Garden Suite

Topeka, Kansas 66603
Donald R. Hoffman Jason P. Hoffman
George L. Martin, Investigator
Telephone: (785) 233-5887 Facsimile: (785) 233-2173

January 12,2000 Rebecca A. King RILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd. 808 Massachusetts Street Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Re: In the Matter of the Marriage ofRichardson Kansas Court of Appeals No. 99-83905-A Ms. King: Please find enclosed herewith a copy of Appellant's Motion for Summary Disposition filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals today's date. Cordially,

~C?
DONALD R. HOFFM Attorney at Law

DRH/ss Encl: as above cc. client

HALLECK RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellee, vs. CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, Respondent - Appellant.

)
)
)
) )
)
)
)

Case No. 99-83905-A

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION COMES NO:'.V the Appellee above named, by and through counsel Donald R. Hoffman, and moves Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 to enter an Order an Order of Summary Disposition with respect to Appellant's claims of error. In support thereof, the Court is shown:
1. Appellant purports to claim error with respect to the District Court's Order to Enforce

Prior Order, Order Establishing Supervised Visitation, Order for Hearing on Child Support, Order on Motion to Change Venue and Order Amending Prior Decision Regarding Surname, entered June 28, 1999 CR. XlI, at 32); 2. Said orders stem from the District Court's Journal Entry of Divorce filed October 29, 1997 CR. I, at 313) portions of which were the subject of Appellant's first unsuccessful appeal to this Court. The Court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion with respect to ordering Appellant to move back to the Topeka area and did not violate Appellant's constitutional rights. In the Matter of the

Marriage of Richardson, No. 80,304, memo op. at 5 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 1998). While the issue of the parties' minor child's "best interests" was not raised by Appellant at that stage, this Court addressed it by stating:

the testimony of the guardian ad litem and the court services officer provides substantial competent evidence to support the court's decision. Consequently, the mere fact that Dombrowski must decide whether to move or forfeit some of her rights to custody does not establish an abuse of discretion.

Id. at 4-5.
3. Appellant filed her Petition for Review with the Kansas Supreme Court on or about November 20,1998 and the same was denied on December 21, 1998; 4. As far as counsel for Appellee can tell from Appellant's current brief, she frames her case under the theories that the June 28, 1999 orders with respect to the residency of the minor child do not take into consideration her best interests and violate her and Appellant's constitutional rights; 5. Appellant provides no argument
10

her brief with regard to the basis of her

constitutional claim(s). Notwithstanding this fact, any argument with respect to some off-hand constitutional claim Appellant thinks she may have was dealt with by this Court in the previous appeal; 6. Appellant does manage to get across, however, that requiring Appellant to move from her current location to the Topeka area is inconsistent with the best interests of the parties' minor child. As previously stated in paragraph 2, above, this issue was not directly raised by Appellant in her first appeal but this Court addressed it nonetheless finding against Appellant; 7. Essentially, Appellant is asking this Court to review itself with respect to matters previously ruled upon. The June 28, 1999 orders she complains about in the instant appeal merely upheld the orders contained in the October 29, 1997 Journal Entry of

Memorandum Opinion. Nothing has changed from the first appeal- the issues are identical and, quite frankly, the instant appeal borders on the frivolous. As stated in Appellee's brief in the last appeal, it is apparent (hat Appellant will not be satisfied until she has drained every available resource out of Appellee and the court system and until she is able, by whatever means necessary (or how many attorneys she has to go through), to get a child custody order that is satisfactory to her. Appellee should

not have to bear the burden of defending this appeal any further than he already has;

8. Accordingly, Appellee would respectfully request the Court enter an Order of
Summary Disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 with respect to Appellant's claims of error in the instant matter. WHEREFORE, Appellee respectfully request the Court enter an Order of Summary Disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 to with respect to Appellant's claims of error in the instant matter and for such and other further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances, Respectfully submitted,

D nald R. Hoffman (# Jason P. Hoffman (#17637 HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN 112 West Seventh Street Garden Suite Topeka, Kansas 66603 Ph. (785) 233-5887 Fax (785) 233-2173 Attorneys for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERYICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 12'[1.1 day of January, 2000, I deposited a copy of the above and foregoing document in the United Sutes mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Rebecca A. King RILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd. 808 Massachusetts Street Lawrence, Kansas 66044 and that the original and three (3) copies of the same were hand delivered to: Carol G. Green Clerk of the Appellate Court Kansas Judicial Center 301 S.W. 10th Street Topeka, KS 66612-1507

112 West Seventh Street Garden Sui te Topeka, Kansas 66603 Ph. (785) 233-5887 Fax (785) 233-2173 Attorneys for Appellee

TELECOPIER 785-843-()161

TELECOPnrnHMESSAGE
Lisa Nathanson

TO: DATE:

FROM:

Rebecca King

----------------------------

1/14/00

FAX OPERATOR: __ jk_h_,_ _ _ __

RECEIVER'S FAX NUMBER:

1-877-264-5321

NUMBER OF PAGES (Including this Cover Sheet): PLEASE CALL (785)841-4700 TO CONFIRM RECEIPT OR IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING. WE ARE TRANSMITTING FROM SHARP F0-4850.

OUR TELECOPIER NUMBER IS (785) 843-0161
COMMENTS:

_ Urgent _ For your review
_Reply ASAP
~

Please comment

Re:

Dombrowski

'

..

TillS MESSAGE IS INfENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADI;>RESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPUCABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or a¥~t responsib\e for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error. please notifY us immediately by telephone (collect) and return the original message to us at the above address via the U. S. Postal Service. Thank you.

Hard Copy Mailed:

Yes_ __

No

X