A matter of days after Commissioner Glenda Veasey refused to give Marci spousal support, this lawsuit against me was filed in British Columbia. Filing two different lawsuits in different jurisdictions is called, "forum shopping":
Marci was seeking the Canadian court to tie up all of my real estate (properties that she later never claimed in trial, properties acquired by me well after divorce and which were my sole and separate property).
Along the way, Marci, through her attorney Eric Watson, of the Kelowna-based (and IMHO ironic in its name!) Okanagan Collaborative Family Law Group signed a sworn declaration that I was a resident of British Columbia since 2000, however during that time Marci and I were married, and residents of California.
In Watson's filing, the statements below were obviously a false statements, and the Canadian Court sanctioned this behavior. An attorney should take due diligence to see if a claim is frivolous before engaging the courts.
The signature above is Eric Watson, a Kelowna attorney as Plaintiff's solicitor. Attorney Watson filed the duplicative action in Canada while producing documents from the California action seeking the same relief as an open California trial. This is a sanctionable act as "forum shopping" is not allowed, and in fact the Canadian Court sanctioned the party for this behavior.
Here is testimony in the California Court from the transcript:
2 Canadian counsel was hired to file a
3 collateral action, a collateral divorce action seeking
4 spousal support, division of property. You have
5 evidence of that Canadian action. You have evidence
6 that she was sanctioned for. I will point you out to
7 the case of Askew and Burkle. Both of those cases talk
8 about the fact it's sanctionable to file collateral
9 actions without -- especially without any leave of
10 Court, as was done in this particular case.
11 My client ended up spending something
12 around 50,000 dollars defending an action up in Canada.
13 The net effect of that Canadian action was -- what I
14 call "lis pendens" and what they call "pending
15 actions" -- are -- were -- were recorded against all of
16 Mr. Fong's property, even the property that didn't --
17 that no community property assertion was made at trial.
Marci was seeking the Canadian court to tie up all of my real estate (properties that she later never claimed in trial, properties acquired by me well after divorce and which were my sole and separate property).
Along the way, Marci, through her attorney Eric Watson, of the Kelowna-based (and IMHO ironic in its name!) Okanagan Collaborative Family Law Group signed a sworn declaration that I was a resident of British Columbia since 2000, however during that time Marci and I were married, and residents of California.
In Watson's filing, the statements below were obviously a false statements, and the Canadian Court sanctioned this behavior. An attorney should take due diligence to see if a claim is frivolous before engaging the courts.
This lawsuit would be akin to my filing a lawsuit against Madonna in Japan for spousal support and tying up Madonna's properties. Madonna is not a resident of Japan, and I am not married to Madonna. Still, I went through over $80,000 to win this lawsuit.
When this topic of forum shopping came up in the Los Angeles Courtroom, Attorney Barbara K. Hammers here argues that even though Marci sued me, I didn't have to pay a dime to defend it because she never served me with the lawsuit:
---------------------------
2 MR. OLSEN: We should all agree that my client
3 was forced to defend the action in British Columbia.
4 MS. HAMMERS: No.
5 THE COURT: Of course he was. How can you not
6 agree to that? She filed an action.
7 MS. HAMMERS: He was never served with it.
8 THE COURT: Hang on. Let's think this through.
9 She filed an action against him.
10 MS. HAMMERS: Right.
11 THE COURT: Doesn't serve him.
12 MS. HAMMERS: Right.
13 THE COURT: On an ex parte basis, ties up all of
14 his properties in -- in --
15 MR. OLSEN: Columbia.
16 THE COURT: -- British Columbia, and he is
17 supposed to go "Okay. Fine"?
18 MS. HAMMERS: But, Your Honor, there were orders
19 here in California that he not sell anything, not
20 encumber anything --
21 THE COURT: I am not arguing the value or not --
22 all I am trying to do is figure out how can you say that
23 he doesn't have an obligation to fight this or has to do
24 something about this? He has to respond in any way?
25 MS. HAMMERS: Why? He was never served.
-------------------------
The BC Courts ruled in our favor, and sanctioned Marci for my fees and costs, as is customary in Canada:
No comments:
Post a Comment