FATE OF ADDISON CASE FILED IN FLORIDA UNKNOWN
By JOSEPH G. LARIOSA
(© 2017 Journal GlobaLinks)
CHICAGO (JGL) – Judge Grace G. Dickler of the Circuit Court of Cook Count in Chicago, Illinois had “voluntarily dismissed” the
Dissolution of Marriage case filed by Melisa Reidy-Margallo Russell against her husband, World Champion Chicago Cubs shortstop Filipino American Addison Russell.
In an “agreed order” dated Aug. 15, Judge Dickler ordered Respondent Addison Russell to pay within ten days the lawyers of Petitioner Melisa Russell, Beermann Pritikin Mirabelli Swerdlove, LLP, “$22,500 as and for contribution to Petitioner’s attorney’s fees” and court’s cost.
After the payment is made, Melisa will waive “any claim against” Addison “for further contribution to her attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs incurred in the Illinois matter.”
The order also says that “Petitioner M. Reidy-Russell hereby withdraws her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and this cause is voluntarily dismissed.”
The order did not mention if Addison will keep intact or withdraw his petition for dissolution of marriage he filed against Melisa in the Circuit Court of Escambia County in Florida.
In her petition to dissolve their marriage filed at Cook County Court, Melisa sought “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.
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.”
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.”
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.”