Please explain


In my case, the judge originally stated that me receiving half of the divisible property was “double dipping” since, according to him, the PSS included the amount I was receiving from a business and was part of the calculations for the PSS. My attorney proved that I never received any of this business profit. There was no designation of the amount/percentage that I supposedly received. We had documentation to prove that this could not have possibly occurred. Then, the judge changed his mind. The judge decided that it was “just and proper” that my ex receive ALL of this divisible property and subsequently added the entire amount to the column for the ex. Even if you designate a percentage of this business income to me, I never received 50% since the PSS only lasted 8 months. In the final analysis, I receive less in the final outcome even with the division of this business “income”. The result was that the ex, who makes 5 times more than I do, received more of the marital and divisible property than I did. The ex was the one at fault, but his fault was not admissible in Court. Your thoughts on why a judge would do this??? Please!!! No one has ever dared to answer my question. NO ONE!



You set forth a number of issues but the bottom line that I see is you don’t understand why the judge made certain rulings in your case.

There are a number of different considerations and answers to your statements. The first is that ultimately a judge has plenty of discretion to make rulings in their case. The remedy when a judge makes an error is to appeal the judgment or to object at the time of the ruling with a proper foundation.

It appears that the judge was not convinced by the arguments you set forth during the trial. The amounts received for PSS should not have been ‘offset’ in Equitable Distribution and the presumption for divisible property is that it is also divided 50/50. This means the judge would need to make specific findings as to an unequal distribution of the divisible property, if that is indeed what was ordered.

I can’t speak to the intention of a judge in making rulings, but if the orders have only recently been entered, you may still appeal the judgment.