Divorce Support Forums: HELP NEED SOME OPINIONS ANSWER GUY?

===========================================================
From what I have read and what my lawyer has said is a judge will say my house is pre-marital property and she can not touch it. My fear is that somehow a judge will sympathize
with her for some reason and not call my house pre-marital property. Can a judge change the law as he or she sees fit?
===========================================================

A judge most certainly CAN change the law, as he sees fit, provided that he is an Appeals Court Judge and is upholding the opinion (or "overturning" it) of a lower court. One need look no farther than many well-known Supreme Court cases to see this, if the law is deemed inconsistent with "higher" or "superior" law.

Alternatively, the Appeals Court may "interpret" a lower court's decision in a new manner, theretofore unthought of in the given circumstances and inconsistent with what, to all honest observers, has been the way the law has been interpreted in the past. One has to look no farther than "Murff vs. Murff" in Texas, and compare it to the Texas Family Code, Sec. 2.003., to see what I am talking about. The Family Code calls for a mandated 50/50 division of marital property, yet Murff v. Murff declares that "any number of considerations" may determine the division of such assets, including "the needs of the parties"! As far as I can determine, both of these laws are now, simultaneously, being applied in Texas Family Courts, and the outcome of a given case is determined by which particular version of law the judge likes!

Indeed, there are even states where everything a married person has is considered to belong one-half to his spouse (LOL), whether acquired by inheritance or work prior to marriage, etc., upon operation of the theory that "When you get married, you stop being two people and become one. Therefore, you acquire one-half of everything your spouse has and ever will have". I would just like to know one thing: Is there something about law and politics (with apologies to J.W. Bush) which attracts nincompoops?

All the above is not the real outrage, but rather the fact that who "wins" the divorce apparently depends not on law or even reason, but rather upon which party can pay for the best attorney and the most appeals! You could face a decision clearly in violation of law, but which it could cost you a fortune to reverse, IF YOU CAN. For various political reasons Courts Of Appeals are loath to reverse decisons of lower courts, but lawyers are nonetheless happy to take the money for the appeal.

I think it may have been Lincoln who said, "If a court says that two and two are five, then two and two ARE five, until a higher court reverses the ruling"!

Edited by jbar (09/24/07 07:17 AM)

Post Extras