the commissioner recommended that husband be apportioned all of the marital debt without monetary contribution from wife, that the tangible personal property in possession of each party be retained as the separate property of the party possessing it, and that no monetary adjustments be awarded for any difference in value. He
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|