Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Garden Suite

Topeka, Kansas 66603

Donald R. Hoffman George L. Martin, Investigator

Jason P. Hoffman
Telephone: (785) 233-5887
Facsimile: (785) 233-2173
January 12,2000

Rebecca A. King
RILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd.
808 Massachusetts Street
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Re: In the Matter of the Marriage ofRichardson


Kansas Court of Appeals No. 99-83905-A

Ms. King:

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of Appellant's Motion for Summary Disposition
filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals today's date.

Cordially,

~C?

DONALD R. HOFFM
Attorney at Law
DRH/ss
Encl: as above
cc. client
HALLECK RICHARDSON, )

Petitioner - Appellee, )

vs. ) Case No. 99-83905-A


)

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, )

Respondent - Appellant. )

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

COMES 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 Summary

Disposition 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 Child

Support, Order on Motion to Change Venue and Order Amending Prior Decision

Regarding 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 first

unsuccessful appeal to this Court. The Court found that the District Court did not

abuse its discretion with respect to ordering Appellant to move back to the Topeka

area and did not violate Appellant's constitutional rights. In the Matter of the

Marriage 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 by

Appellant at that stage, this Court addressed it by stating:


the testimony of the guardian ad litem and the court services officer
provides substantial competent evidence to support the court's
decision. Consequently, the mere fact that Dombrowski must decide
whether to move or forfeit some of her rights to custody does not
establish 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 of

the minor child do not take into consideration her best interests and violate her and

Appellant's constitutional rights;

5. Appellant provides no argument 10 her brief with regard to the basis of her

constitutional claim(s). Notwithstanding this fact, any argument with respect to some

off-hand constitutional claim Appellant thinks she may have was dealt with by this

Court in the previous appeal;

6. Appellant does manage to get across, however, that requiring Appellant to move from

her current location to the Topeka area is inconsistent with the best interests of the

parties' minor child. As previously stated in paragraph 2, above, this issue was not

directly raised by Appellant in her first appeal but this Court addressed it nonetheless

finding against Appellant;

7. Essentially, Appellant is asking this Court to review itself with respect to matters

previously ruled upon. The June 28, 1999 orders she complains about in the instant

appeal merely upheld the orders contained in the October 29, 1997 Journal Entry of
Memorandum Opinion. Nothing has changed from the first appeal- the issues are

identical and, quite frankly, the instant appeal borders on the frivolous. As stated in

Appellee's brief in the last appeal, it is apparent (hat Appellant will not be satisfied

until she has drained every available resource out of Appellee and the court system

and until she is able, by whatever means necessary (or how many attorneys she has to

go through), to get a child custody order that is satisfactory to her. Appellee should

not 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 of

Summary Disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 with respect to

Appellant's claims of error in the instant matter.

WHEREFORE, Appellee respectfully request the Court enter an Order of Summary

Disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 to with respect to Appellant's claims of error

in the instant matter and for such and other further relief as the Court deems just and equitable

under the circumstances,

Respectfully submitted,

D nald R. Hoffman (#
Jason P. Hoffman (#17637
HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN
112 West Seventh Street
Garden Suite
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Ph. (785) 233-5887
Fax (785) 233-2173
Attorneys for Appellee
CERTIFICATE OF SERYICE

I, 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, addressed
to:

Rebecca A. King
RILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd.
808 Massachusetts Street
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

and that the original and three (3) copies of the same were hand delivered to:

Carol G. Green
Clerk of the Appellate Court
Kansas Judicial Center
301 S.W. 10th Street
Topeka, KS 66612-1507

112 West Seventh Street


Garden Sui te
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Ph. (785) 233-5887
Fax (785) 233-2173
Attorneys for Appellee
TELECOPIER 785-843-()161

TELECOPnrnHMESSAGE

TO: Lisa Nathanson FROM: Rebecca King

DATE: 1/14/00 FAX OPERATOR: __


jk_h_,_ _ _ __
----------------------------
RECEIVER'S FAX NUMBER: 1-877-264-5321

NUMBER OF PAGES (Including this Cover Sheet):

PLEASE CALL (785)841-4700 TO CONFIRM RECEIPT OR IF YOU HAVE ANY


PROBLEMS RECEIVING.

WE ARE TRANSMITTING FROM SHARP F0-4850.

OUR TELECOPIER NUMBER IS (785) 843-0161

COMMENTS:

_ Urgent _ For your review _Reply ASAP ~ Please comment

Re: Dombrowski

' ..

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

Hard Copy Mailed: Yes_ __ No X