lST205 America Public University The State v Criminal Office Memorandum

User Generated

tbnyvazvaq

Law

lst205

America public university

Description

You are a paralegal working in Plentibux & Moore, a small Boise, Idaho law firm that specializes in white-collar criminal defense and represents a high profile Defendant named Ima Criminal. The senior partner in the firm, Bob Plentibux, calls you in to his office and tells you that he has a hot issue for you to research. The United States Attorney, Dirk Lynch, has indicated that he intends to call the firm's best paralegal and your co-worker, Jack Starr, as a witness in a case against the firm's client, Mr. Criminal. Jack has been involved in witness interviews, case research, and document review in preparation for the case. Mr. Plentibux is concerned about what they can make Jack say and wants to know what the limits of paralegal confidentiality are in Idaho. He tells you to look at the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct to answer the question.


Be sure to cite your sources using proper Bluebook format. Your Memo should not exceed 3 pages, single-spaced. Don't forget to use the format assigned by your professor. You will use 1" margins, in Times New Roman 12pt font. Please see the attached Sample for how to structure your Memo.

Office Memo Rubric:
Statement of Assignment: 5/5

Issue: 10/10

Brief Answer: 10/10

Facts: 10/10

Analysis: 25/25

Conclusion: 10/10

Recommendations: 10/10

Format: 10/10

Writing: 10/10


Unformatted Attachment Preview

MEMORANDUM To: Supervisory Attorney From: Student Name & Number RE: Eldridge v. Eldridge, Modification of child support STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT I have been assigned the task of preparing a memo addressing the question of whether the trial Court acted properly when it excused Mr. Eldridge from paying “back” child support in the amount of $3,500. ISSUE In light of the provisions of Indiana Code § 31-2-11-12, which governs the modification of delinquent child support payments, may a court retroactively modify a duty to pay delinquent child support payments based upon the fact that the obligor was unemployed during the months the obligations accrued? BRIEF ANSWER No. In the case of Cardwell v. Gwaltney, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that under Section 31-2-11-12, a court may not retroactively modify a support obligation; any modification must act prospectively. FACTS Mr. and Mrs. Eldridge were divorced in 2010. In the divorce, Mr. Eldridge was ordered to make child support payments in the amount of $700 per month. Mr. Eldridge was unemployed from January through October of 2011. He did not make child support payments during this ten-month period. The child support payments he failed to make totaled $7,000. In January of 2012, Mrs. Eldridge filed a motion with the Court seeking an order directing Mr. Eldridge to pay the $7,000 due in delinquent support payments. Mr. Eldridge responded with a petition to modify his child support obligation. In the petition, he requested that he be excused from having to pay the support obligations that accrued during the ten months he was unemployed. The Court ordered Mr. Eldridge to pay $3,500, one-half of the amount due. It excused him from paying the remaining $3,500. The Court stated that Mr. Eldridge was excused from paying the full amount, because he was unemployed during the months the child support accrued. ANALYSIS The Court acted improperly when it excused Mr. Eldridge from paying “back” child support in the amount of $3,500. Indiana Code § 31-2-11-12 governs the modification of delinquent child support obligations. Section 31-2-11-12 provides: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a Court may not retroactively modify an obligor’s duty to pay a delinquent support payment. (b) A court with jurisdiction over a support order may modify an obligor’s duty to (pay a support payment that becomes due: (1) After notice of a petition to modify the support order has been given to each obligee; and (2) Before a final order concerning the petition for modification is entered. The statute clearly indicates that a court may not retroactively modify an obligor’s duty to pay a delinquent support obligation. The Indiana courts have also ruled that a court may not retroactively modify a duty to pay a delinquent support obligation even if the obligor did not have the means to pay when the obligation accrued. In the case of Cardwell v. Gwaltney, 556 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), Mr. Gwaltney filed a petition requesting that he be absolved from paying the support obligations that accrued during the year he was in prison. id. He had reached an agreement with his former wife that excused him from paying the support for that year. id. The trial Court approved the agreement. id. The agreement was opposed by the county attorney because Mr. Gwaltney’s former spouse, Ms. Cardwell, had been the recipient of AFDC funds and had assigned her support rights. id. On appeal, the Court concluded that the trial Court erred in retroactively excusing the support obligation that accrued during the time Gwaltney was incarcerated. id. The Court stated, “[e]ven though the trial judge was prompted by equitable concerns when Gwaltney was excused from paying support, the law is that any modification of a support order must act prospectively.” Id. at 954. The key facts in our case are substantially the same as those in Cardwell v. Gwaltney. In both cases, there were delinquent child support obligations that the obligor did not have the means to pay when they accrued, and the trial Court’s order retroactively reduced the obligation. In applying the Cardwell Court’s interpretation of Section 31-2-11-12 to our facts, it appears that the trial Court erred in reducing Mr. Eldridge’s delinquent child support obligation. The trial Court’s ruling retroactively modified a delinquent obligation, and under Cardwell, any modification under the statute must act prospectively, not retroactively. It does not appear that there is any viable counterargument to the analysis presented above. The statutory and case law clearly does not allow retroactive modification of delinquent child support obligations. The argument may be made that the Court should reconsider the Cardwell ruling and interpret the statute to allow an exception when the obligor, through no fault of his own, was financially unable to pay the support payment when it became due. In Cardwell, the Court seemed to anticipate this argument when it referred to the commentary to Ind. Child Support Guideline 2: An obligor cannot be held in contempt for failure to pay support when he does not have the means to pay, but the obligation accrues and serves as a reimbursement to the custodial parent, or, more likely, to the welfare department if he later acquires the ability to meet his obligation. id. Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, the trial Court acted improperly when it excused Mr. Eldridge from paying “back” child support in the amount of $3,500. CONCLUSION The Court acted improperly when it excused Mr. Eldridge from paying “back” child support in the amount of $3,500. Indiana Code § 31-2-11-12 prohibits the retroactive modification of a delinquent child support obligation. Furthermore, in the case of Cardwell v. Gwaltney, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that any modification under the statute must act prospectively, not retroactively. 556 N.E.2d at 954. The Court’s modification of Mr. Eldridge’s delinquent child support obligation acted retroactively and is therefore in violation of Indiana law. Thus, the Court’s ruling could be appealed. RECOMMENDATIONS The ruling in Cardwell is from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Additional research should be conducted to determine if the Indiana Supreme Court has addressed this or related questions. Mrs. Eldridge may wish to file an appeal to request that she be paid the other $3,500. We should look into timing issues, so that she does not miss the deadline.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

1
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Office Memorandum
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

2
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Office Memorandum
To: Supervisory Attorney
From:
RE: The State v. Criminal
STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENT
I have been assigned the task of preparing a memo addressing the question of what Jack
Starr, a witness in the case can be made to say in court and the limits of paralegal confidentiality
in Idaho.
ISSUE
In light of the provisions of Idaho Code rule 1: 6, which governs the confidentiality of
information by lawyers, a lawyer may not reveal information relating to the client unless the
client gives the consent.
BRIEF ANSWER
Idaho rule 1.6 states that lawyers shall not reveal information relating to the
representation of the client without informed consent.
FACTS
Ima Criminal is a client of Plentibux & Moore Law Firm in which also Jack Starr, is a
paralegal. Jack is to be a witness in a case against Mr. Criminal. In preparation for the incident,
Jack has been involved in case research, witness interviews, and document review. Mr. Criminal
has been a client of Plentibux & Moore Law firm and has always been ...


Anonymous
Really helped me to better understand my coursework. Super recommended.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags