Lawyer versus lawyer - the mother of all divorces!
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Court calls Law profs' 17 year divorce fight appalling
By Kimball Perry
Monday, August 12, 2013
Sharlene Lassiter, now Sharlene Boltz. (Malinda Hartong/The Inquirer)
When they married in 1986, Christo and Sharlene Lassiter vowed to create a marriage that would last in good times and bad.
Instead, the marriage lasted 10 years – seven years less than their divorce-related legal battles. That fight has been so acrimonious that it’s resulted in rare instances of judges sharply rebuking the pair. One judge noted the ex-spouses are both law professors and, by their actions in court, are teaching future lawyers how to ignore court rules and make a mockery of the legal profession.
“I am really shocked, because when I was in law school my professors were outstanding. They never would have told me that behaving the way you all have, both of you, over the past 20 years, is acceptable behavior,” Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Leslie Ghiz told their attorneys in a July hearing.
Christo Lassiter, 56, is a law professor at the University of Cincinnati. Sharlene Lassiter, 52, who is remarried and now known as Sharlene Boltz, is a law professor at Northern Kentucky University’s Chase College of Law. The divorce lawsuit had an astounding 1,400-plus entries filed in it, at least 1,000 more than a typical divorce file.
“Holy cow, that is extremely rare,” Loveland attorney George Maley said of the 17 years of divorce and post-divorce suits between the former spouses.
A typical divorce without children can be completed in six to nine months, Maley said. One involving children, custody and visitation can be completed in a year.
Christo Lassiter (Malinda Hartong/The Inquirer)
Not so for Lassiter and Boltz. The filings have included Boltz calling the police to Lassiter’s workplace several times; both having and then losing custody of their two children, now ages 20 and 17. It also involves several complaints by judges presiding over the case that the law professors, who they say should know the rules of the courts, repeatedly violated those rules.
“(B)oth parties ought to be admonished by the State Bar of Ohio. Both are law professors and officers of the Court. Each has a duty to behave in a proper manner, particularly with regard to legal filings, and each has more than pushed the envelope with regard to abusing the court system. It is frightening to this Court that either is teaching current law students the boundaries and ethics of our profession. Both should be thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior,” Ghiz wrote.
The case has grown so infamous that many area domestic relations lawyers know the name of the couple just by hearing the facts of the case. One attorney contacted by The Enquirer refused to be quoted, fearful he would be sued by either of the pair.
Local domestic relations attorney Trista Portales Goldberg called the case “highly unusual.”
“That’s a highly contentious, highly litigated case,” she said. “You don’t see (large numbers of) entries like that.”
While the divorce itself was concluded after five years, the ex-spouses have been involved in at least 28 other cases against each other – including two that went to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined to hear them.
In 2002, the Cincinnati-based Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals wrote of its disgust with the couple’s legal war.
“This court has not seen many domestic relations cases more contentious and acrimonious ... than this case. The parties, who are both law professors and who ought to know better, engaged in thoroughly inappropriate behavior that was detrimental to the resolution of their case and to the welfare of their children for which both claimed to be primarily concerned,” judges wrote.
That was nine years ago.
Lassiter, though, was bothered that he has been vilified when, he insists, his only goal was to be a good parent.
“There has been no spite. I wanted to father my children,” Lassiter said. “I have not seen this as ego-driven. I have not seen this as revenge-motivated.”
Lassiter blamed judges presiding over his cases for not cracking down on what he said were improper activities by his ex-wife. He never referred to her by name in an interview, calling her only “the other party.”
I think there could have been and should have been better court management,” he said of what he believes were judges allowing his ex-wife to manipulate the court system to her benefit. “Had a court stepped in and resolved the major issues cleanly and early, there would not have been voluminous (filings),” he said.
Boltz didn’t return calls or emails to her Chase office. A magistrate wrote she showed “unrelenting hostility” toward Lassiter and did what she could to make sure he had no relationship with their children. “She has flatly refused to obey court orders,” a magistrate wrote just prior to the divorce being final.
Lassiter had his UC paycheck garnisheed when he owed $80,000 in unpaid child support. Boltz called the police on him several times while he was at work, court documents show. He won custody of their two children when Boltz moved to Kentucky. She won it back when Lassiter tried to enroll a child in a Michigan boarding school after being ordered by a judge not to.
“Both parties have behaved in an appalling manner, and both parties are harming their children,” the court of appeals wrote in 2003.
The fight isn’t over.
There are still three issues, Lassiter said, where he is in court trying to get his ex-wife to pay him money he says she owes him. The next hearing is September 6.
By Kimball Perry
Monday, August 12, 2013
When they married in 1986, Christo and Sharlene Lassiter vowed to create a marriage that would last in good times and bad.
Instead, the marriage lasted 10 years – seven years less than their divorce-related legal battles. That fight has been so acrimonious that it’s resulted in rare instances of judges sharply rebuking the pair. One judge noted the ex-spouses are both law professors and, by their actions in court, are teaching future lawyers how to ignore court rules and make a mockery of the legal profession.
“I am really shocked, because when I was in law school my professors were outstanding. They never would have told me that behaving the way you all have, both of you, over the past 20 years, is acceptable behavior,” Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Leslie Ghiz told their attorneys in a July hearing.
Christo Lassiter, 56, is a law professor at the University of Cincinnati. Sharlene Lassiter, 52, who is remarried and now known as Sharlene Boltz, is a law professor at Northern Kentucky University’s Chase College of Law. The divorce lawsuit had an astounding 1,400-plus entries filed in it, at least 1,000 more than a typical divorce file.
“Holy cow, that is extremely rare,” Loveland attorney George Maley said of the 17 years of divorce and post-divorce suits between the former spouses.
A typical divorce without children can be completed in six to nine months, Maley said. One involving children, custody and visitation can be completed in a year.
Not so for Lassiter and Boltz. The filings have included Boltz calling the police to Lassiter’s workplace several times; both having and then losing custody of their two children, now ages 20 and 17. It also involves several complaints by judges presiding over the case that the law professors, who they say should know the rules of the courts, repeatedly violated those rules.
“(B)oth parties ought to be admonished by the State Bar of Ohio. Both are law professors and officers of the Court. Each has a duty to behave in a proper manner, particularly with regard to legal filings, and each has more than pushed the envelope with regard to abusing the court system. It is frightening to this Court that either is teaching current law students the boundaries and ethics of our profession. Both should be thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior,” Ghiz wrote.
The case has grown so infamous that many area domestic relations lawyers know the name of the couple just by hearing the facts of the case. One attorney contacted by The Enquirer refused to be quoted, fearful he would be sued by either of the pair.
Local domestic relations attorney Trista Portales Goldberg called the case “highly unusual.”
“That’s a highly contentious, highly litigated case,” she said. “You don’t see (large numbers of) entries like that.”
While the divorce itself was concluded after five years, the ex-spouses have been involved in at least 28 other cases against each other – including two that went to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined to hear them.
In 2002, the Cincinnati-based Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals wrote of its disgust with the couple’s legal war.
“This court has not seen many domestic relations cases more contentious and acrimonious ... than this case. The parties, who are both law professors and who ought to know better, engaged in thoroughly inappropriate behavior that was detrimental to the resolution of their case and to the welfare of their children for which both claimed to be primarily concerned,” judges wrote.
That was nine years ago.
Lassiter, though, was bothered that he has been vilified when, he insists, his only goal was to be a good parent.
“There has been no spite. I wanted to father my children,” Lassiter said. “I have not seen this as ego-driven. I have not seen this as revenge-motivated.”
Lassiter blamed judges presiding over his cases for not cracking down on what he said were improper activities by his ex-wife. He never referred to her by name in an interview, calling her only “the other party.”
I think there could have been and should have been better court management,” he said of what he believes were judges allowing his ex-wife to manipulate the court system to her benefit. “Had a court stepped in and resolved the major issues cleanly and early, there would not have been voluminous (filings),” he said.
Boltz didn’t return calls or emails to her Chase office. A magistrate wrote she showed “unrelenting hostility” toward Lassiter and did what she could to make sure he had no relationship with their children. “She has flatly refused to obey court orders,” a magistrate wrote just prior to the divorce being final.
Lassiter had his UC paycheck garnisheed when he owed $80,000 in unpaid child support. Boltz called the police on him several times while he was at work, court documents show. He won custody of their two children when Boltz moved to Kentucky. She won it back when Lassiter tried to enroll a child in a Michigan boarding school after being ordered by a judge not to.
“Both parties have behaved in an appalling manner, and both parties are harming their children,” the court of appeals wrote in 2003.
The fight isn’t over.
There are still three issues, Lassiter said, where he is in court trying to get his ex-wife to pay him money he says she owes him. The next hearing is September 6.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home