2000 1-12- ks court of appeals motion for summary disposition (rebecca king)

8/8/2019 2000 1-12- KS COURT of APPEALS Motion for Summary Disposition (Rebecca King)

1/6

Garden Suite Topeka, Kansas 66603 Donald R. Hoffman George L. Martin, Investigator Jason P. Hoffman Telephone: (785) 233-5887Facsimile: (785) 233-2173January 12,2000Rebecca A. KingRILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd.808 Massachusetts StreetLawrence, Kansas 66044

Re: In the Matter of the Marriage ofRichardsonKansas Court of Appeals No. 99-83905-AMs. King:

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of Appellant's Motion for Summary Dispositionfiled with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals today's date.Cordially,~ C ? DONALD R. HOFFMAttorney at LawDRH/ssEncl: as abovecc. client


2/6

, ) Petitioner - Appellee, ) vs. ) Case No. 99-83905-A

) CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, )

) Respondent - Appellant. )

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITIONCOMES 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 SummaryDisposition 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 ChildSupport, Order on Motion to Change Venue and Order Amending Prior DecisionRegarding 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 firstunsuccessful appeal to this Court. The Court found that the District Court did notabuse its discretion with respect to ordering Appellant to move back to the Topekaarea and did not violate Appellant's constitutional rights. In the Matter of theMarriage 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 byAppellant at that stage, this Court addressed it by stating:


3/6

provides substantial competent evidence to support the court'sdecision. Consequently, the mere fact that Dombrowski must decidewhether to move or forfeit some of her rights to custody does notestablish 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 ofthe minor child do not take into consideration her best interests and violate her andAppellant's constitutional rights;

5. Appellant provides no argument 10 her brief with regard to the basis of herconstitutional claim(s). Notwithstanding this fact, any argument with respect to someoff-hand constitutional claim Appellant thinks she may have was dealt with by thisCourt in the previous appeal;

6. Appellant does manage to get across, however, that requiring Appellant to move fromher current location to the Topeka area is inconsistent with the best interests of theparties' minor child. As previously stated in paragraph 2, above, this issue was notdirectly raised by Appellant in her first appeal but this Court addressed it nonethelessfinding against Appellant;

7. Essentially, Appellant is asking this Court to review itself with respect to matterspreviously ruled upon. The June 28, 1999 orders she complains about in the instantappeal merely upheld the orders contained in the October 29, 1997 Journal Entry of


4/6

.identical and, quite frankly, the instant appeal borders on the frivolous. As stated inAppellee's brief in the last appeal, it is apparent (hat Appellant will not be satisfieduntil she has drained every available resource out of Appellee and the court systemand until she is able, by whatever means necessary (or how many attorneys she has togo through), to get a child custody order that is satisfactory to her. Appellee shouldnot 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 ofSummary Disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 with respect toAppellant's claims of error in the instant matter.

WHEREFORE, Appellee respectfully request the Court enter an Order of SummaryDisposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 to with respect to Appellant's claims of errorin the instant matter and for such and other further relief as the Court deems just and equitableunder the circumstances,

Respectfully submitted,

D nald R. Hoffman (#Jason P. Hoffman (#17637HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN112 West Seventh StreetGarden SuiteTopeka, Kansas 66603Ph. (785) 233-5887Fax (785) 233-2173Attorneys for Appellee


5/6

CERTIFICATE OF SERYICEI, 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, addressedto:Rebecca A. KingRILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd.808 Massachusetts StreetLawrence, Kansas 66044and that the original and three (3) copies of the same were hand delivered to:Carol G. GreenClerk of the Appellate CourtKansas Judicial Center301 S.W. 10th StreetTopeka, KS 66612-1507

112 West Seventh StreetGarden Sui teTopeka, Kansas 66603Ph. (785) 233-5887Fax (785) 233-2173Attorneys for Appellee


6/6

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

TELECOPIER 785-843-()161 TELECOPnrnHMESSAGE

TO: Lisa Nathanson FROM: Rebecca KingDATE: 1/14/00 FAX OPERATOR: __k_h_,____ _RECEIVER'S FAX NUMBER: 1-877-264-5321NUMBER OF PAGES (Including this Cover Sheet):PLEASE CALL (785)841-4700 TO CONFIRM RECEIPT OR IF YOU HAVE ANYPROBLEMS RECEIVING.WE ARE TRANSMITTING FROM SHARP F0-4850.

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

_ Urgent _ For your review _Reply ASAP Please commentRe: Dombrowski

'..

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

Hard Copy Mailed: Yes___ No X

2000 1-12- ks court of appeals motion for summary disposition (rebecca king)

Documents