Not exact matches
Each of
appellees» possible theories of wealth discrimination is founded on the assumption that the quality of education varies directly
with the amount of funds expended on it, and that, therefore, the difference in quality between two schools can be determined simplistically by looking at the difference in per - pupil expenditures.
Appellee acknowledged familiarity
with the ICRP.
The debt in question originated shortly after
appellee's graduation from chiropractic college with the disbursement of a $ 35,322.81 consolidated student loan.5 Appellee made approximately ten years» of payments towards this debt, but defaulted after she bec
appellee's graduation from chiropractic college
with the disbursement of a $ 35,322.81 consolidated student loan.5
Appellee made approximately ten years» of payments towards this debt, but defaulted after she bec
Appellee made approximately ten years» of payments towards this debt, but defaulted after she became ill.
She filed her bankruptcy petition in 2000.6
With principal, interest, and collection costs,
appellee now owes ECMC over $ 61,000.
The chancellor found that
appellee's interest in Wal - Mart stock options that could not yet be exercised were not marital property but compensated appellant
with an award of alimony.
The psychologist agreed and recommended that
Appellee have sole parental control and that psychological therapy continue
with a single therapist
with the ultimate goal of bettering the relationship between the children and Appellant.»
108, 113, 953 S.W. 2d 596, 598 (1997)...
With the interest of Maegan as our primary concern, we reverse the chancellor's order awarding the parties joint custody and remand the case to the chancellor to enter an award granting primary custody to appellant with liberal visitation rights to appellee.&ra
With the interest of Maegan as our primary concern, we reverse the chancellor's order awarding the parties joint custody and remand the case to the chancellor to enter an award granting primary custody to appellant
with liberal visitation rights to appellee.&ra
with liberal visitation rights to
appellee.»
«The trial court found that the evidence presented demonstrated that appellant had permitted absenteeism from school, undermined the girls» relationship
with, and alienated them from,
appellee, obstructed
appellee's regular parenting time, caused the girls to become overly identified
with and involved in appellant's problems and concerns, particularly Sarah, who is «enmeshed»
with appellant.»