Wife’s Attorney Loses It as Dad’s Lawyer DESTROYS Her DEMANDS

Kendry case number 2504384 DM. Uh present in the virtual courtroom, we have both parties along with their respective attorneys. Um and we are here on the plaintiff's motion to enter the judgment of divorce. Uh we're also here on the plaintiff's motion for payments. Um Ms. Van Dyken. Your Honor, I think I can take the motion for payments first. It appears that counsel uh over the defendant agrees with me in his response to my motion to enter the judgment. Under paragraph four, it it appears that he says he should pay her the fees, the payments for the child support. He hasn't paid the child support, so he should pay the fees, the the payments. And those should be paid in a lump sum to her. Can we take one issue at a time? >> That's fine. Okay. Mr. Burke. Uh yes, thank you, Judge. That's that's not our position. So, it's really a timing play here between payments that were going um solely to Ms. McKendry throughout the pendency of this matter. And then the child support, which is supposed to take play once the judgment of divorce is entered. Um the reality, which is really the first motion that I think I'm not sure why Ms. Van Dyken doesn't want to address it first, is that we're waiting on plaintiffs to approve a judgment of divorce that we provided uh over 2 months ago that had >> Okay, I don't want to get in let let me switch back to Ms. Van Dyken on that. I just wanted to check to see if in fact we had an agreement on that. Um the payments issue, and it doesn't seem like we do. Under number four in their response to the motion under judgment, it directly says defendant is fine with the if the court enters either defendant has to pay the 1950 bi-weekly or the monthly child support. We're asking for the 1950 bi-weekly. And they they say they're fine with it. So, I'd like the court to make him have a lump sum payment. That's That's your response. I can't change your response. Under paragraph number four. I I think it's one or the other. It is. >> think it's I think because we don't have a judgment entered, we need to continue to make the payments the status quo payments that were agreed to last year and that's the 1950 bi-weekly. I would agree. I mean, it's one or the other and it sounds to me like I mean, we haven't entered the judgment yet. So, those payments should have continued. Judge, may I expand on that? Okay. The it is a one or the other and the issue in the payments is that our position is that Ms. McKendry has delayed entry of the judgment of divorce in order to get double the payment amounts because she should be getting two approximately $2,000 in child support. And what has happened is we are essentially agreed since March 17th, uh excuse me, since March 27th as to all terms of this judgment of divorce and that is when these bi-weekly payments should have stopped and the child support should have began. But, because of >> Again, this is math. So, I mean, You can't have it both ways. You You can't not pay the child support and not pay that. You can't avoid avoid paying the child support. If you want to have the child support start as of March whatever, that's fine with me, too. Like I said, I it's it's one or the other. And that's that's what we're requesting is that child support should be should have been started. You said you were fine in your response to the 1950. That's what my client is seeking. That's not >> Because there is no judgment entered yet. No child >> And that's the result of plaintiff delaying a >> All right. Hold on. Hold on. I will simply make the child support effective as of March 1st. Okay, next issue Ms. Van Dyken. It's the entry of the judgment your honor. Our judgment does comport with the mediation agreement. The the superfluous changes that Mr. Burke is asking for with regard to the the Ottawa County schedule. That's not the Ottawa County schedule. That's other things that he's asking for. He then also says that my client owes a great deal of money. He again says for taxes. Quite frankly, if he owns the business as of that date, he's responsible for the business taxes, not my client. He is. So, he's paying those fees cuz now you court just ordered that he's supposed to be paying child support. That's his business. Those business taxes are his. He needs to pay those, not my client. Your honor, my judgment absolutely comports with what was in the mediation agreement. My client is not responsible for transportation of these children. He is He only has daytime visits as of now. He hasn't moved. I I I don't understand the superfluous language. And I understand that we did agree to go back to Mr. Danema with regard to language differentials, but there's no What they're trying to do is add language to the mediation agreement, not follow it. All right. Mr. Burke, just let me ask you very plainly, what is in the judgment line by line that does not comply with the mediation agreement? Um sure, Judge. So, going into page two, and this is attached to our response of legal custody. Um as written, it says that the parties shall consult and attempt to agree before major decisions are made. We're just trying to clarify consistent with legal custody that no party shall make such a decision without written approval of the other party. Which paragraph >> As written, it implies Sorry, Judge. Which which which sub paragraph is that? >> It's um uh under custody sub paragraph A. You'll um there's a tract at I see it. I see I'm looking at the proposed judgment. so that Thank you. I just couldn't find it. I'm sorry, go ahead. Um so, under custody subparagraph A, we're just trying to clarify that decisions must be mutually agreed on because as written right now, it just says that they have to attempt to agree. And as we know legal custody, they have to both agree or they have to seek court permission as to legal custody concern. So, that's the first >> all right, hold on, Ms. Van Dyken on that issue. Your honor, it's superfluous language. They they have to agree. It says they must attempt to agree. It's It's just again, superfluous language, something to probably turn their back >> So, if the if the attempt was removed, would you be okay with that? If the word attempt? Shall consult and agree? I think that that would be fine. Okay. Next. The next issue would be the drop-off, and there is not any agreement as to drop-off or pick-ups. Um so, we included in there that Mr. McKendry would pick the child up at the beginning of parenting time, and that plaintiff would pick up at the end of parenting time. That's a consistent standard provision regarding transportation. Originally and as shown in the record is that Mr. McKendry originally was supposed to get Sunday overnights. Okay, let me just let me just stop you. Is that in the Is that contained in the mediation agreement? There's no language concerning pick-up or drop-off for either party, and what was written in there is pretty much unilaterally making Mr. McKendry do all of it. So, again, if there's no provision at all, then that's that's still an ongoing issue as to transportation. So, they're trying to say it's on my client when there's no agreement that he's going to be the one providing, and we're just trying to split it down the middle as to >> Ms. Van Dyken, what's your position on that one? >> Not included in the mediation agreement, Your Honor. And neither is my client picking up either and doing all of the transportation. Well, it's not included in the in the mediation agreement, but um I haven't heard any reason why the parties should not share in in the transportation. That is typically what happens. The parent start beginning their parenting time picks up um at the beginning of the end depending on which parent it is who's going to be spending time with the children. What's next? Um there is this is on page four. Um there is uh some provisions regarding no contact with certain um households and we're just trying to clarify that uh my client who's living in his brother's home can still exercise parenting time there although no overnights can be there. Which Explain me to the paragraph that you're referring to. It's the top of page four, the very first paragraph there. Is it the order that until he has stable housing, that one? Correct. Okay. And and what >> I'm not sure, Judge, if [clears throat] you're looking at the one attached our response that has all the proposals I'm looking at I'm looking at um the one that was submitted by the plaintiff. Yeah, the So, the response our response attached as an exhibit has our specific redlines in it which um I I what I'm going through line by line. He's asking for a pair of a sentence about avoid for avoidance of doubt. There is clearly no doubt because if the court looks at page three of my judgment, it says he is not to have overnight at his brother's home and there will be a no contact with the children when with the defendant's mother, Sandy's home. That's pretty clear. You don't need a sentence that says for for avoidance of doubt. We're just trying to make sure that the parties are clear in their obligations here and quite frankly >> I I think that's extra words that if it wasn't included in the mediation agreement, we don't need it. Or we shouldn't include it. If there's any dis- again, it just keeps the door open on whether or not my client can exercise parenting time where he's living during the day. It And there's no dispute that he can do this here from what I'm understanding. So if that's on the record from Miss Van Dyken that my client can do that, then that's then we don't need that in the judgment. If there's a >> exercise parenting time at his brother's home. He cannot exercise overnight parenting time at his brother's home. That's what the That is what the mediation agreement says. So this is why this is an actual dispute because she's saying it's just superfluous language, but now on the record Miss Van Dyken saying, "No, he can't do it." And the mediation agreement says no overnights. So we're trying to clarify that point to avoid an issue down the road in front of the judge. Right. If it says oh no overnights, it's no overnights. Pending modification. I agree with you, but now we have Miss Van Dyken saying that he can't exercise parenting time under her interpretation of the mediation agreement in this house. My judgment is pretty clear and it and meets with the mediation agreement. Oh. Yeah. Okay. So again, I and I'm sorry, but I'm not I do not have your your redlines. Um it's I I it's not in what I'm looking at. It may be paper file, but I don't have it. So that's why I'm looking at Miss Van Dyken's judgment. So it would really help me if you kind of walk me through it. So, So again, what's wrong with that first paragraph on page four? We are just trying So, there's a there's a provision that my client is to not exercise overnights because of where he's living. There's no agreement in the mediation agreement or otherwise that he can't exercise his daytime parenting time where he's currently living. So, we are trying to clarify that. All right. It says it's further ordered that until defendant has stable housing has every other weekend parenting time will be Saturdays and Sundays during the day from 9:00 to 6:00. So, I'm having a hard time figuring out what's wrong. >> Um my apologies, Judge. Page three, the paragraph at the bottom of page three. Okay. There we go. All right. All right. Further ordered that defendant's overnight parenting time shall not begin until he has stable housing and the safe and appropriate. He's not to reside reside with the children in his brother's home. And there'll be no contact order for the children with defendant's mother's Sandy's home. Um So, it says he's just not to have overnights there. It says he's not to reside with the children in his brother's home. I don't To me, reside does not mean daytime visits. And then we would agree with you, Judge, and that's why based on Ms. Van Dyken's representation that her client is obviously taking an issue with parenting time occurring in the household during the day. That is why we added the for the avoidance of doubt. I don't think my client's arguing about that cuz that's what he's been doing. I'm just saying your superfluous language is not necessary cuz of paragraph three. I don't think we need that extra language. Thank you. What's next? Um the second paragraph on page four. Um the parties will work together for any events for the minor children during the week. We just made a very minor uh and it's consistent with the transcript actually should either party wish to take the minor child to any events. It's just a clarifying change in that. So, tell me what it should read it from your perspective. >> Parties will work together should either party wish to take any minor child to any events during the week. Ms. Van Dyken, do you have a problem with that? No, you're right. That's fine. Okay. Next. Uh I believe the next thing would be the Ottawa County um holiday schedule. And where is what paragraph are you referring to now? And again, Ms. Van Dyken's proposed order cuz that's all I've got. Sure, Judge. It's the bottom of page four. It starts with holiday parenting time. So, we are just adding um if the parties are unable to agree, they shall follow the Ottawa County Friend of the Court Parenting Time Procedure, which is incorporated herein by reference and which is as follows. So, that's the added language to the bottom of paragraph four. And and how is that different that from if the parties are unable to agree, they will follow the Ottawa County Parenting Time Schedule below? Um that would just be a minor change and then we go into on the next page the over or the odd years even years are long compared to the Ottawa County Friend of the Court schedule. So, we have in our edited track version, we have it sweeping switching around between mother and father consistent with that schedule. And I believe Ms. Van Dyken said she agrees with that, but I could be mistaken. Is it substantially different than what she's got? The even odd years are flipped around, so it doesn't >> Okay. Okay. All right. And then it doesn't um include anything uh the the extra language through the Ottawa County regarding Christmas break splitting. It also doesn't include Ottawa County's reference um to birthdays. I see children's birthdays on here. I also see some language about Christmas breaks breaks splits are intended to grant the parties one week each one week with the children. Let's be exactly >> In my version in our attached I have that highlighted as red track changes. The parties shall share the Christmas break equally starting on page six after the table. That's what we had added in for requested changes. I I just don't see how that's different than what's there. But may maybe I'm missing something but Mr. Dana provided us the copy of the Ottawa County parenting time schedule holiday schedule and that is exactly what I put into my judgment. Okay. Do you agree that the the Ottawa even needs to be switched or you're okay with switching it? I'm okay with switching it. Okay. Was there anything else about that? No, I just need to look Judge very quickly at the version you're looking at because mine is has the red lines for the Christmas break split and the birthdays not being included in there. But again, if we're in agreement that that is the language from the Ottawa County friend of the court that should be included. >> I I'm I'm looking at it. It says children's birthdays. It's the last thing in the the last item in the table. And then it's got Christmas split break language below that. The language that we put in I see what you're saying now, Judge. My apologies. Um the language that we put in there match matches verbatim with the Ottawa County friend of the court schedule. Um, and I can read that if you'd like. And then the version >> how is it materially different? That's what I'm trying to figure out. That's all. I mean, I don't know. Ms. Van Dyken, do you have any Yeah, you're honor. We could have had this judgment entered when I sent it to him. It it's so pointless. And the birthdays wasn't even on the one that we got from you, Ms. Van >> Okay. Okay. All right. This is not helpful. >> We asked to add This is not helpful. So, any problem with using his proposed language for Christmas the Christmas break? No, you're honor. I No. What >> Okay. I just don't see the difference, but so there's no point in fighting about it. Um, what's next? Um, under child support on page eight consistent with the mediation agreement, um, we just asked for clarification that the overnights would be calculated at 125 overnights. Contained in the uniform child support order. The or the child support order is is is the order, not the judgment. So, is the attached order correct? The attached order is correct. That was the only That was the only stylistic change that Ms. Van Again, a stylistic change and not one that I think has any substance. What's next? Those are all the requested changes. They were very minimal, Judge. Okay. Well, the court will enter them with the uh the items that the court has ruled on. Then, um, Ms. Van Dyken, can you make those minor changes and submit it? I can, you're honor. Okay. You're honor, we have one other additional issue. We have been We did a stipulation. We have been requesting the payment of the house proceeds for my client that she was awarded in full from Mr. Worth's trust account. He is not sending those. I don't I would hate to have to file a motion for contempt of another lawyer um to do that, but I would ask that Mr. Burke reach out to Mr. Mr. Worth and get those proceeds sent to me me or my client ASAP because that's going to impact once this judgment is entered when she receives those funds, then the timeline starts ticking about car payments and returning the car and those kind of issues. So, that's something I'm I'm just seeking assistance from Mr. Burke to get that done. Mr. Burke? Judge, we are not opposing um the release of those funds. We're obviously waiting for a judgment of divorce. Um I don't know if Ms. Van Dyken provided Mr. Worth with a copy of her motion, but my understanding is that he requested a W-9 in order to release the funds and that hasn't been provided. >> And there's no reason for that. I don't know his Ms. Van Dyken may finish. If I I don't know if what the basis of but that seems to be an issue between um plaintiff and her former attorney. There's no reason for a W-9, Your Honor. These are house proceeds from an IOLTA account. I'll order that it be sent the money be turned over upon entry of the judgment. Your Honor, I saw my client. She tried to say something. I I I know this is motion morning. Um I'd like to at least speak to her to see if there's something that I'm forgetting. Okay. We can put you We'll stop the We'll stop the We'll stop the recording and the YouTube and put you in a breakout room for a