This idea is in review.
Monster J&D
»
I have had a couple of cases where opposing counsel used the Monster and there were HUGE drafting problems in that the way that property is addressed. Petitioner is awarded ….then lists all of the property award to Petitioner….then Respondent is awarded…..then lists all of the property awarded to Respondent. [In this case], the attorney had listed as part of Petitioner’s property settlement “50% of Respondent’s 401(k)”……but
...more »
I have had a couple of cases where opposing counsel used the Monster and there were HUGE drafting problems in that the way that property is addressed. Petitioner is awarded ….then lists all of the property award to Petitioner….then Respondent is awarded…..then lists all of the property awarded to Respondent. [In this case], the attorney had listed as part of Petitioner’s property settlement “50% of Respondent’s 401(k)”……but then had neglected to award to Respondent in his paragraph the OTHER 50% of the 401(k)…..and attorney drafter had neglected to award and IRA worth $45k to Respondent. -- Member Submission
« less
full details »
Submitted by msbaonline 1 year ago
Social Web