Case Results
Excelsior Tower vs. Kemp Construction, Co.
CASE DISMISSED
In July of 2015, Fourth Street Law succeeded in working with Broomfield County District Attorney’s Office to dismiss all criminal charges against our client involving a domestic violence matter. Through our diligent investigation into the case, we discovered that the key witness had not actually seen anything, contrary to the report by the police officer. More importantly, the witness had previously contacted the District Attorney’s office and told them this information. When confronted by this exculpatory evidence, the District Attorney conceded that they were aware of this information, and had not previously notified our office as required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Court finds that Douglas County Sheriff’s actions unlawful
CHARGES DISMISSED
In November of 2014, Fourth Street Law celebrated a victory for our client when the Court granted our oral motion for acquittal after the People failed to meet their burden during their prosecution for Obstruction. This case involved an argument between a divorcing couple, and the wife called 911 falsely stating that her husband was violating a restraining order by being in her home. Two Douglas County deputies were dispatched to the residence. The Douglas County dispatch confirmed that there was no restraining order as claimed by the wife, and relayed the information to the Douglas County Sheriffs responding to the scene. Despite learning that there was no restraining order, the deputy initiated contact with husband, and when husband refused to speak to the Deputy (and told him that he did not have to speak to him), and refused to give him identification, the Deputy put his hand on his duty weapon and told the husband he would be arrested for obstruction. Two officers strong armed husband and took him to the ground on his front lawn. Husband was handcuffed and injured badly enough that medical arrived on scene to look him over. After he was handcuffed, the Deputy inquired whether husband was ready to cooperate and answer his questions. After Husband complied, the Deputy removed the handcuffs and interrogated Husband about the argument between he and his wife. The Deputy concluded that no criminal activity occurred between Husband and Wife and issued a summons to Husband for Obstruction.
The Court agreed with Fourth Street Law that the Douglas County Sheriff’s actions with Husband were unlawful since he confirmed that there was no restraining order as alleged by Wife prior to initiating contact with Husband, Specifically, the Court concluded that the Deputy did not have the right to request Husband’s identification, and arresting Husband for Obstruction for failure to produce his identification was unlawful. The Court also agreed with Fourth Street Law that the statements made to the Deputy by Husband were not voluntary, and as a result, the statements were suppressed.
A Father gets his Parenting Time DISMISSED
In October, 2014 In El Paso District Court, a Father, who had 50/50 custody of his daughter, had to defend himself against a groundless motion to suspend his parenting time filed by Mother. Mother’s allegations included:
Verbal abuse
Unsafe home environment
Neglect
Physical abuse by other family members
Our office was retained late in the case and successfully dismissed the motion to suspend parenting time.
The Court’s Ruling:
The Court concluded that Mother’s allegations of verbal abuse and neglect by Father were completely unfounded. Mother next filed a motion to modify parenting time and to relocate the child out of State.
We successfully defeated Mother’s efforts to relocate the child and the Court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to stay in Colorado with Father. The Court also found that based on Mother’s decision not to work, she was voluntarily underemployed, and that it was appropriate to reduce Father’s maintenance obligation to Mother. As a result of the reduced maintenance obligation, Father’s total support obligation to Mother was drastically reduced.
A Well Deserved Win for a Hardworking Mom
WIN
In October of 2014, After a final orders hearing in Douglas County, our client finally got the court order she was desperately waiting for. Our client is a hardworking nurse practitioner who was forced to work overtime to financially support her husband and four children because he did not want to work full time. The Court concluded that Wife was not required to work overtime, and will not be imputed overtime wages to her income for purposes of calculating maintenance to Husband.
The Ruling:
Our vocational expert concluded that Husband who has a bachelor’s degree, is relatively young, and able bodied, can earn 67% more than his current income without any additional education or experience. The Court ruled that Husband is voluntarily underemployed and adopted Fourth Street Law’s vocational expert’s findings. Husband’s vocational expert was not credible and the Court did not consider the rebuttal vocational expert’s opinions.
The Child and Family Investigator issued a detailed report that the Court adopted in its entirety. In addition, the Court adopted additional recommendations of the CFI provided during testimony. The court concluded that Husband’s time with the children should be restricted due to his anger and alleged drug use. Husband’s request for additional overnights with the children were rejected by the Court. Wife was also awarded sole decision making.
Finally, the Court concluded that the substantial loans allegedly taken by Husband from his parents to support himself financially and pay for his attorneys during the pendency of the divorce were not marital debt. It is notable that Husband incurred attorney fees that were twice that of Wife for legal representation in the same case.
Successful mediation results in total resolution for divorce
SUCCESS
In October of 2014, This Douglas County case involved a medium length marriage of 9 years. Father is a computer software engineer and Mother was a stay at home mom. Father who was represented by Fourth Street Law was able to engage mother in mediation to resolve maintenance, child support, property division, and custody issues prior to temporary orders. Due to the fact that the plan negotiated was a good fit, the parties were able to fully resolve their divorce issues prior to the final hearing. Fourth Street Law was able to successfully convince mother’s counsel that each party should be responsible for their own attorney fees.
Custody Arrangement Met:
The parties had two children of elementary school age and were able to agree to a 5-2-2-5 schedule to accommodate Father’s work schedule. Fourth Street Law was able to demonstrate to Mother that a 5-2-2-5 schedule was in the best interests of the children.
Mediation Successful:
The divorce process was particularly beneficial to Father because Fourth Street Law’s early intervention in the case resulted in all matters being resolved without a formal court hearing. Because the parties were working through counsel without worry of a contested hearing, the parties were able to openly and honestly communicate regarding their issues.
Fourth Street Law, successfully changes law through the Colorado Supreme Court
LAW CHANGED
In June of 2020, Fourth Street Law, LLC represented our client in the Colorado Supreme Court in In re the Marriage of Wollert and Joseph, 2020 CO 47. In the Wollert opinion, announced on June 1, 2020, the Supreme Court considered the issue of parental alienation. As defined by the American Psychological Association’s Dictionary of Psychology, parental alienation syndrome is “a child’s experience of being manipulated by one parent to turn against the other (targeted) parent and resist contact with him or her.” In Wollert, the Supreme Court made clear that severe parental alienation can be grounds for a trial court to set an emergency hearing within 14 days to restrict the parenting time of the parent responsible for the alienation. Even more importantly, the Supreme Court overruled more than a decade of lower court case law affecting all motions to restrict parenting time alleging imminent danger to children. Under the old rule, trial courts could toss out such a motion without even holding a hearing if the judge or magistrate thought the allegations in the motion were insufficient. But under the new rule announced in Wollert, a trial court has no choice but to hold an emergency hearing on such a motion as long as the motion identifies “with specificity the grounds in support of it or the reasons relief is warranted.” Writing for the Supreme Court’s majority, Justice Carlos Samour reasoned that “if the court errs in holding a hearing, the worst-case scenario is that a hearing is improperly held. But if the court errs in denying a hearing, the worst-case scenario is that a child may sustain injury or death.” The precedent set in Wollert will save the lives of children in Colorado.
Our team of dedicated attorneys brings over 25 years of combined expertise to your family and criminal law matters in Colorado. We have successfully guided countless individuals and families through complex legal challenges, always adhering to our core principle: “Every Client Matters”.