Today is Mothers' Day in the United States. The holiday is meant to show respect for women who have willingly sacrificed with love for their children. All over the country, women are enjoying time with their families. Most people buy gifts for their mothers, take them out to brunch, or treat them in some other way that is here today and gone tomorrow.
I am fortunate enough to have a Mother's Day gift this year I will remember forever, because I can share it with women everywhere. This is a gift for my daughters, and for mothers and daughters everywhere.
On Friday, May 7th, 2010 the Alaska Supreme Court published its opinion in the appeal regarding the circumstances of my divorce. Here is the decision:
http://www.courts.alaska.gov/ops/sp-6474.pdf
It has been my contention from the beginning that the divorce was improperly granted, because it did not comply with the statutes in this state. I lost everything I owned without due process. In a unanimous decision the court agreed with me. It held that the trial court abused its discretion when it acted contrary to the statute.
It held as well that the trial court did not give sufficient cause for evicting me into the street in its premature attempt to sell my home, granting full possession and deed to my former spouse. My experience with the eviction process is documented below in an earlier post. This was one of the most hurtful, gut wrenching events that has ever happened in my life. I endured it for no good or just reason, other than that it was what my vindictive ex husband, who had been convicted of domestic violence, asked of the court. It was a blatantly discriminatory decision that left me homeless, devastated and without means for ten weeks. It was something I never dreamed the legal system would allow. It was something I pray none of you will ever endure.
My eviction was a wrongful act. It showed no respect for the time and effort I had put into a marriage, business, and parenthood. The ruling of the Alaska Supreme Court makes it clear that this is not permissible without specific documentation of special circumstances that would warrant such an invasion of one's home and privacy. More importantly, it makes a statement that women cannot be deprived of their property without due process.
This is a very important decision. Every day in this country women who are victims of domestic violence as I was are forced to make the choice between losing everything and saving their own lives by walking away. Most of them never regain what they lost. I have been blessed beyond belief in that the system, albeit slowly, has moved toward returning to me much-but not all-of what was taken from me.
In particular, women who have spent half a lifetime nurturing a spouse, children, marriage, or business have very little in the way of personal resources to help them weather the kind of tragedy I endured.
Domestic violence, including financial duress, and divorce, are pervasive in our culture. These are major contributing factors in the growing numbers of older women who are either homeless or living below poverty level. Having raised their families, most are forced to simply walk away in defeat, lacking the wherewithal to deal with the complex legal system from a position of powerlessness. This opinion reinforces statutes that are on the books in Alaska (and similar ones in other states) that say they do not HAVE to be forced to to this.
I am honored to express my gratitude to those who have assisted with my efforts, and those who have supported me. I am honored to pass my gift to those women in need, with my earnest hope that you do not have to tread where I have tread in your journey. Know that you have power. Use it. This is my Mothers' Day gift for us all.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
"I want a new drug"
Does any one remember that Huey Lewis song? My ex husband is a drug addict, without a doubt. His load of prescription drugs would knock down a small elephant, and still he looks for more. But, when you have taken all the drugs available, and you cannot get any more, what else is there?
One of the hardest things about my divorce was the fact that my husband, for whom I would have done anything, cheated. The betrayal was so unexpected, and so deep, that I still have the scars after three years. I couldn't understand how he could have done it, or how he thought this whole thing would end without being as ugly and sordid as it is and will be. What could make it worth while to throw away sixteen years? How about a new drug?
Now, the narcissistic supply is considered a drug "fix" by psychologists and psychiatrists, but there are other behaviors that give the same kind of fix. The following is an excerpt from an article written by Atlanta psychiatrist and marriage counselor Frank Pittman. His explanation of the phenomenon of infidelity makes perfect sense when looking at the behavior of an addict.
"We have to understand what divorce is about. Despite all the research about marriages failing if couples complain, criticize, stonewall or show contempt, I don’t know any couples who don’t do such things some (or most) of the time. But I have rarely seen an established first marriage end in divorce without someone being unfaithful. (Our researchers fail to ask about infidelity, since they tell me it is so nearly universal, it couldn’t possibly be relevant.) Affairs occur in good marriages and bad, and wreck either.
Helen Fisher, in ANATOMY OF LOVE, gives a fascinating neurochemical explanation of how infidelity causes divorce: infidelity is exciting, causing an excessive production (in men and women) of testosterone and amphetamine like neurotransmitters, at the expense of comfort seeking and nesting hormones like oxytocin or happiness and contentment producing hormones like serotonin. People in affairs are nuts, dependent, desperate, miserable and paranoid, unable to relax around their familiar mates. They are not necessarily unhappy with their marriage before the affair, but they are afterwards. Adulterers can’t reestablish intimacy as long as they harbor a secret or fear their partner’s anger and rage. (See the recent movie UNFAITHFUL for a picture of what a thoughtless, motiveless affair can do to a serene and cozy marriage.)
The skills, including fidelity and honesty, that make marriage work are easily teachable, just as the skills that make sex work are easily teachable. But no one will bother if therapists are busy being neutral and the media are touting the joys of divorce
To me, looking up from my caseload of the betrayers and betrayed, the divorced and divorcing,the children of divorce and the survivors of the last generation of divorces, this is a societal emergency. Normalizing divorce, even further than it has already been normalized, is a cruel joke."
Response to "The Death of 'Till Death Us Do Part': "Marriage in the 20th Century"
Frank S. Pittman, III, M.D. July, 2002
Dr. Pittman makes a point of stating that infidelity and divorce are NOT normal behavior, but are the results of an overly permissive culture. Cheaters are never responsible for their unacceptable behavior; they were "forced" to cheat because someone else failed to "make" them happy. Divorce is the easy out as" the treatment of choice for mild depression ("I’m just not happy,") for unpleasantness ("I felt verbally abused") and for sexual attractions to passing strangers or casual friends ("I must not be in love with my mate( Dr. Pittman)."
No marriage is perfect; the relationship requires work from both partners to work. When one of those partners gives his (or her, but usually the man)attention to someone outside the relationship, he is robbing the relationship itself of a chance to be successful- that's why its called cheating.
The neurochemical response of the cheater to the spouse makes perfect sense as well. The cheater is in a state of dis-ease. He/she feels like crap because, after all, the innocent spouse has been subjected to unwarranted indignity and injustice. It is interesting to note that the cheating itself changes the cheater's feelings about the marriage. The cheater has no reason to feel good about the marriage after such behavior. Check out cognitive dissonance theory. Justification eases the conscience (if there is one) making it okay to chose the fix.
Dr. Pittman also writes elsewhere (and I'm paraphrasing here) that when the cheater decides that the lover is the person meant for him, not the spouse, it really is a only justification for doing wrong. Ultimately, that lover is not a really great match because really great people don't have sex with people to whom the are not married. When people who cheat divorce and marry the lover, less than five percent are married two years later
Just like with all the other drugs, the addict becomes habituated to the fix. He develops a tolerance and the fix just doesn't give that great rush anymore. Why should he? The excitement was in the risky behavior. When the thrill is gone-chemically speaking,that is, what will narcissist/addict do?
"I want a new drug......"
One of the hardest things about my divorce was the fact that my husband, for whom I would have done anything, cheated. The betrayal was so unexpected, and so deep, that I still have the scars after three years. I couldn't understand how he could have done it, or how he thought this whole thing would end without being as ugly and sordid as it is and will be. What could make it worth while to throw away sixteen years? How about a new drug?
Now, the narcissistic supply is considered a drug "fix" by psychologists and psychiatrists, but there are other behaviors that give the same kind of fix. The following is an excerpt from an article written by Atlanta psychiatrist and marriage counselor Frank Pittman. His explanation of the phenomenon of infidelity makes perfect sense when looking at the behavior of an addict.
"We have to understand what divorce is about. Despite all the research about marriages failing if couples complain, criticize, stonewall or show contempt, I don’t know any couples who don’t do such things some (or most) of the time. But I have rarely seen an established first marriage end in divorce without someone being unfaithful. (Our researchers fail to ask about infidelity, since they tell me it is so nearly universal, it couldn’t possibly be relevant.) Affairs occur in good marriages and bad, and wreck either.
Helen Fisher, in ANATOMY OF LOVE, gives a fascinating neurochemical explanation of how infidelity causes divorce: infidelity is exciting, causing an excessive production (in men and women) of testosterone and amphetamine like neurotransmitters, at the expense of comfort seeking and nesting hormones like oxytocin or happiness and contentment producing hormones like serotonin. People in affairs are nuts, dependent, desperate, miserable and paranoid, unable to relax around their familiar mates. They are not necessarily unhappy with their marriage before the affair, but they are afterwards. Adulterers can’t reestablish intimacy as long as they harbor a secret or fear their partner’s anger and rage. (See the recent movie UNFAITHFUL for a picture of what a thoughtless, motiveless affair can do to a serene and cozy marriage.)
The skills, including fidelity and honesty, that make marriage work are easily teachable, just as the skills that make sex work are easily teachable. But no one will bother if therapists are busy being neutral and the media are touting the joys of divorce
To me, looking up from my caseload of the betrayers and betrayed, the divorced and divorcing,the children of divorce and the survivors of the last generation of divorces, this is a societal emergency. Normalizing divorce, even further than it has already been normalized, is a cruel joke."
Response to "The Death of 'Till Death Us Do Part': "Marriage in the 20th Century"
Frank S. Pittman, III, M.D. July, 2002
Dr. Pittman makes a point of stating that infidelity and divorce are NOT normal behavior, but are the results of an overly permissive culture. Cheaters are never responsible for their unacceptable behavior; they were "forced" to cheat because someone else failed to "make" them happy. Divorce is the easy out as" the treatment of choice for mild depression ("I’m just not happy,") for unpleasantness ("I felt verbally abused") and for sexual attractions to passing strangers or casual friends ("I must not be in love with my mate( Dr. Pittman)."
No marriage is perfect; the relationship requires work from both partners to work. When one of those partners gives his (or her, but usually the man)attention to someone outside the relationship, he is robbing the relationship itself of a chance to be successful- that's why its called cheating.
The neurochemical response of the cheater to the spouse makes perfect sense as well. The cheater is in a state of dis-ease. He/she feels like crap because, after all, the innocent spouse has been subjected to unwarranted indignity and injustice. It is interesting to note that the cheating itself changes the cheater's feelings about the marriage. The cheater has no reason to feel good about the marriage after such behavior. Check out cognitive dissonance theory. Justification eases the conscience (if there is one) making it okay to chose the fix.
Dr. Pittman also writes elsewhere (and I'm paraphrasing here) that when the cheater decides that the lover is the person meant for him, not the spouse, it really is a only justification for doing wrong. Ultimately, that lover is not a really great match because really great people don't have sex with people to whom the are not married. When people who cheat divorce and marry the lover, less than five percent are married two years later
Just like with all the other drugs, the addict becomes habituated to the fix. He develops a tolerance and the fix just doesn't give that great rush anymore. Why should he? The excitement was in the risky behavior. When the thrill is gone-chemically speaking,that is, what will narcissist/addict do?
"I want a new drug......"
Monday, January 4, 2010
A man's home is his castle -but not a woman's
Alaska is a state that is supposed to make fair distribution of marital assets. You might think if you were were in your own home paying the mortgage that it would be be impossible to make you leave.
That might be true if you are a man in Alaska but apparently is not if you are a woman.
Having already given control of tens of thousands of dollars of business revenue, the bank account, business inventory, even the phone lines to the man in a divorce case, one might reasonably expect the poor weak woman to get the home and hearth as her portion of the divorce settlement.
The caveat here is THERE WAS NO SETTLEMENT! As hard as it might be to believe, the judge granted a divorce without a property settlement. Granting possession of virtually all the marital assets to the ex, the judge just plain refused to deal with the business of separating marital property. Having granted the ex the divorce he wanted February 1, 2008, the judge then gave him possession of nearly everything we owned.-indefinitely!
Division of property is a major issue that keeps people together, probably second to issues of child custody and support. Many couples bicker for years but stop short of the D word for the simple reason that EVERYONE LOSES IN A DIVORCE. No one gets everything they want.
The law in Alaska does not permit a bifurcated divorce, that is, a divorce without settling the thorny issues first, unless both parties agree. If they cannot agree, and one party wants bifurcation, the law requires a showing, on the record, of how the property rights of the opposing party will be protected. These are not my words; they are in the Alaska statute. They are there to protect people not able to protect themselves and their property, and are supposed to be upheld by the courts.
In most states, bifurcated divorce is not allowed. It is cumbersome and causes too many financial problems. The incentive to cooperate in reaching a conclusion to the divorce after granting the decree may be gone on the part of the person who wanted to divorce. Parties who wish to steal from the former spouse may have carte blanche to do so. Most often, the party who abuses the process is the man.
The judge in my case refused to grant me support, refused to give me my property, refused to allow me access to my own business and took my home. He refused to enforce his order for mortgage payments. He gave everything to my ex. He gave nothing to me. The law in Alaska is supposed to prevent this from happening. Anyone has the Constitutional right to due process.
Well, actually, the judge gave me something very important. He gave me basis for a Supreme Court Appeal.
That might be true if you are a man in Alaska but apparently is not if you are a woman.
Having already given control of tens of thousands of dollars of business revenue, the bank account, business inventory, even the phone lines to the man in a divorce case, one might reasonably expect the poor weak woman to get the home and hearth as her portion of the divorce settlement.
The caveat here is THERE WAS NO SETTLEMENT! As hard as it might be to believe, the judge granted a divorce without a property settlement. Granting possession of virtually all the marital assets to the ex, the judge just plain refused to deal with the business of separating marital property. Having granted the ex the divorce he wanted February 1, 2008, the judge then gave him possession of nearly everything we owned.-indefinitely!
Division of property is a major issue that keeps people together, probably second to issues of child custody and support. Many couples bicker for years but stop short of the D word for the simple reason that EVERYONE LOSES IN A DIVORCE. No one gets everything they want.
The law in Alaska does not permit a bifurcated divorce, that is, a divorce without settling the thorny issues first, unless both parties agree. If they cannot agree, and one party wants bifurcation, the law requires a showing, on the record, of how the property rights of the opposing party will be protected. These are not my words; they are in the Alaska statute. They are there to protect people not able to protect themselves and their property, and are supposed to be upheld by the courts.
In most states, bifurcated divorce is not allowed. It is cumbersome and causes too many financial problems. The incentive to cooperate in reaching a conclusion to the divorce after granting the decree may be gone on the part of the person who wanted to divorce. Parties who wish to steal from the former spouse may have carte blanche to do so. Most often, the party who abuses the process is the man.
The judge in my case refused to grant me support, refused to give me my property, refused to allow me access to my own business and took my home. He refused to enforce his order for mortgage payments. He gave everything to my ex. He gave nothing to me. The law in Alaska is supposed to prevent this from happening. Anyone has the Constitutional right to due process.
Well, actually, the judge gave me something very important. He gave me basis for a Supreme Court Appeal.
The Watega Factor
It is a very common occurrence in divorce that the person who can first grab control of the finances-usually the man- will use that control for economic coercion to gain advantage in the divorce. Usually the husband will arrange a loss in income, or a new debt or some reason he cannot make house payments and push for early disposal of the home, with or without you in it.
Yes, guys, I know you will say you would never be such a jerk, but the statistics show the man is the one who takes this approach 88 percent of the time. But listen up ladies, if this is happening to you IT IS WRONG AND PROBABLY NOT LEGAL!
Lesley Watega and her husband divorced in Alaska. They owned a home that was part of the property to be divided, but the divorce was not yet over. Lesley, like me, refused to allow the sale of her home, but the court overruled her objections. Leslie was forced to out of her home, and her ex arranged a sale that provided no funds or benefit to her, but provided something of a windfall to the buyers in the form of a short sale.
As in the Watega divorce, my case had allegations by the husband that foreclosure would occur, but the sale of the home would have gained nothing for the marital estate. In Watega there was no evidence the marital home would be jeopardized if the husband would have paid the mortgage. In my case, except for refusal of the ex to comply with court orders and pay the mortgage, and the lack of enforcement from the court, the home would not have been jeopardized. As in Watega, there was at least a ninety day window by which the mortgage could have been brought current to adequately preserve the investment, except for the fact the ex just refused to pay up.
Lesley Watega brought her case to the Alaska Supreme Court a few years before my case began. The Alaska Supreme Court rendered its written opinion in her case on September 8, 2006. Regarding the sale of a marital home while a divorce is pending, the Court stated:
“Courts may only exercise their authority to order sales in exceptional circumstances not present in this case.” ( Watega v Watega 143 Pd 3 58{09/08/2006} Alaska).
This is important. Pay attention.
You. Cannot. Be. Deprived. Of. Property. Without. Due. Process.
Without hearings. Without cause. Remember your eight grade civics class when you studied the United States Constitution? This is it in action. Look it up. Simply put, this protects you every day.
The Alaska Supreme Court went on to say that while statutes do not provide any limitation on a court’s ability to permit sale of marital property "the courts do not have unlimited discretion to permit sale of property prior to the division of property in a divorce judgment. Instead, courts should permit sales sparingly and only for pressing reasons, such as the prevention of waste of marital assets."
This was such a precedent setting case that it was reported across the country in law journals. Remember the recess in court? The judge went off the bench to consider his ruling? (It's right under this post.) The judge looked up his options, and found Watega v. Watega.
I understand the lady still lives in Alaska. Wherever she lives, kudos to Lesley. Because she fought something she knew was wrong, she got her house back. The people who lived there for two years while she fought her case? Thrown out. And because this lady went through such a terrible hardship, I didn't have to.
My ex had packed what was left of my belongings in a connex. His attorney was smug. Even my pastor told me this home was not for me. But I never saw that sign I asked for, the one that would have shown me another direction, and would have shown me a way to give up on my home. After 10 weeks, even my friends had given up hope. No one I knew thought I had the chance of a snowball in hell to recover my home, except me. I couldn't give up what I knew was and felt right.
When the court came back from recess, the judge ruled that the sale would not be completed. My home was returned to me pending ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.
It was almost winter in Alaska. My good friend was looking for a place to park her motor home before the snow flew. I called her in tears, and I was crying so hard she thought something bad had happened in court. I finally managed to say, " come park your motor home in my driveway". I was going home.
Yes, guys, I know you will say you would never be such a jerk, but the statistics show the man is the one who takes this approach 88 percent of the time. But listen up ladies, if this is happening to you IT IS WRONG AND PROBABLY NOT LEGAL!
Lesley Watega and her husband divorced in Alaska. They owned a home that was part of the property to be divided, but the divorce was not yet over. Lesley, like me, refused to allow the sale of her home, but the court overruled her objections. Leslie was forced to out of her home, and her ex arranged a sale that provided no funds or benefit to her, but provided something of a windfall to the buyers in the form of a short sale.
As in the Watega divorce, my case had allegations by the husband that foreclosure would occur, but the sale of the home would have gained nothing for the marital estate. In Watega there was no evidence the marital home would be jeopardized if the husband would have paid the mortgage. In my case, except for refusal of the ex to comply with court orders and pay the mortgage, and the lack of enforcement from the court, the home would not have been jeopardized. As in Watega, there was at least a ninety day window by which the mortgage could have been brought current to adequately preserve the investment, except for the fact the ex just refused to pay up.
Lesley Watega brought her case to the Alaska Supreme Court a few years before my case began. The Alaska Supreme Court rendered its written opinion in her case on September 8, 2006. Regarding the sale of a marital home while a divorce is pending, the Court stated:
“Courts may only exercise their authority to order sales in exceptional circumstances not present in this case.” ( Watega v Watega 143 Pd 3 58{09/08/2006} Alaska).
This is important. Pay attention.
You. Cannot. Be. Deprived. Of. Property. Without. Due. Process.
Without hearings. Without cause. Remember your eight grade civics class when you studied the United States Constitution? This is it in action. Look it up. Simply put, this protects you every day.
The Alaska Supreme Court went on to say that while statutes do not provide any limitation on a court’s ability to permit sale of marital property "the courts do not have unlimited discretion to permit sale of property prior to the division of property in a divorce judgment. Instead, courts should permit sales sparingly and only for pressing reasons, such as the prevention of waste of marital assets."
This was such a precedent setting case that it was reported across the country in law journals. Remember the recess in court? The judge went off the bench to consider his ruling? (It's right under this post.) The judge looked up his options, and found Watega v. Watega.
I understand the lady still lives in Alaska. Wherever she lives, kudos to Lesley. Because she fought something she knew was wrong, she got her house back. The people who lived there for two years while she fought her case? Thrown out. And because this lady went through such a terrible hardship, I didn't have to.
My ex had packed what was left of my belongings in a connex. His attorney was smug. Even my pastor told me this home was not for me. But I never saw that sign I asked for, the one that would have shown me another direction, and would have shown me a way to give up on my home. After 10 weeks, even my friends had given up hope. No one I knew thought I had the chance of a snowball in hell to recover my home, except me. I couldn't give up what I knew was and felt right.
When the court came back from recess, the judge ruled that the sale would not be completed. My home was returned to me pending ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.
It was almost winter in Alaska. My good friend was looking for a place to park her motor home before the snow flew. I called her in tears, and I was crying so hard she thought something bad had happened in court. I finally managed to say, " come park your motor home in my driveway". I was going home.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
My "Station in Life"
Alaska is an equitable distribution state. One of the things that Alaska Statutes require to be considered in the granting of support or possession of personal or marital property is " the parties station in life". The effect of the divorce is required by state law to be equitably allocated between the parties to prevent one of the partners from enduring hardships like those imposed upon me. I went from having a joint marital income of about $100,000.00 per year as part of a working couple running a successful small business, to nearly nothing overnight.
After being evicted from my home, I had nowhere to turn. I was marginally self employed, and depended upon access to a fax, phone, and internet to make what little income I had. Thankfully, several of the customers I had for years from the marital business chose to work with me rather than the ex.
I transferred my phone service to my cell, and stayed with whomever I could find with a spare bed or couch. I brought my fax and computer with me, along with the dogs and cats, and set up shop in the living room of an acquaintance.I made enough to live on. After my car gave up, I had a little money to make payments on a beater that barely got me around town. At the time, barely was enough. I made small deliveries and maintained contacts both in business and in twelve step programs. Between August 5, 2008 and October 15, 2008 I moved my pets and boxes three times, in three different vehicles.
I admit, I had a crisis of faith. The court refused to give me support, refused to let me save my home from foreclosure, and refused me any benefits from the business I built from 1994. After having my own home for seven years, and my own business for twelve, to lose so much so fast was devastating. My twelve step friends helped feed me and gave me places to live. I received comfort from friends at church.
I went back to my home some nights. I knew a way in through a window... hey, doesn't everyone know a secret way into their own home? I got clothes and food. One time I slept there half the night. I kept the lights off so my neighbor would not see because I knew he would call my ex. They were still marketing the home for sale.
One night, I was stunned to find most of the furniture gone. Dishes, clothes, and books, were thrown haphazardly on the floor. Food was dumped out of kitchen cabinets. It was a mess. I wept alone in the middle of my living room.
My ex had married the woman he cheated with. He brought her family from out of state, and gave them the run of the home to "clean it up" for the sale. They trashed whatever struck their whims. They glued plates together, and drank 20 year old wine from my antique cups. They lit firecrackers in the bathtub, and threw my personal belongings into a dumpster placed under my bedroom window. They shopped through my clothes, and even played with personal hygiene supplies. Well, some of us are sicker than others.
I was able to get the realtor to allow me in for photos. I made police reports. Nothing could be done, the police said because the ex, an owner, had given them the keys. The insurance company refused to help with the damage for the same reason. I came back a few nights later for whatever else I could salvage. I stood alone again in my home. It felt so right to be there; it felt like mine. I prayed for a sign if it was really not to be. After that, when I returned, the window was locked.
The ex had a buyer for the home and his attorney convinced the court that they could not wait or the sale would be lost. Over my objection, without allowing a hearing, the judge granted a clerk's deed on October 2, 2008 to my ex. He was given all rights and ownership of the home without any compensation or credit to me at all. He signed the transfer of title, and sent the paperwork to the buyers. He thought he was done. However, I filed a lis pendens, a claim of ownership interest, with the state recorder's office. The title failed to close, and the sale was blocked.
October 13, 2008 was supposed to be the date of the trial where the judge would divide the marital property. When we came to court, the ex and his attorney were up in arms over the lis pendens. They demanded the lis pendens be declared void, so that the sale could close. My attorney argued that if that happened we would file an appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court. The judge agreed that there would be a 24 hour stay to do so. We left the court for the attorney's office that afternoon to prepare the appeal. The attorney showed me what to do.Just a few short sentences, but I had to get it filed before court the next morning. I wrote it myself, and delivered it.
The fact is, the legal system in Alaska had failed me miserably. I was eligible for support, which was in fact ordered, but the court refused to enforce its own order. I came to court with almost nothing of what I had owned barely a year before. I knew the appeal would stop all action in the lower court. I knew it would take a long time to be decided. I had no idea what else might happen. I was still virtually homeless. I had little income, and lost most of my "stuff". Sadly, I lost one of my cats. But, at least, I had hope.
Upon seeing the appeal had been entered, the judge heard arguments from both sides, then retired to chambers to consider his ruling.
After being evicted from my home, I had nowhere to turn. I was marginally self employed, and depended upon access to a fax, phone, and internet to make what little income I had. Thankfully, several of the customers I had for years from the marital business chose to work with me rather than the ex.
I transferred my phone service to my cell, and stayed with whomever I could find with a spare bed or couch. I brought my fax and computer with me, along with the dogs and cats, and set up shop in the living room of an acquaintance.I made enough to live on. After my car gave up, I had a little money to make payments on a beater that barely got me around town. At the time, barely was enough. I made small deliveries and maintained contacts both in business and in twelve step programs. Between August 5, 2008 and October 15, 2008 I moved my pets and boxes three times, in three different vehicles.
I admit, I had a crisis of faith. The court refused to give me support, refused to let me save my home from foreclosure, and refused me any benefits from the business I built from 1994. After having my own home for seven years, and my own business for twelve, to lose so much so fast was devastating. My twelve step friends helped feed me and gave me places to live. I received comfort from friends at church.
I went back to my home some nights. I knew a way in through a window... hey, doesn't everyone know a secret way into their own home? I got clothes and food. One time I slept there half the night. I kept the lights off so my neighbor would not see because I knew he would call my ex. They were still marketing the home for sale.
One night, I was stunned to find most of the furniture gone. Dishes, clothes, and books, were thrown haphazardly on the floor. Food was dumped out of kitchen cabinets. It was a mess. I wept alone in the middle of my living room.
My ex had married the woman he cheated with. He brought her family from out of state, and gave them the run of the home to "clean it up" for the sale. They trashed whatever struck their whims. They glued plates together, and drank 20 year old wine from my antique cups. They lit firecrackers in the bathtub, and threw my personal belongings into a dumpster placed under my bedroom window. They shopped through my clothes, and even played with personal hygiene supplies. Well, some of us are sicker than others.
I was able to get the realtor to allow me in for photos. I made police reports. Nothing could be done, the police said because the ex, an owner, had given them the keys. The insurance company refused to help with the damage for the same reason. I came back a few nights later for whatever else I could salvage. I stood alone again in my home. It felt so right to be there; it felt like mine. I prayed for a sign if it was really not to be. After that, when I returned, the window was locked.
The ex had a buyer for the home and his attorney convinced the court that they could not wait or the sale would be lost. Over my objection, without allowing a hearing, the judge granted a clerk's deed on October 2, 2008 to my ex. He was given all rights and ownership of the home without any compensation or credit to me at all. He signed the transfer of title, and sent the paperwork to the buyers. He thought he was done. However, I filed a lis pendens, a claim of ownership interest, with the state recorder's office. The title failed to close, and the sale was blocked.
October 13, 2008 was supposed to be the date of the trial where the judge would divide the marital property. When we came to court, the ex and his attorney were up in arms over the lis pendens. They demanded the lis pendens be declared void, so that the sale could close. My attorney argued that if that happened we would file an appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court. The judge agreed that there would be a 24 hour stay to do so. We left the court for the attorney's office that afternoon to prepare the appeal. The attorney showed me what to do.Just a few short sentences, but I had to get it filed before court the next morning. I wrote it myself, and delivered it.
The fact is, the legal system in Alaska had failed me miserably. I was eligible for support, which was in fact ordered, but the court refused to enforce its own order. I came to court with almost nothing of what I had owned barely a year before. I knew the appeal would stop all action in the lower court. I knew it would take a long time to be decided. I had no idea what else might happen. I was still virtually homeless. I had little income, and lost most of my "stuff". Sadly, I lost one of my cats. But, at least, I had hope.
Upon seeing the appeal had been entered, the judge heard arguments from both sides, then retired to chambers to consider his ruling.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Living with Superman
It's not easy to live with an addict. There are addicts in all walks of life. Not all of them are in the street. I was once with a heroin addict. I saw what the drugs did to him, what happened when he ran out. The sweating, sniveling, edginess, gastric problems. The shaking, screaming, vomiting. None of it pretty.
Having a drug legally prescribed does not mean you are not addicted. In fact, it's a great excuse. My ex is an addict. He has persuaded his family and his new wife that it's "between him and his doctor". This is an argument often used by those addicted to prescription drugs. However, they are still addicts. The reaction when they run out is the same. And they always run out.
I used to have sympathy when he ran out of his prescription drugs. I believed at one time that the opiates he took were for a legitimate problem, and that at some time in the future he would be able to do without. He took whatever he could find, precribed or on the street. His level of addiction to oxycontin was equivalent to 5 or 6 bags of heroin a day. The behavior was no different.
There were consequences. Often there were fights. When my ex bought street drugs, he cut deep into our money to live on, the capital for our business, the money we could have used to enjoy each other and grow closer. but none of that mattered if he didn't have what he wanted... and of course now needed.
Our budget, our business, our quality of life suffered. The drugs always came first. I started to lose sympathy. I wouldn't cover his butt when he missed jobs. I wouldn't say he wasn't home when he was getting high in the other room. I wouldn't lie for him.
He screamed at me. He stole from me. He turned to an old girlfriend who had more sympathy. Isn't that always the way? It was my fault for being such a bitch, and after all, he didn't have a problem because at least part of the drugs were legal.
One day he was so out of it, he left a letter from his girlfriend on my desk. Or maybe he did it on purpose to torment me. She wrote "dear Superman". Superman? She didn't know about the kryptonite. I'm sure she does now. Good luck with that.
It has been over two years since he walked out of our home for the last time, taking his drugs with him. I now have over two years clean.
Having a drug legally prescribed does not mean you are not addicted. In fact, it's a great excuse. My ex is an addict. He has persuaded his family and his new wife that it's "between him and his doctor". This is an argument often used by those addicted to prescription drugs. However, they are still addicts. The reaction when they run out is the same. And they always run out.
I used to have sympathy when he ran out of his prescription drugs. I believed at one time that the opiates he took were for a legitimate problem, and that at some time in the future he would be able to do without. He took whatever he could find, precribed or on the street. His level of addiction to oxycontin was equivalent to 5 or 6 bags of heroin a day. The behavior was no different.
There were consequences. Often there were fights. When my ex bought street drugs, he cut deep into our money to live on, the capital for our business, the money we could have used to enjoy each other and grow closer. but none of that mattered if he didn't have what he wanted... and of course now needed.
Our budget, our business, our quality of life suffered. The drugs always came first. I started to lose sympathy. I wouldn't cover his butt when he missed jobs. I wouldn't say he wasn't home when he was getting high in the other room. I wouldn't lie for him.
He screamed at me. He stole from me. He turned to an old girlfriend who had more sympathy. Isn't that always the way? It was my fault for being such a bitch, and after all, he didn't have a problem because at least part of the drugs were legal.
One day he was so out of it, he left a letter from his girlfriend on my desk. Or maybe he did it on purpose to torment me. She wrote "dear Superman". Superman? She didn't know about the kryptonite. I'm sure she does now. Good luck with that.
It has been over two years since he walked out of our home for the last time, taking his drugs with him. I now have over two years clean.
Eviction
Eviction is a devastating thing. It is devastating if you can't pay for your home. It is even more devastating if you are paying for your home, and the court strips you of your rights for no good reason.
The court ordered my ex to make mortgage and utility payments in lieu of support pending the outcome of the divorce and settlement. The ex refused to obey the order, and devised what was proposed to the court as a "scheme"(no, really that's the word they used in the transcript) to pay the bills. The judge was convinced that all our bills would be paid by selling our home. No evidence was ever offered that this was actually the case. However, while we argued about it he refused to make the payments, and the house began to go into foreclosure.
The court told me I could refinance the home myself, but this was a real catch 22. I was given 30 days. The home was already in foreclosure. The loan could be assumed, but only if the payments were current. I did not have an attorney. I filed numerous documents to the court proving there was going to be very little equity from the sale of the home, especially after the real estate agent got his bite.
I finally made a forbearance arrangement with Citi mortgage. If anyone out there has financial problems I would strongly encourage you to talk to them on a daily basis and give them whatever you can pay. They are extremely motivated to help, especially in situations like this.
You might think this would solve the home issue as far as the court was concerned, since the ex did not have to pay the mortgage. I had also acquired an attorney who was trying to negotiate a settlement in good faith.`However, by the time I had my payment plan, the ex also had a court order to evict me! The court turned a deaf ear to all my arguments, having chosen to go with the sale even though there would be no profit. The ex had already gone to the state troopers and set an eviction date without giving notice.
On August 5, 2008 I was called from the shower in my home by troopers who forced me to leave my home, still wet from the shower. The ex actually stood in the driveway and told me he asked his attorney not to do this to me. I found out later he wrote the check for the eviction the same day he got the order.
I took my two dogs and two cats and whatever else I could fit in my car, and drove away from my home. I had no support, and no where to go.
The court ordered my ex to make mortgage and utility payments in lieu of support pending the outcome of the divorce and settlement. The ex refused to obey the order, and devised what was proposed to the court as a "scheme"(no, really that's the word they used in the transcript) to pay the bills. The judge was convinced that all our bills would be paid by selling our home. No evidence was ever offered that this was actually the case. However, while we argued about it he refused to make the payments, and the house began to go into foreclosure.
The court told me I could refinance the home myself, but this was a real catch 22. I was given 30 days. The home was already in foreclosure. The loan could be assumed, but only if the payments were current. I did not have an attorney. I filed numerous documents to the court proving there was going to be very little equity from the sale of the home, especially after the real estate agent got his bite.
I finally made a forbearance arrangement with Citi mortgage. If anyone out there has financial problems I would strongly encourage you to talk to them on a daily basis and give them whatever you can pay. They are extremely motivated to help, especially in situations like this.
You might think this would solve the home issue as far as the court was concerned, since the ex did not have to pay the mortgage. I had also acquired an attorney who was trying to negotiate a settlement in good faith.`However, by the time I had my payment plan, the ex also had a court order to evict me! The court turned a deaf ear to all my arguments, having chosen to go with the sale even though there would be no profit. The ex had already gone to the state troopers and set an eviction date without giving notice.
On August 5, 2008 I was called from the shower in my home by troopers who forced me to leave my home, still wet from the shower. The ex actually stood in the driveway and told me he asked his attorney not to do this to me. I found out later he wrote the check for the eviction the same day he got the order.
I took my two dogs and two cats and whatever else I could fit in my car, and drove away from my home. I had no support, and no where to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
