Mont. Supreme Court rules against Paws Up
Legal News Center
The Montana Supreme Court has reversed a lower court and ruled that a Montana construction company can either collect a debt or foreclose on a high-end guest ranch involved in a decade-long financial fight.
The Independent Record reports that the high court on Tuesday ruled that the owner of Paws Up used a "shell" corporation to try to avoid paying Helena-based Dick Anderson Construction.
Paws Up is owned by Monroe Property Co., which is controlled by David Lipson, the former CEO of the haircut chain Supercuts.
In 2001 Anderson filed a lawsuit seeking to collect the final $800,000 on the $10 million project. Arbitrators awarded Anderson about $1.4 million in 2005 in damages, interest and attorney's fees.
Related listings
-
Court says judges can't give extra time for rehab
Legal News Center 06/16/2011The Supreme Court says judges cannot give convicts extra time in prison in hope it will be used to get them into rehabilitation services.The high court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of Alejandra Tapia, who was trying to reduce her 51 month s...
-
Ohio court investigating lawyer who tipped Tressel
Legal News Center 06/13/2011The Ohio Supreme Court is investigating possible misconduct by the attorney who first tipped Ohio State's football coach to NCAA violations by his players.Coach Jim Tressel's decision not to alert university officials to the tip from lawyer Christoph...
-
US appeals court overturns release of detainee
Legal News Center 06/10/2011A Yemeni detainee ordered to be freed from Guantanamo Bay has to stay now that a U.S. appeals court has overturned his release. The U.S Court of Appeals in Washington says circumstantial evidence of terrorist ties can be enough to keep a prisoner lik...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.