The first case conference was held and the judge ordered a number of things, child support, access, sole custody on consent, as well as a number of other items. So, my lawyer drafted the order and sent it to his lawyer’s office. He won’t sign the order as he has an issue regarding the wording of one of the items. But, rather than following Rule 25(5) of the Family Law Rules, his lawyer just wrote my lawyer indicating that he wanted the order changed. My lawyer wrote him back indicating he did not agree with what he would like changed and that if he wanted to dispute the wording of the order than Rule 25(5) of the Family Law Rules allows him to do so and that he should proceed accordingly. However, instead of doing that, his lawyer wrote my lawyer a letter asking that we parse out the parts of the order that we agree with and leave out the section we don’t , to be dealt with at a later time in another motion/order. My lawyer then wrote him back advising him again that if he disagrees with the Order then he needs to follow Rule 25(5) of the Family Law Rules and that it will need to be decided by the judge. We haven’t heard anything back yet and believe it or not, this back and forth has been going on now for almost two months.
According to the Family Law Rules he has 10 days to sign the Order and if he doesn’t agree he must follow Rule 25(5) to dispute the order as to form and content. I asked my lawyer that since he has not complied with Rule 25(5) why we just can’t go ahead and have the order issued since it wasn’t legally disputed in the first place (i.e. he didn’t follow Rule 25 (5)). My lawyer advised that he couldn’t have the Order issued because it would be inappropriate of his office to simply issue the order knowing that his lawyer has raised an issue.
I’m concerned that this is just a delay tactic and I’m wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and what happened to resolve the issue?
Your comments are appreciated. Thanks.
According to the Family Law Rules he has 10 days to sign the Order and if he doesn’t agree he must follow Rule 25(5) to dispute the order as to form and content. I asked my lawyer that since he has not complied with Rule 25(5) why we just can’t go ahead and have the order issued since it wasn’t legally disputed in the first place (i.e. he didn’t follow Rule 25 (5)). My lawyer advised that he couldn’t have the Order issued because it would be inappropriate of his office to simply issue the order knowing that his lawyer has raised an issue.
I’m concerned that this is just a delay tactic and I’m wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and what happened to resolve the issue?
Your comments are appreciated. Thanks.
Comment