Home Page by K2 Home Page by JSN PageBuilder

2019 MID-TERM ELECTIONS: MODEL OR MOCKERY OF DEMOCRACY?

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

By JOSEPH G. LARIOSA

(© 2017 Journal GlobaLinks)

 

 

CHICAGO (JGL) — LAWYERS for Filipino Americans Addison Wayne Russell and wife Melisa Margallo-Russell, both 23 years old, will argue on

August 7 at the Cook County Court in Chicago, Illinois if the venue of the dissolution of their marriage should be resolved in Chicago or in Pensacola, Escambia County in Florida.

 

Court documents obtained by the Journal GlobaLinks showed that the World Champion Chicago Cubs shortstop Addison Russell wants the venue of their dissolution of their marriage resolved in Pensacola because he was ahead on June 8, 2017 in filing the case in Pensacola of his wife Melisa, who filed it a week later on June 15, 2017 in Chicago.

 

Michael C. Doyen of the Doyen Law Group, Inc. of Elgin, Illinois will be representing Addison while Thomas T. Field of the Beermann Pritiken Mirabelli Swerdlove, LLP based in Chicago and Bannockburn, Illinois will be representing Melisa.

 

They will argue the venue before Judge Grace G. Dickler, who issued an order last June 30 that respondent Addison Russell “shall have 14 days in which to file any pleadings relating to venue and petitioner shall have 14 days thereafter on which to respond and a pretrial or any and all issues relating to venue shall occur on Aug. 7, 2017 at 10 a.m. before Judge Dickler in Room 1905.”

 

In his motion to dismiss Melisa’s petition for dissolution of marriage, Addison said he  already had filed “another action pending between the same parties for the same cause in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, FL Case No. 2017 DR 002331.”

 

And Petitioner (Melisa) was personally served with the Summons and Petition for Dissolution of Marriage from the Florida Court on June 19, 2017 in Pensacola.

 

Addison said the Cook County Court “does not have subject matter jurisdiction of any issues relating to parenting responsibilities and parenting time due to the already commenced Florida action under the terms of UCCJEA (750 ILCS 36/201).” UCCJEA is Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act of Illinois.

 

Under UCCJEA, a court in Illinois, among others, assumes “jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if Illinois is the ‘home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State.’”

 

A CHILD PRIOR TO MARRIAGE

 

Addison said that although he and Melisa were married on Jan. 9, 2016 in Milton, Florida, they have “one minor child born prior to the marriage to wit: A.K.M.R., DOB, Aug. 2015, and no other issue is contemplated.”

 

Addison said he wants to end their marriage because it “is irretrievably broken.”

 

He said, “It is in the best interest of the minor child that the parties share parental responsibility. It is in the best interest of the minor child that the child resides primarily with Petitioner/Husband and the parties shall have 50/50% time sharing with the minor child.”

 

Addison added, “Child support should be awarded as determined by Florida’s child support guidelines, Sec. 61.30, Florida Statutes.

 

He also said, since their marriage “have acquired and titled various marital assets both jointly and singularly,” the Petitioner/Husband “requests that the Court equitably distribute the parties’ marital assets and liabilities.”

 

In her petition to dissolve their marriage filed at Cook County Court, Melisa is seeking “sole care, decision-making, control and education of the parties’ minor child,” explaining that “Respondent (Addison) expressed little interest in the care of the child.”

 

She said, “Irreconcilable differences have caused an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the parties’ efforts to reconcile have failed and future attempts at reconciliation would be impracticable and not in the best interests of the family.”

 

“Petitioner and respondent will have lived separate and apart for the statutory separation period upon entry of a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage or will have waived same.

 

“Parties have acquired during the marriage certain property, including but not limited to personal property, furniture, furnishings and fixtures, automobiles, retirement accounts, saving and checking accounts, and other evidences of equities and credits.

 

“Petitioner should be awarded her just proportion of all said property taking into consideration all relevant factors set forth in Sec. 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, including but not limited to the contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of said property.

 

“Petitioner owns non-marital property and should keep it.

 

MELISA LACKS SUFFICIENT PROPERTY

 

“Petitioner lacks sufficient property, including the contemplated apportioned marital property, to provide for her reasonable needs and is without sufficient income to meet her needs independently and commensurate with the standard of living established during marriage.

 

“Respondent has possession of substantial property, is gainfully employed earning a substantial income, and is well able to provide maintenance to the Petitioner in accordance with her needs and commensurate with the standard of living established during the marriage.

 

“Respondent has substantial financial resources with which to provide for his reasonable needs and to contribute to the support of the minor child, and therefore, Respondent should be barred from receiving maintenance from Petitioner.

 

“Petitioner lacks sufficient income and resources to provide for the minor child’s reasonable needs without contribution from Respondent;

“Respondent is earning a substantial income and is well-able to provide child support in accordance with the needs and lifestyle of the minor child.

 

“Petitioner is without sufficient financial resources to pay her own costs and attorneys’ fees but Respondent has financial ability to pay Petitioner’s cost and attorneys’ fees in connection with these proceedings.”

 

When Florida process server, Joshua Foskey, of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse, on behalf of Addison’s lawyer, Stephen A. Pitre, handed the Summons, Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on June 19, 2017 at 12:56 p.m. at Walgreens Parking Lot at 6314 North 9th Ave., Pensacola, FL, on Melisa, he noted, “Subject (h)as tattoo on her arm “Aiden,” the name of Addison and Melisa’s child.

 

Earlier, when Mr. Foskey tried to serve the summons on June 14 at about 4:10 p.m. in  Melisa’s home in Pensacola, he reported that “Melisa’s Mother said that Melisa is in NY (New York) with her attorney meeting with the MLB (Major League Baseball).” (Contact reporter: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

QuickSellCart

Your cart is empty.

Go to top