Sarah Strassburg v. George Manures
Case No: 17FL00679
Hearing Date: Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Child Support and Attorney Fees

Req. for Order: Modification Child Support and Attorney Fees

Attorneys: Glenn L. Robertson for Petitioner; Paul A. Capritto for Respondent

Ruling: For the reasons set out below, the matter is continued to February 18, 2020, at 10:30 am.

Analysis: Mr. Robertson, the attorney for Petitione,r filed a Status Report on 12/12/19; reports that the forensic accountant, Wayne Lorch, retained by her has completed a draft Report of Gross Adjusted Income Available for Support; he opines that income available for support is $22,212 per month; attaches to the report a Document Request List (DRL); claims that in 2018 the reported cost of goods sold is 96.6% of gross sales; Mr. Lorch notes, “This is extremely high for any business and typically leads us to believe that there are either overstated expenses or understated revenues;” if Respondent will agree to provide the documents, to the extent such documents exist, then a suggested timeline for trial is to allow Respondent 30 days to produce the documents, then 30 days for Mr. Lorch for review and to set a status conference in approximately 70 days from now. If Respondent refuses to comply with the DRL and the Court does not order such compliance, then Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing in approximately 30 days. Mr. Lorch is prepared to testify on the documents that he has been provided but in such event, Respondent should be precluded from providing documents that he failed to produce.

On 12/13 Mr. Capritto, the attorney for Respondent, filed a Status Report and reports that on December 12, 2019, he received two email messages from Mr. Robertson, each accompanied by attachments, both of which consist of 29 pages, including a draft of a report prepared by Petitioner’s accounting expert, which was immediately forwarded to an accounting expert; prior to receipt of the two email messages from Petitioner’s counsel there had been no communication since the September hearing; matter was on calendar in four days; Respondent asks the Court to continue this matter for hearing to a date that will allow Respondent, Respondent’s counsel, and Respondent’s expert to review the information, process, assumptions and opinions expressed in the draft summary prepared by Petitioner’s expert; matter was last before the Court approximately 79 days ago; request to continue the upcoming hearing would not have been made if the information emailed to the Court by Petitioner’s counsel had been provided sooner than four and a half days prior to the date set for return; is impossible for Respondent, Respondent’s expert, and Respondent’s counsel to be prepared to proceed, let alone attempt to prepare and submit a substantive response or reply within the next three days; asks the Court to continue this matter 60 days at which time Respondent will be prepared to proceed to hearing.

The Court’s Conclusions

The matter needs to be continued.