3rd Court rules in divorce battle over Chihuahua

Let the clichés flow: It’s a dog-eat-dog world. Every dog has his day. A dog is man’s best friend. On Aug. 25, the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin issued a memorandum opinion affirming a trial court’s judgment that allowed Brooke Ashley Calder to keep a Chihuahua named Clementine. Daniel Naeter Calder, who filed for a divorce from Brooke Ashley in 2009, had appealed to the 3rd Court, challenging a trial court’s judgment confirming that Clementine was Brooke’s separate property. The memorandum opinion was issued by a panel of three, including Justices Bob Pemberton and Alan Waldrop and the opinion’s author, Chief Justice J. “Woodie” Woodfin Jones. Jones writes that Clementine was purchased before the marriage took place and therefore was separate, not community, property. The partners in the dissolving marriage agreed about that but disagreed about whose separate property Clementine is. Why? Prior to the marriage, the couple commingled their separate funds in Daniel’s bank account; the disagreement is based on whose money purchased Clementine, the opinion states. Jones notes that Daniel asserted on appeal that no evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the funds Brooke put into Daniel’s account were held there for her benefit. But the chief writes that Daniel and Brooke testified that, after putting her paychecks into his account, he gave her the money either immediately or as she requested it. She put $948 into the account a few days before she purchased Clementine, and she testified that he agreed to let her buy a dog only if her own money paid for it, according to the opinion. The 3rd Court concludes that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment that Clementine belonged to Brooke. Zachary Brandl, an associate with Weinman & Associates in Austin, represents Daniel. Asked how much his client spent on appealing the case, Brandl says, “Too much.” He says he did advise his client not to pursue an appeal of the trial court’s judgment. Brooke’s lawyer, James Arth, an Austin solo, says he handled the case on a pro bono basis and that Amy Lambert, an associate with a firm with which he shares office space, wrote the brief. Lambert, an associate with the Law Office of Jennifer Tull, says it was her first appellate brief. Asked why she chipped in her work pro bono, she says, “I have a dog. When I realized the case was going to appeal, I couldn’t leave her high and dry.” Arth has not yet reached his client, who has moved with Clementine to Manhattan for graduate school, to tell her about the decision. But he left a message. Does Clementine listen to Brooke’s voicemails?

-- Miriam Rozen

Comments

[Anam]

sadly a retianer is JUST that to retian services, not as a refunable amount, you need to understand that anytime you pay a retianer that is for representation, I can promise you that in a DUI case had it of gone to trial that amount would have been over 5,000 grand to start. The attorney obviously did something because your boyfriend is not locked up and did not have to face a jury! Leave the lawyer alone and consider this a lesson! All attorneys get an upfront retianer and then an hourly rate, so its obvious the attorney was within guidelines, I suggest your boyfriend read over his contract I know there was one!Good luck!Eventually, DUI will cause a total license revocation, so he needs to NOT drink and DRIVE!

[Jayson]

Do it on your own. In fact, show up in court in the SAME condition as when you were puelld over, to show the Judge that you weren't drunk!Challenge the blood test by saying that wasn't your blood your vindictive ex-girlfriend MUST have dione a full transfusion on you while you were asleep.Okay, sarcasm OFF.The idea of hiring a lawyer is that the lawyer should be able to present your case well-enough to the prosecutor to get an offer that is BETTER than what you risk by having a trial.Pick a lawyer who has a good background in DUI trials (even if you never plan on going to trial). May be more expensive, but you get what you pay for.And DON'T do anything STUPID like drive during the period your license is suspended (which is probably is, for refusing the breathalyzer, depending on your state). If you NEED to drive, ask the Court for a hardship or restricted license (if one is possible. See? Hiring that lawyer is looking pretty handy, huh?)

[Tommy]

You sort of screwed yoleursf when you submitted to the blood test unless you thought that you were under the legal limit Had you not done that all that you could be charged with was failure to take a chemical test or something to that effect It would of resulted in a AUTOMATIC suspension (6 months in most states, 1st offense), BUT you wouldn't of had to do any alcohol classes or the other activities that are sentenced in a DUI case With that said your best course of action may be to just ask to be appointed a public defender (if your a young person w/o a solid job or a student this is easy), because the sentences for a DUI are pretty standard for a 1st offense as long as there is no extenuating circumstances ( previous reckless driving, this DUI resulted in an accident, ect ) Now if you do find an expensive, connected enough lawyer I have seen people have everything from charges dropped (which would of been easy if you didn't take the blood test) to the standard (~$2000 fine, victim impact panel, and completion of alcohol education classes) So unless this is an case with special circumstances, it may be best to save your money and try to get the public defender..gl

[David]

Hopefully Clementine was happy with Court's decision, which likely could have been resolved by a divorce mediator rather than throught litigation.

[No Win No Fee Scotland]

Find a Texas lawyer offering the type(s) of service, and in the area you need with this free searchable legal directory.
------------
William John

[online dating]

In my opinion it is a lawyers blog.

[online dating]

herein this blog the author of the blog tells something the rule of the court over divorce in Austin.

[nevada divorce attorney]

A rare situation but possible.

[Bobby Scott Mabry, Conroe]

Clementine does listen to her mistress's voicemails, but still can't get over moving her lips when she reads. . .