Stephenson v. Stephenson
v.
Sharrie Stephenson, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Donald L. Jorgensen
| Appellee: | Paul Henry Myerchin | |
| Appellant: | Jaclyn Marie Stebbins |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Whether the district court's decision was clearly erroneous when it did not make a provision whereby Dan was required to pay Sharrie the 25% award of Dan's DOD retirement account from the parties' 1994 divorce judgment.
II. Whether the district court's decision was clearly erroneous in its division of Dan's retirement accounts by awarding Sharrie only a $90,000 payment for her marital interest in the retirement accounts.
III. Whether the district court's decision was clearly erroneous in its disparate division of the parties' personal assets.
IV. Whether the district court's decision was clearly erroneous in its award of $3,000 in permanent spousal support to Sharrie despite its finding that Sharrie is seriously disadvantaged.
V. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it ordered Dan to pay only $10,000 to Sharrie for her attorney's fees.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether Judge Jorgensen's equitable division of Dan and Sharrie's marital estate was clearly erroneous when Judge Jorgensen, utilizing the Ruff-Fischer Guidelines, ordered Dan to pay Sharrie $90,000; ordered Dan pay all marital debt; awarded Sharrie a house and car debt- free; and required Dan to pay Sharrie $3,000 per month in permanent spousal support.
II. Whether Sharrie is requesting a form of double-recovery from this Court by claiming Judge Jorgensen committed clear error for not awarding her over $100,000 from Dan's Department of Defense (DOD) pension, despite the fact she never sought to enforce her claim to an alleged award under the parties' previous divorce judgment and especially when one considers that the monies Dan received from his military pension went to the benefit of his family.
III. Whether Judge Jorgensen's award of $3,000 permanent spousal support to Sharrie was clearly erroneous despite Dan providing direct support to Sharrie of $3,250 per month during the four years of separation; Sharrie having not accumulated appreciable assets even though she received this financial support from Dan; and Dan's ability to pay spousal support upon his retirement will be greatly reduced.
IV. Whether Judge Jorgensen's $10,000 award to Sharrie for attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion when the $10,000 award would have covered 96% of her attorney fees in August 2009 and Sharrie caused the drastic increase in her legal expenses by bringing the matter back to Court three additional times for the Court to reconsider its rulings.
Add Docket 20100237 RSS