Child Support and Spousal Support Case
Attorney Gomez represented the wife throughout the entire case including trial. The husband refused to disclose his assets and income, avoided discovery demands, provided false information to the court, and failed to pay the proper amount of child support for his children. He was also the owner of a construction company, for which he failed to provide any relevant information during the divorce case. Wife sought spousal support from the Husband because he earned a significant income throughout marriage. After significant preparation, Mr. Gomez was able to show the court that the Husband was not credible. The court imputed a significant income to the husband, ordered him to pay a significant sum of money to wife, ordered husband to pay attorney’s fees
Female client, a Spanish speaking immigrant came to us having been tossed out of the family residence by her abusive husband. She was not on title. She had very little employment experience. Her husband told her she would receive nothing and poisoned their adult children against her, even promising them a share of real property to get their loyalty. We vigorously prosecuted her claim. We obtained a six figure settlement for our client based on her rights to the home, her husband’s pension and her alimony. She also was awarded some property in Guatemala. She was very happy with the result and eager to start her new life.
Civil Litigation – Stolen Property
A client came into the office regarding his stolen horse that the thief resold to a separate individual. The horse thief claimed that he had purchased the horse and he was its legal owner. The third party buyer claimed he was innocent because he paid full value for the horse. The buyer did not want to return the horse. The client needed Mr. Gomez’s help. This would take our client and Mr. Gomez to a full trial against two separate Defendants and their attorneys.
During the trial, Mr. Gomez applied his years of trial experience to impeach the horse thief (catch him lying). Through his thorough research and investigation into the horse thief’s background. Mr. Gomez was able to show the court that the horse thief in a separate child support case claimed he had no funds, therefore Mr. Gomez argued, the horse thief did not have funds to pay for the horse. The court ruled in our client’s favor against the horse thief.
What was initially set for a two-day trial set to end on Friday led to Mr. Gomez and his staff working through the weekend performing legal research for the case. The judge asked Mr. Gomez to provide a legal brief (“argument”) that would require the ‘innocent buyer’ to return the horse to our client by the following Monday morning. Mr. Gomez was able to find case law that supported the arguments and after reviewing the briefs, the court ordered that our client’s horse be returned.