Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
8Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ERBS Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law

ERBS Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 416|Likes:
Published by tpepperman

More info:

Published by: tpepperman on Oct 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
State of WisconsinCircuit CourtChippewa CountyBranch IIIJeffrey P. ErbsPetitioner vs.CASE NO. 10 FA 11Mary Ann ErbsRespondentPetitioner Jeffrey P. ErbsFindings of Facts and Conclusions of LawComes now, Jeffrey P. Erbs upon Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, whereby it is found that:1.Pamela Veith has been a Vexatious Litigator in these proceedings, whereby Judge Isaacson hasfound Probable Cause as required by John Doe Proceeding to forward motion of the District Attorney.2.The parties were married in October of 2003.3.Jeffrey P. Erbs is disabled, and was deemed so in 2002 (NEBF) then again in 2007 (SSDI)4.Mary Ann Erbs is employed, full time.5.Mary Ann Erbs is of the age to retire, whereby her Pension is now defined as Retirement,without ability to revert to another definition.6.Jeffrey P. Erbs is fully disabled, and unable to work, as evidenced throughout the marriage.7.It is not feasible that Jeffrey P. Erbs can ever become Self-Supporting, as evidence throughoutthe marriage, and throughout these proceedings.8.Jeffrey P. Erbs has no Income.9.Mary Ann Erbs knew of Jeffrey P. Erbs disability prior to the marriage, and, as per her testimony, and exhibits paid his rent on his home, prior to the marriage, establishing Maintainance,whereby there was never an expectation of reciprocation, or other compensation.10.This court, finds no jurisdiction regarding Jeffrey P. Erbs pension moneys spent prior to theDivorce Petition, as this court has not found criteria to meet Disposal, having not been wasted,transferred, or otherwise unaccounted for.11.Jeffrey and Mary Ann both agree that there were home improvements made, and that Mary Anndid not pay for them out of the M&I Account.12.Jeffrey and Mary Ann filed their taxes, Married, filing Jointly up until, now. Mary Ann hasalways signed, and filed her taxes with Jeffrey allowing Knowledge of all moneys and expenditures.13.As evidenced in these proceedings, Mary Ann did not submit a proposal, nor did she object toJeffrey's whereby this court is to Presume she was in agreement to Jeffrey's proposal. The law does notallow Mary Ann to now, maintain that because she did not want certain items, wherein she made noclaim to them, that she should otherwise be compensated for such gifts, nor should she maintainReservation of Rights superior to Jeffrey's.

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Gerrit Timmerman liked this
packagingwiz liked this
lawrece_acc5589 liked this
lawrece_acc5589 liked this
my_nana liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->