Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Divorce,l.a. Style

April 17, 1988

Colman-Schwimmer told the story of the $5.95 rubber stamp that was uncovered at great expense, and I am sure at a great deal of emotional cost to her client, to prove that certain checks were tampered with. Now, I am just a layperson, with just one divorce under my belt. However, even I know that if there is suspicion of checks being tampered with, all one has to do is subpoena a copy of the checks from the bank, involving little effort and, more important, little expense (aha! maybe therein lies the rub), and, voila, you have all the proof you need without muddying your shoes.

Judging on the quality of Colman-Schwimmer's performance in this matter and the resultant waste of time, money and energy, I think the client (or the paying party) is entitled to a sizable factory rebate.

STANLEY M. BLOCK

Encino

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|