Ken's client negotiated a divorce settlement with parenting and support terms that differed from a “standard” arrangement. Because neither party hired an attorney, they were concerned about how to prepare the documents and explain the agreement to the Court. Ken took their notes and prepared all of the necessary documents for final settlement. Ken’s client reported she felt ready to answer any question the Court was likely to ask.
The client appeared in Court prepared and confident. She was able to answer all of the Court’s questions and thoroughly explain all of the documents. The Court approved everything on the spot. Ken's client reported she felt ready for every question the Judge asked and everything happened just like Ken explained.
At the time of divorce, the client was awarded portions of two different retirement accounts. Unfortunately for the client, his trial attorney and the attorney for his ex-wife did not divide the accounts. After five years of arguments, Ken was hired to divide the two accounts.
Ken agreed to a fixed fee for his services, which protected the client from excessive charges. After nearly nine months, and four trips to court, Ken not only got his client his share of both accounts, the Court ordered the opposing party to pay Ken additional fees as a result of the delays.
Client’s employer offered two different bonuses – a cash bonus and a stock bonus. Neither bonus was guaranteed and the amounts of the bonuses fluctuated depending on the company’s profitability each year. By using court-directed mediation, Ken was able to negotiate monthly child support and maintenance payments tied to base salary only. Supplemental support and maintenance were payable only open receipt of cash bonuses.
Future stock bonuses were set aside solely for the client. This produced a stable, reasonable monthly payment and protected both parties from any wide swings in future bonus payments.
Ken's client was served with a Protection from Abuse Order which restricted his parenting time. The Order was issued after a disagreement on a weekend schedule. The other party made wild claims against Ken's client in order to obtain the Order.
Ken set the matter for hearing and showed the Judge the claims were not possible. As a result, the parenting restrictions were dismissed and Ken's client was able to resume unrestricted parenting time with his young child.
Ken's client, a stay-at-home dad, loved spending time with his children. The mother sought to limit the client's contact with his children to only once a week, supervised parenting time, and refused to negotiate any other parenting schedule. Ken fought for equal parenting time.
At trial, Ken proved to the Judge that the restrictions sought by the other side were inappropriate and his client was a fit parent. After trial, the Judge granted the client substantial, unsupervised parenting time that increased over the next twelve months until the child spent one-half of each month with each parent.