The Divorce Papers: A Novel (10 page)
Read The Divorce Papers: A Novel Online
Authors: Susan Rieger
Tags: #Fiction, #Contemporary Women, #Humorous, #Literary
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 31, 1999
Maria M. Durkheim
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Mrs. Durkheim:
I am following up on Sophie Diehl’s letter to you on the subject of legal representation by Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski. She sent me a copy. As you know, Sophie was standing in for me at the intake interview. I was in Ireland, visiting my grandparents.
Sophie is not being falsely modest when she advises you to choose another lawyer in the firm. She is a competent criminal lawyer, but she knows nothing, as she herself admits, about civil law and civil procedure, let alone the ins and outs of matrimonial law. I join her in urging you to go with a more experienced practitioner. I’ve read Sophie’s write-up of your interview, and I anticipate problems. Your husband’s decision to retain Kahn & Boyle must be seen as a very hostile, very aggressive move; K&B regards any settlement that provides for alimony or child support for children over the age of 18 as a case of bad lawyering.
I stand ready to help in any way I can, as of course do Felix Landau and David Greaves. All three of us have extensive experience with separation, divorce, and custody actions. If you’d like to discuss the subject of your representation, I’d be happy to speak with you.
Sincerely yours,
Fiona McGregor
KAHN & BOYLE
46 B
ROADWAY
N
EW
S
ALEM
, N
ARRAGANSETT
06555
(393) 876-4343
A
TTORNEYS AT
L
AW
March 30, 1999
Mrs. Maria Durkheim
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Maria:
On February 15, this law firm, on behalf of your husband, Dr. Daniel Durkheim, served you with a Summons and Complaint for Divorce with a Return Date of 20 days, calculated as March 8, 1999. It is now March 30 and we still have not heard from you or your lawyers. Would you please acknowledge receipt of the Summons and Complaint? For your information, we enclose a Notice of Automatic Court Orders and inform you that they have been in effect since the day you were served, a fact independent consultation with counsel will confirm.
We are in the process of drafting a separation and custody agreement. Your husband wishes to conclude the agreement within the statutory 90 days of the Return Date, so that the Interim Decree may issue on day 91, June 7, 1999, and the final decree, the Decree Nisi, may issue 90 days later, on September 6, 1999. Given the substantial economic resources of both you and your husband, we do not anticipate either protracted negotiations or a trial.
In the interest of promoting an early disposition of this matter, Dr. Durkheim is closing your joint checking account as of April 1. Other measures indicating a separation of property may be taken shortly.
We look forward to hearing from you or your attorney.
Sincerely yours,
Ray Kahn, Esq.
Commonwealth of Narragansett
Family Court
| County: Tyler | | Docket No: 99-27 |
Notice of Automatic Court Orders
| Daniel E. Durkheim | | Plaintiff |
| | v. | |
| Maria M. Durkheim | | Defendant |
The following Automatic Orders shall apply to both parties where the plaintiff has filed a complaint of dissolution, legal separation, or annulment against the defendant. The Automatic Orders shall be effective with regard to the plaintiff upon the signing of the complaint and with regard to the defendant upon service and shall remain in place during the pendency of the action, unless terminated, modified, or amended by further order of the courts upon motion of either of the parties. The Return Date for Service in this proceeding is:
March 8, 1999
1.
Neither party shall sell,
transfer, encumber, conceal, assign,
remove, or in any way dispose of any property
individually or jointly held by the parties
without the consent of the other party in writing or an order of the court, except
in the usual course of business or
for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney fees in connection with this action.
2.
Neither party shall incur unreasonable debts hereafter,
including but not limited to further borrowing against any credit line secured by the family residence, further encumbrancing any assets, or unreasonably using credit cards or cash advances against credit cards.
3. The parties shall each complete and exchange sworn financial statements by:
April 7, 1999
(or 30 days after the Return Date). The parties may thereafter enter and submit to the court a stipulated order allocating income and expenses, in accord with the Uniform Child Support Guidelines.
4.
The Case Management Date for this case is:
May 7, 1999
(no earlier than 60 days after the Return Date). If custody or visitation is contested or if any financial issues are disputed, the parties must agree to a schedule of discovery deadlines or appear with their attorney in court on the Case Management Date.
5.
Neither party shall permanently remove the minor child or children from the Commonwealth of Narragansett, without written consent of the other or order of the court.
6.
The parties, if they have a minor child or children, shall participate in the Parent Education Program before:
May 7, 1999
(60 days of the Return Date).
7. Neither party shall cause the other party or the children of the marriage to be removed from any medical, hospital, and dental insurance coverage, and each party shall maintain the existing medical, hospital, and dental insurance coverage in full force and effect.
8.
Neither party shall change the beneficiaries of any existing life insurance policies,
and each party shall maintain the existing life insurance, automobile insurance, and homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies in full force and effect.
9.
If the parties are living together on the date of service of these orders, neither party may deny the other party use of the current primary residence of the parties,
whether it be owned or rented property, without court order.
10. If the parents of minor children live apart during a divorce or dissolution proceeding, they shall assist their children in having contact with both parties, which is consistent with the habits of the family, personally, by telephone, and in writing.
By Order of the Court
Failure to obey these Orders may be punishable by contempt of court. If you object to or seek modification of these orders during the pendency of the action, you have the right to a hearing before a judge within a reasonable time.
Filed:
February 15, 1999
MARIA DURKHEIM
404 ST. CLOUD STREET
NEW SALEM, NA 06556
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
| From: | Sophie Diehl |
| To: | David Greaves |
| RE: | Matter of Durkheim |
| Date: | April 5, 1999 |
| Attachments: | Acceptance of Service (draft) |
| | Notice of Appearance (draft) |
| | Answer (draft) |
| | Certificate of Service (draft) |
| | Letter to Maria Durkheim from Ray Kahn |
| | Notice of Automatic Orders |
| | Note to Daniel Durkheim from Maria Durkheim |
I’ve drafted the official documents (the Acceptance of Service, the Notice of Appearance, the Answer, and the Certificate of Service) using office forms. At the end of the Answer, I ask the Court to dismiss the action? Is that right? What does that mean? In a criminal case, if the case is dismissed, the prisoner goes free—until they re-indict. In a divorce, if the case is dismissed, the parties remain incarcerated. I will never get the hang of this.
Mrs. Durkheim forwarded to me a letter, dated March 30, from her husband’s shyster lawyer, Ray Kahn. It included a belated copy of the Notice of Automatic Orders, which should have gone out with the summons and complaint, and legal advice, which he shouldn’t have given to his client’s wife, on the effect of those Orders. Can I tell Mr. Kahn that his deadlines all have to be pushed back because Mrs. Durkheim didn’t receive the Orders until April 1? Can I tell him he shouldn’t give her legal advice?
On April 1, Dr. Durkheim closed out the checking account he had with his wife. By my reading of Automatic Order # 1, he shouldn’t have done that without her written consent. Do I make a fuss about it? (Mrs. Durkheim didn’t sound upset about it—though she did send her husband a saber-rattling note in return. I didn’t know American WASPs were so explosive. There might be an audience out there for her Collected Letters.)
What I don’t get about civil litigation is the relative importance of things. In a criminal case, we fight tooth and nail over everything. It’s all trees, no forest. You never know what will persuade the jury or the judge to go your way. Is it the same here? Do I challenge everything the other side does? Do I bury them in motions and contempt orders? What do I let slide? What do I insist on?
Dr. Durkheim’s strategy seems to be to starve his wife into submission, so to speak, by closing the checking account and generally shutting off the funds. Should we make a motion for temporary support? Should I garnish his salary? Can you imagine how enraged he would be if we got a court order against him withholding temporary child support and alimony from his hospital salary? The thought of it makes me light-headed and giddy.
Kahn says in his letter that he is preparing an offer. Isn’t that a bit premature? Formal discovery hasn’t begun. Is Kahn assuming that he can proceed because Mrs. Durkheim has handled the family finances during the marriage? What do we do about possible hidden assets? Do we need to hire a private investigator? (Query: Are men who mess around more or less likely to hide assets than men who don’t mess around? Are the two pathologies related?)
Kahn also says in his letter that he doesn’t expect the negotiations to be complicated or protracted in light of both parties’ “substantial economic resources.” Is that code for no alimony? I can understand a marriage ending; what I can’t understand is the way people end it. Doesn’t the doctor recognize any obligation to his wife? She left New York and gave up her job, her friends, her 4 rms riv vu so he could take his great big job at Mather. My mother always says, never make sacrifices for your husband or children; they hold it against you forever. I say we ask for seven fat years of alimony, to compensate for the seven lean years she spent in New Salem. This may be known as the Pharaoh’s Dream doctrine of divorce.
Mrs. Durkheim says her husband wants the St. Cloud Street house. I anticipate he will offer to give up any claims he might have to the Martha’s Vineyard house in return. That strikes me as untenable. He has no claim to the Vineyard house. First of all, Mrs. Durkheim inherited her share of the house before her marriage. Second, she and her father hold the house in trust as tenants in the entirety, which means neither can sell or otherwise transfer his or her share to anyone else; the survivor takes all. If the doctor wants a share, he’ll have to stick it out until his father-in-law dies. Correct?