NIITSUMA vs. NIITSUMA
Jul 22, 2016OUTCOME: In Progress
A divorce action, ongoing, all specific details withheld.
Richard Lee Sanders's Legal Cases (7)
Park City, UT
Criminal defense Lawyer at Park City, UT
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Family ... +3 more
STATE OF UTAH vs. NELSON, TAYLOR ASHTON
Jul 14, 2016OUTCOME: Felony reduced to Mis A; anger management agreed; 30 hr comm service agreed; $150 fine agreed; plea in abeyance granted; stipulation for motion to dismiss granted; stipulation for expungement granted
(Edited to add: Counsel also successfully moved for the recall of a warrant signed and issued 3/3/16) Defendant was arrested on three charges but the state brought only one, a felony charge of Aggr ... avated Assault. This charge relied upon witness testimony as its primary source of evidence. Referred by a friend, Counsel took the defendant as a client after mathematically reasoning that he could devote more time to the defense (by a lot) than a poor, overworked public Defender, and that Defendant (who was indigent) would have no chance of acquiring other private Counsel. The case proceeded through several months, including many appearances, and a lengthy and difficult negotiation process took place between Counsel and the lead Prosecutor. During Counsel's own time (for which he did not bill defendant) Counsel went to the scene of the alleged crime, took photographs and spent an inordinate amount of donated time searching through the discovery and devising both a set of strategy and corresponding tactics for negotiating a favorable plea bargain or else a war plan for trial. (During these extra hours Counsel eventually noticed a crucial set of contradictions among the adverse witness statements and from them, along with other evidence, presented a detailed 19 page single-spaced brief to the prosecutor that Counsel prepared on his own time, for the purpose of persuading the State of Utah to lose further interest in going to trial). After consulting with defendant repeatedly (as well as overcoming a Giglio/Brady issue brought by motion of the prosecution) eventually Counsel was able to negotiate what is likely the best plea bargain he has ever (yet) achieved and from it, he genuinely is convinced he was able to help an innocent young defendant from potentially serving time in prison and becoming a felon. Counsel then, upon totalling the agreed hourly bill (which was already very low and included many "free" donated hours, further reduced the price of the defense (which covered 6 months and many appearances) to a grand total, for all expenses, of $2,000 (to be paid at defendant's ability/convenience with no interest penalties. OUTCOME: Felony reduced to Mis A; anger management agreed; 30 hr comm service agreed; $150 fine agreed; plea in abeyance granted; stipulation for motion to dismiss granted; stipulation for expungement granted; and if defendant timely completes obligations Counsel may bring a motion to reduce the 12 month probation associated with the PIA.
SALT LAKE CITY vs. HOGGARD, JESSE BURTON
Jun 14, 2016OUTCOME: All charges dismissed with prejudice except for a plea deal for 1x Class C Misdemeanor (Held in Abeyance)
Defendant was charged with four charges (1x Class B Misdemeanor; 2x Class C Misdemeanors, 1x Infraction) there had been a lawful search of the vehicle and, along with perfect chain of custody for the e ... vidence seized, the police had collected a confession from the defendant on the scene.
Meyer vs. Meyer
Jun 13, 2016OUTCOME: Ongoing.
Ongoing Divorce Case. Volunteered as Pro Bono counsel. Private details withheld.
CLARK, JOEL vs. CLARK, BEVERLY
May 09, 2016OUTCOME: Decree of Divorce Amended; QDRO that had been omitted by prior attorney is introduced to the final decree.
1. Parties were already divorced. 2. Petitioner (who had fled to CA and accepted a job of extremely low wages, I estimate $1,000/month) became deficient in his spousal support. 3. Respondent and her ... then attorney prevail against an absent petitioner at a hearing to show cause and find him in contempt. 4. Respondent fires her attorney and hires present Counsel. Present Counsel attempts to explain the limiting factors of Title III of the CCPA and the need to domesticate a judgment in CA under SSMJA (which is not going to amount to much by way of a writ of garnishment anyway and further Counsel is not qualified to practice in CA). Instead Counsel advises a tactic to ask the UT court to amend the value of the QDRO belonging to petitioner to the benefit of Respondent in the amount owed to cure the contempt judgment that a writ of garnishment, even if successful, would never cure. Client communicates that she understands these things, but it later becomes obvious to Counsel that client must have difficulty understanding it or remembering it. 5. Counsel, while working on such a motion, also simultaneously reached out to colleagues in CA, so that client could get her writ of garnishment she wanted badly. Counsel notices a defect in the decree of divorce from 2012 (it failed to mention the QDROs even though the findings of fact & conclusions of law clearly identify the retirement to be split). 6. Counsel communicates the urgency of this to client and immediately shifts gears to create a new motion, and a memorandum of supporting law, arguing to cure the decree of divorce to include the QDRO so that client is not missing out on this valuable concession from the divorce negotiation. 7. Client however becomes more interested in trying to get Counsel to call and verbally pressure Petitioner to resume payments that, quite probably, petitioner is mathematically unable to make (and had petitioner been wise he would have moved to adjust the award of alimony, or attempted to do so, but he did not). 8. Counsel makes one such phone call but is weary making another when asked, he does not believe it to be good tactics, or professional conduct, and he is, for that particular day, unusually emotionally affected (as he and his wife had just separated). He had also been unexpectedly preoccupied during normal business hours working on the felony defense case. Counsel suggests he make the call to petitioner in the morning, during business hours, instead. Client insists that Counsel make the call right away upon arriving home, well after business hours. Counsel recommends against it and client fires Counsel. 9. Counsel (because his motion had yet to be ruled on, to amend the divorce decree) suggests to client to rehire him, but execute a new scope/agreement that allowed for his representation to be limited to just the instant the judge signs or rejects the motion and then it so terminates. Client agrees to this and executes such a document. The judge signs and Counsel withdraws. The agreement made was for client to pay a reduced rate of $50/hour to Counsel for legal services (which apparently turned into this umbrella service where Counsel defended and negotiated with a collections agency, on client's behalf, and even gave advice about how to handle a threat of 3 day eviction "for nuisance" that had been strangely served upon them, among other legal services, including telephone calls from client at strange hours of the night, sometimes lasting as many as five hours at a time, though three was most common. Nevertheless, Counsel forgave the debts, not interested in suing this client, or ever suing a nonpaying client, and considered it a lesson well learned. Client refused to retrieve her files and when Counsel did not instantly mail them to her (having represented they were available for pickup at any time) client threatened Counsel with an actual Bar complaint. He nearly asked her which of many free services she was upset with but decided it unprofessional to do so; he apologized & mailed her the file at his expense.
STATE OF UTAH vs. WALGRAEVE, MATTHEW LEE
Apr 12, 2016OUTCOME: All charges dismissed with prejudice except for plea agreement to 1x Class B Misdemeanor (Jail Withheld; Fine and Probation/Treatment Progress Reports Ordered)
Defendant was summoned to answer four charges (2x Class B Misdemeanor; 1x Class C Misdemeanor; and 1x Infraction). Additionally Defendant had failed to appear as ordered and subsequently a bench warran ... t had been issued. Counsel was retained, counsel successfully moved for the recall of the warrant, counsel then negotiated a plea bargain. UPDATE: The Hearing on the Order to Show Cause on 9/20/16 resulted in a favorable outcome for the client, after argument.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GCN OF ELIZABETH R WILSON
Jan 26, 2016OUTCOME: Petition dismissed; mootness
Counsel had represented "Grandma" previously regarding a separate situation that never was taken to court. That termination had ended for a number of months before this action was brought. This action ... was brought by "Uncle" (one of the only two natural born children of "Grandma") seeking (1) to declare Grandma incapacitated and (2) seeking the appointment of Uncle's "Best Friend" as Grandma's legal guardian for the proposed conservatorship. Counsel represented "Other Party" aka "Mother" who was in vehement opposition to the appointment of "Best Friend" as Grandma's official legal guardian. Especially when not only did it create an advantage for "Uncle" in an ongoing dispute but where several reports of Elder Abuse had been filed against "Uncle" to Adult Protective Services by numerous parties, interested and uninterested parties both. There was also grounds upon which to suspect and subsequently argue that "Best Friend" was himself fundamentally untrustworthy and (obvious conflict of interest aside) would be unlikely to adequately and sufficiently understand his fiduciary duties to Grandma and that would, if true, only promote further action. Counsel was prepared to file a compelling objection to Uncle's petition, before this filing could be made, or perhaps anticipating it, "Best Friend" withdrew and no longer consented to be appointed as guardian. Uncle then (upon advice of his own Counsel) amended the petition filed to essentially state that "Grandma is incapacitated, including that Grandma is no longer able to manage the disputes between her two natural born children. Therefore, Court, please appoint both the natural born children as co-guardians on behalf of incapacitated Grandma." Inherent illogical premise aside, Counsel sought instructions from client "Mother" how to proceed and gave advice appropriately, of course, but before any further action could be taken from either side, Grandma died. Counsel, and the trustee of Grandma's estate (another attorney) met with Uncle's Counsel at his request and a stipulated motion to dismiss (along with submitted corresponding order) was agreed to and submitted on the basis that Grandma's death caused this particular controversy to become moot. It was thusly dismissed.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
