Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Manzo v. Manzo

way

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UN TROSERTA BAGuon, ue,

October Term, 1988

ANDREW C. MANZO, Petitioner

Vv

LORRAINE M. MANZO, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

ae oi, -_ ae

. oe ~£Z ‘4

DREW C. MANZO

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, MD 21144

(310) 969-1786

-

July 22, 1988 Attorney in Fact

VU

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the procedure of the

Maryland Circuit Court is violative of

the Free Speech Clause of the First

Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States when applied to deny a

citizen his right to present evidence and

state facts which are germane to the

issue before that court, especially as it

pertains to the Court's rationale that it

does not have the time to hear the merits

of the issue and pertains to the court

not wanting to be bothered adjudicating

certain issues.

2. Whether the procedure of the

Maryland Circuit Court is violative of

the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the Constitution when

applied to disregard a state law and

violate that state law and deprive a

citizen of property and also deny him

egual protection of the laws.

i

3. Whether the actions, procedures and

rationale of Maryland Circuit Court are

violative of the Unusual Punishment

clause of the Eighth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States as

applied to denying a citizen equal

protection under the law because he was

married for 30 years and did not have a

property settlement agreement.

4. Whether the actions, procedures

and rationale of a Maryland@ Circuit Court

of Special Appeals of Maryland are

violative of the Deprivation of Property

Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the constitution of the

United States when applied to

disregarding the stipulations of a

Federal Statute and depriving a citizen

of those rights and property guaranteed

to him by that Statute.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED... .cccccccccee i

OPINIONS BELOW. eoeeneeeegeserererskhe#ee#s e*ee#eersekfeesee. 1

JURISDICTION... cc cccccvce ccoccccces 2

STATUTE INVOLVED...... coccccccsese SF

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...ccccccccee 7

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT..... 18

CONCLUSION o-oo 2-2 & eeeeseeenst#ee#ee#e#treeenree#eer#28fe#ee#s¢ 21

APPENDIX..... ae & & F&F Fe e*eeee*ee@eseses#e@eertke#e# 22

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Arthur V. Arthur, Ind. CtApp 2 Dist 16

No. 49102-8610 CV-382, 2/18/88

Bender v. Bender 282 Md. 525, 386 A.2d 1

ur

772 (1978)

Crawford v. Crawford Md. 443 A.2d 13,15

599, (1982)

Harper v. Harper 294 Md. 54 448 15

A.2a 916 (1982)

Mazigqgue v. Mazicue 356 F.2d 801 123 16

US App D.C.

Orr v. Orr (1979) 440 US 268, 99 S 16

Ct 1102, 59 L Ed 2d 306

Wallace v. U.S. 309 F. Supp 748 16

Ward v. Ward 52 Md. App 336, 449 15

K.2a 443 (1982)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1988

ANDREW C. MANZO, Petitioner

Ve

LORRAINE M. MANZO, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEAI:S OF MARYLAND

The Petitioner Andrew C. Manzo

respectfully prays that a writ of

certiorari issue to review the judgment

and opinion of the Court of Special

Appeals of Maryland, entered in the above

entitled proceeding on December 3, 1987.

IV

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Special

Appeals of Maryland is not reported and

is reprinted in the appendix hereto,

p. 4a infra.

The judgment of Divorce of the

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

appears in the appendix hereto, p. 8a

inftfa.:

No. A-972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1988

ANDREW C. MANZO, Petitioner

4

LORRAINE M. MANZO, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

“4 4

ES a edhe =< /. ‘

ANDREW C. MANZO

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, MD 21144

(310) 969-1786

July 22, 1988 Attorney in Fact

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the court of Special

Appeals of Maryland, affirming the

judgment of the Circuit Court was entered

December 3, 1987. See Appendix p. 4a,

infra. A petition for a Writ of

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of

Maryland was filed and denied on March 8,

1988.

A supplemetary notice of appeal to

this Court was timely filed in the Court

of Appeals of Maryland on March 31, 1988.

This Petition for Writ of

Certiorari. (30 day extension was granted

by Justice Rhenguist on June 22, 1988).

The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked

under 26 U.&.C. #1257 (3}.

STATUTES AND RULES

The Constitution of the United States

First Amendment

Ninth Amendment

Eighth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment

Public Law 97-252 (10 USC - $ 1408)

Maryland Marital Property Act

Annotated Code of Maryland:

$3-6A-02

$3-6A-03

$3-6A-04

$3-6A-05

$3-6A-06

$3-6A-08

HOW THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE RAISED

At the earliest stage of the

proceedings the petitioner raised the

claims, ina letter to the presiding

judge, (app. p. 6a), in a motion for a

rehearing, and in his appeal to the

Special Court of Appeals that the Judge's

refusal to let the petitioner speak on

his own behalf was unconstitutional as to

the free speech provision of the First

Amendment. Prior to the initial

proceedings, Petitioner was informed by

both attorneys that he did not want to

hear from the Petitioner regarding

property since the petitioner had been

married for 30 years-during which time he

should have been able to complete a

property settlement agreement with his

wife! Does this not violate the Eighth

Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment,

not even for a crime, but simply for

having been married for 30 years? Also,

in not allowing the Petitioner Free

Speech, he denied him Equal Protection

and Due Process in violation of the Ninth

and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fourteenth Amendment claim was

reiterated with respect to a rehearing

with the same judge. Here the court

indicated that he divides property his

way, regardless of any laws indicating to

the contrary - in this case the Maryland

Marital Property Act. The Constitution

of the United States does not allow a

state to deprive a person of property

without due process of law.

The Petitioner reiterated his claims

_

-~

+

to the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments in

the Court of Special Appeals and the

Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court of

Appeals refused to review P.L.

rh

97-252 for legality, stating only that

~

the payment is illegal, the Federal

Government will not make payment.

Z

This again was a deprivation of Due

Process since the Military pay centers do

not review for legality, they only pay

the amount that is stipulated. They do

not adjudicate the legality of the

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Andrew C. Manzo, was

married to the respondent, Lorraine M. Manzo

in Los Angeles, California on April 1,

1955. In June 1956 she deserted her home

and a new born child. After three weeks,

he allowed her to return. Respondent

again deserted in May, 1957. After a few

weeks, he again allowed her to return to

the home. She again deserted in 1960.

Again, he listened to her pleadings and

her promises, felt sorry for her and let

her return to the family.

The fourth time that respondent

deserted was December 20, 1971. This was

10 days before petitioner was to retire

from the Air Force. This time, she

returned to her home in Canada, attended

college, attained degrees and commenced

teaching school in Nova Scotia. During

this period, petitioner attempted to

obtain a divorce but whenever service was

7

attempted respondent hid from the server.

In 1975, Petitioner was raising his

four children, 2 girls ages 13 and 15 and

2 boys, ages 18 and 19. The children

introduced him to a woman, their Sunday

school teacher. They were desirous of

having her for a mother and she felt that

way toward the children. In order to get

married, the petitioner obtained a

unilateral Haitian divorce.

In October 1976, Respondent came to

Maryland and succeeded in having the

Haitian divorce declared null and void.

Petitioner was not desirous of living in

sin in front of his four young children.

He discussed this with them and severed

the relationship with their 'new' mother.

In June 1977, Respondent contacted

the Petitioner and begged for him to let

her reconcile. She promised that she had

changed, had grown up and would not hurt

him or the children anymore. He allowed

8

her to return to the home.

In May 1982, Petitioner was in

Williamsburg, Virginia attending his

daughter's college graduation. When he

returned home, everything of value was

gone (approx. value: $40,000.00). She

left a note saying that she had moved out

and upon her lawyer's advice, had taken

all items of value.

Above is a broad chronology, the

relevant facts are summarized as follows:

Before the marriage, Petitioner

advised Respondent that he desired

children. She said that was all right as

long as he agreed to be responsible for

raising them. He agreed. However, each

time that she became pregnant she

attempted to abort. She succeeded once.

After having the children, although he

was doing most of the work in raising

them, she continually badgered the

Petitioner to adopt the children out.

9

Of course, he refused. Each time that she

deserted, she said that she did not walk

out on him, but the children because she

could not stand them.

From April 1955 until August 1962,

Petitioner was a civilian. In August

1962 he was recalled to active duty with

the U.S. Air Force and was assigned to

Travis AF Base, California. They

immediately moved into quarters on the

base. There was no hardship involved.

In 1964, he was transferred to Misawa,

Japan. The family joined him in three

months and had quarters on the base.

During the period, the Petitioner's

commander told him that it would be

beneficial to his career if his wife

would join the officers' wives club.

Upon asking her she refused and nothing

more was said. After that, he was passed

over three times for promotion. Later

she did join the wives club. When he

10

tried to thank her, she stated that she

did not join for his benefit, but she

joined in order to take a class in

pattern making!

In 1967 the family was transferred

to Fort Meade, Maryland. Again, they

moved into government quarters on the

post. In 1969, he was on orders for Viet

Nam. Respondent told him that if he

went, she would kill the kids and run

away. Petitioner was given a

humanitarian deferment from the

assignment.

Petitioner was scheduled for

retirement on 31 December, 1971. On

December 20, when he returned from work,

respondent was gone. She left no note.

Later he found out that she went to

Canada to her parent's home. When the

children asked about her, he told them

that she was not feeling well and had

gone to Canada to be with her mother and

11

father. They did not seem to be

disturbed about her leaving.

In 1974, Petitioner sought a divorce

in order to marry his childrens’ Sunday

school teacher. His daughters especially

said that they wanted a mother and they

wished this woman to be their mother. He

was unable to effect service and upon the

advice of an attorney he obtained a

Haitian divorce. He bought a new home in

Severn, Maryland and moved in with his

children and new wife.

n 1976 Respondent traveled to

Maryland and succeeded in having the

Haitian divorce invalidated. Petitioner

then split with his former new wife

because, as the trial judge put it, he

was living in sin and he did not want any

part of that because he was raising two

young daughters.

In 1977, Respondent contacted the

Petitioner and begged to come back into

12

the home. Again, he allowed her to

return.

The last desertion was in May 1982.

Petitioner started divorce

proceedings again in 1983. The first

indications that he was going to be

denied due process occurred on April 4,

1986 when we finally went to court.

Petitioner was approached in the

hallway of the court house by both his

attorney and that of the Respondent. He

was told that the judge was in a hurry

and did not have time to be involved in

dividing up the property. (In the

previous three years, attempts to meet

with respondent for discussion proved

fruitless). The judge, in chambers, had

told the attorneys that the litigants had

been married long enough and should, by

this time have arrived at a property

settlement agreement. If they did not

agree on a settlement, he would just have

13

all the property brought into the house

and sold at auction and the proceeds

Givided fifty percent to each.

There was no mention of the Maryland

Marital Property Act which states that it

is Maryland's policy to adjust the

property interests of spouses fairly and

equitably upon the dissolution of their

marriage, and to give careful

consideration to both monetary and non

monetary contributions by the spouses to

the we \|-being of the family. In this

case, the court's refusal to recognize

this law deprived the Petitioner of

property without due process in violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment and also

denied him equal protection of the law.

Both attorneys continued to badger

and coerce the Petitioner telling him

that he better give her everything and

anything that she wanted and fast, so

that they could "get out of there"!

14

3

All through this hallway proceeding it

was a matter of the lawyer for the

respondent saying “we want this and

that", and the other lawyer saying, "yeh,

give them this and that because the judge

is waiting and he is going to give them

this and that anyway". In reality,

everything that transpired was the

absolute opposite of the letter of the

Maryland Statutes. (Crawford v. Crawford,

Md. 443 A.2d. 599, 1982).

As the result of personal research

after the hearing, Petitioner questioned

the legality of being deprived of his

retired pay since the respondent had not

served the required 10 years with him on

active duty. In the rehearing, the court

stated that the Federal Government would

have to rectify that since it was a

Federal Problem!

In the rehearing on September 10,

1986, the same court admitted that he had

=

his way of doing things, regardless of

the fact that that way may not be in

accordance with state statutes. The

Petitioner was deprived of any part of

his personal property that had already

been taken from him and he was deprived,

without due process of half of what

little he had left, including his

military retired pay, and his house which

he had bought alone during the period

when he had the Haitian divorce.

The case was argued in the Court of

Special Appeals of Maryland on December 3,

1987. Judgment was affirmed.

Again in this instance there was no

mention of the stipulations of the

Maryland Marital Property Act, and no

relief was offered. This court also

declined to research further into the

legality of the disposition of the

military retired pay with respect to the

Former Spouses Protection Act.

16

A petition for a writ of certiorari

to the Court of Appeals of Maryland was

Genied on March 28, 1988.

17

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The Circuit Court's method of

conducting the proceedings was in

conflict with the Constitution of the

United States which guarantees equality

and fairness under the law for everyone.

Previous cases which were in violation of

the Maryland Marital Property act were

subsequently reversed in Appeal. (Bender

v. Bender 2828 Md. 525, 386 A.2d 772

(1978); Ward v. Ward 52 Md. App 336 449

A.2d 443 (1982), and Harper v. Harper

294, Md. 54, 448 A. 2d 916 (1982). There

are undoubtedly many similar cases which

are not or have not been filed with the

Court of Appeals and such a disparity of

judgments, in spite of the clarity of

the Maryland Marital Property act

deserve this Court's attention.

The Maryland Marital Property act is

a good, fair, just law and in passing

this law the Maryland legislature demands

18

3

equitable distribution of marital

property upon the dissolution of a

marriage (Crawford v. Crawford, Md. 443,

A.2d, 599, (1982). This philosophy was

substantiated and reiterated in Orr v.

Orr (1979) US 268, 99 S Ct 1102, 59 L Ed

2c 306; Mazigque v. Mazigue 356 F.2d 801

123 US App D.C.; and Wallace v. U.S. 309

R. Supp. 748. Since equality under the

law is guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment of the constitution of the

United States, I believe that this case

deserves this Court’s attention.

Public Law 97-252, the Former

Spouses’ Protection Act allows the states

to consider Military Retirement pay as

marital property within certain

guidelines and stipulations. The

arbitrary disregard of these guidelines

can spell problems for millions of

retired servicemen and women. The

granting of this Writ will give guidance

19

to the lower courts. One state court has

recently decided that the statute can

only be decided prospectively and not

retroactively. (Arthur b. Arthur, Ind Ct

App 2d Dist, No 49102-8610-CV-382,

2/18/88.

Laws are written to serve justice

and if the laws are not followed in the

courts then justice is not served. To

deny the common man the blanket of the

court is to deny him the guidance and

protection which is guaranteed by the

Constitution of the United States. It is

not fair to arbitrarily discriminate as

to which case will get the full time and

attention of the court and which case

will not. The full protection of the

laws involving domestic cases are as

important to that litigant as the

criminal laws are to the person who

deliberately breaks a law by committing a

crime.

20

CONCLUSION

For the various reasons mentioned,

this petition for certiorari should be

granted. Petitioner has worked his way

up the legal ladder and now he approaches

his last opportunity for review and

relief. If he is successful and correct

in arguing that the Circuit Court

arbitrarily denied him his Constitutional

rights, the matter should be remanded to

the Circuit Court for appropriate

disposition.

Respectfully submitted

, S& Le

wr xc = «

Andrew C. Manzo

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, MD 21144

(310) 969-1786

Attorney in Fact

21

APPENDIX

Order extending time to file

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme

Court of the United States

Denial of writ of certiorari

from Court of Appeals of Maryland

Opinion of the Court of Special

Appeals of Maryland. No. 535

Letter from Judge Martin A. Wolff

Letter to Judge Martin A. Wolff

Letter from Kenneth MacFadyn to

Judge Martin A. Wolff

Judgment of Divorce

22

Page

la

2a

8a

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. A-972

ANDREW C. MANZO,

Applicant,

Vv.

LORRAINE M. MANZO

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application

of the applicant,

IT IS ORDERED that the time for filing a

petition for a writ of certiorari in the

above-entitled cause be, and the same is

hereby, extended to and including

July 26, 1988.

s/ William H. Rehnquist

Chief Justice of the United States

Dated this 22nd

day of June, 1988.

la

In the Court of Appeals of the

State of MARYLAND

ANDREW C. MANZO, Appelant

Vv. No. 595

LORRAINE M. MANZO, Appellee,

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

Notice is hereby given that

ANDREW C. MANZO, the appellant above named,

hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of

the United States from the final judgment

of the Court of Appeals of the State of

Maryland, denying a Writ of Certiorari,

entered in this action on March 28, 1988.

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28

U.S.C. $1254 (2) and $1257 (1) and (2).

Attorney in fact for Appellant

Andrew C. Manzo

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, Maryland 21144

(310) 9696-1786

2a

Proof of Service

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31 day

of March, 1988 a copy of the foregoing

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of

the United States was mailed, postage

prepaid, to Fred Howard Silverstein,

Counsel for the Appellee, 835 Court

Avenue, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043.

Andrew C. Manzo

Attorney in Fact

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, Maryland 21144

2a

ANDREW C. MANZO In the

Vv. Court of Appeals

LORRAINE M. MANZO of Maryland

Petition Docket No. 595

September Term, 187

(No. 535, September Term, 1987

Court of Special Appeals)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition

for a writ of certiorari and the answer

filed thereto, to the Court of Special

Appeals/in the above entitled case, it is

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of

Maryland, that the petition be, and it is

hereby, denied as there has been no

showing that review by certiorari is

desirable and in the public interest.

/s/ Robert C. Murphy

Chief Judge

Date: March 28, 1988

3a

UNREPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

NO. 535

September Term, 1987

ANDREW C. MANZO

Ve.

LORRAINE M. MANZO

Gilbert, C.J.

Karwacki

Wenner

JJ.

PER CURIAM

4a

Andrew C. Manzo seeks to set aside

the terms of a separation agreement which

was entered on the record in open court

in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel

County.

Following the decree incorporating

the agreement, Manzo moved to Alter or

Amend on the ground that he was acting

under duress at the time he entered into

the agreement. Judge Wolfe, who had

heard the divorce case together with the

agreement, ruled otherwise. This appeal

ensued.

In this Court Manzo raised three

issues, namely:

"I. The trial court erred in

refusing to set aside the

separation agreement

between the parties on the

grounds of coercion and

duress.

4a

II. It was clearly erroneous

for the court to order

direct payment to appellee

of a percentage of

appellant's military

pension.

III. The essential terms of the

separation agreement were

SO vague and uncertain as

to render the agreement

unenforceable."

I.

A review of the record discloses

that the trial judge heard the evidence

relative to the alleged duress. He also

had the advantage of recalling the

appearance and demeanor of appellant when

the parties entered into the open court

property ee ee agreement. A trial

judge's fact finding, in a non-jury

trial, may only be set aside if it is

Clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086.

4a

From our vantage point we are unable to

Geclare that Judge Wolfe's fact finding

was clearly erroneous.

o

Even if we assume arguendo that the

circuit court erred in directing payment

to the former Mrs. Manzo of a percentage

of a military pension due Mr. Manzo, the

assumption means naught to appellant. If

the payment is illegal under federal law,

the federal government will not make

payment. Consequently, Manzo will not be

harmed by an erroneous decree. On the

other hand, if the appellee's position is

right that the pension was properly

divided, provided reserve time is

counted, the decree will be correct.

Moreover, if the decree is subsequently

determined to be illegal, either party

may petition the circuit court to strike

the illegal portion of the decree. In

any event, Mr. Manzo would still be bound

4a

to pay personally the percentage he

agreed in open court to pay.

Iii.

Neither the circuit court nor we

believe that the property agreement, as

dictated into the record of the trial, is

"so vague and uncertain as to be

unenforceable." We have read the record

of the April 1986 hearing, and we believe

the agreement dictated into the record

and assented to by the parties is clear

in its terms.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

COST TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

$a

State of Maryland

FIFTH CuDICIAL CIRCUIT

Anne Arundel County Courthouse

Annapolis

21401

June 24, 1986

Andrew C. Manzo

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, Maryland 21144

RE: Manzo v. Manzo

Divorce No. 3206925

Dear Mr. Manzo:

I received your letter of June 23,

1986 in which you outlined as to how you

were pressured to reaching an agreement

in your divorce case. I have no

Knowledge of what took place between you

and the attorneys and, in fact, do not

have a clear recollection of what took

place in court on April 4. If you wish

to have the agreement set aside I suggest

that you contact an attorney for advice

5a

as to how you may proceed.

Because this is an adversary

proceeding, I am not allowed to give you

any advice.

Andrew C. Manzo

755 Elmhurst Road

Severn, Maryland 21144

June 23, 1988

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

Court House

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

ATTN: The Honorable Martin A. Wolff

RE: Manzo v. Manzo

Divorce No. 3206925

Dear Judge Wolff:

My attorney, upon my querry, has

informed me that it is within the realm

of decorum for me to write a letter

directly to you.

My case was heard on April 4, 1986,

or, at least, part of the case was heard.

Before the time for the hearing, my

attorney, kenneth MacFadyen, accompanied

by my wife's attorney, Fred Silverstein,

approached me in the crowded hallway of

the court house and pounced upon me and

hurriedly told me that you refused to

hear the case in regards to a property

6a

settlement and you gave us a few minutes

to arrive at a property settlement or

else you were going to have Mrs. Manzo

bring back every thing that she had

removed from the house back to the house,

put it in the middle of the living room,

call in an auctioneer and have everything

auctioned off and split the proceeds

fifty-fifty. My attorney then kept

telling me that I better give them

everything that they want or else I will

not get anything. Neither one of them

gave me a chance to think. The way that

they kept coming at me I was numb and

dumbfounded. Any issues of my rights in

my house or my military pension were cast

aside and both of them kept pushing me to

give Silverstein anything that he wanted

and to this, MacFadyen agreed readily.

He never argued anything that Silverstein

asked for, or rather, told me to give to

him. All the while, Mrs. Manzo was not seen.

6a

In prior consultations with

MacFadyen, he said that he was going to

research all the laws because he thought

that under the circumstances, those of my

wife having a history of not helping me

raise the children and then continually

deserting and abandoning them and always

refusing in anyway to be a good wife and

a good mother, that I could get credit

for all the payments and improvements

which I had put into the house. Also

that I could get half credit for the

$40,000 worth of personal property which

she had removed from the house.

I also kept asking him to look into

the State and Federal law regarding my

military retirement pay. We had less

than 10years on active duty while married

and because of her conduct as a wife and

the intent of the law, I probably would

not lose any of my pension because of her

conduct. She walked out on the security

6a

ee

EO —~™

ieee aE be ES shies

and did not deserve to be awarded any of

it. As it is, she earns as much as I do

and has less liabilities. Later, Mr.

MacFadyen told me that he did not have

time to research the laws and he took me

into the hearing unprepared for the

hearing and was evidently quite happy

when you laid out your ultimatum.

Later, after consulting with other

attorneys, I realized that I had been sold

down the river. One of the worst matters

was when I was expecting to be consulted

regarding the judgment and I discovered

that the other attorney had written it.

MacFadyen told me that he had "sloughed

off the work" onto Silverstein. Of

course, it was not written in accordance

with what had been decided. Primarily

that since we had less than ten years on

active duty, I would send the check.

Secondly, that the correct percentage

was closer to 17%, since my reserve time-

6a

out of marriage - gave me 26 years for

pay wai according to page 1087 of the

Family Law Reporter, benefits earned out

of marriage are not good. These matters

I mentioned to MacFadyen before he

"sloughed off the work"!

Mr. MacFadyen for the last year has

paid no attention to me or my case. I

told him that I did not agree with

anything and I was coerced into the so

called agreement. He told me, in effect,

to forget about it and lay down and die

peacefully!

Mr. Silverstein had continually

refused to bring Mrs. Manzo and me

together to discuss a property settlement

even though 90 percent of the property,

including the house, was purchased at one

time or another while Mrs. Manzo was in

one of her 5 states of desertion and

abandonment, so I never did get a day in

court. I am sure that under all the laws

6a

I am entitled to at least 50 percent of

what I bought. She brought nothing into

the home of material value and very

little in the way of love or family

harmony, (she always stated that she

hated the children), but I stuck it out

for many years and suffered because I

believed in the sanctity of marriage.

Now I am made to suffer two-fold.

All I ask is a' little justice but .

everyone appears to want to deny me that

also. It took me a while, after the

shock of the numbness wore off to realize

how I had been coerced and made under

duress to agree to give away everything

that I had worked so hard for for so many

years with absolutely no help form my

Spouse. In fact, she deserted in 1971,

five days before Christmas and ten days

before I was to retire from the military,

leaving me with four children ages 9 and

15. I struggled and raised them myself

6a

and today they are all good successful

citizens. One of my daughters just

graduated from Law school at William and

Mary and is working as an attorney in

Richmond, Virginia.

I was foolish enough to let her

talk me into letting her back into the

household in 1977. (She promised that she

had grown up and wouid be happy because

the children were grown up). She

deserted again in 1982 when all of a

sudden she started hating all men and all

people named Manzo! She even denies the

existence of our granddaughter.

Your honor, I am not asking for

anything that I do not deserve, only

eguality. I would like to have the so

called agreement set aside, for Mrs.

Manzo gave up nothing and I was made to

give everything away-what little I had

left.

I will appreciate some fairness and

justice.

Respectfully yours,

Andrew C. Manzo

6a

ye 6

=o ed

~ = “¥

ee ed

> . 7 . . © .

Ce Sata wees AO A em _——

re te

1a ON

Ss ee

oy ue, eT E “ be wousye ALY” OTEL

Ta a weeny a wr:

ee 2 # Boe” a

FRIEDMAN, GLORIOSA, COHEN & MACFADYEN, P.A.

Eighth Floor - INA Building

303 East Fayette Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

June 12, 1986

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

Court House

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

ATTN: The Honorable Martin A. Wolff

RE: Manzo v. Manzo

Divorce NO. 3206925

Dear Judge Wolff:

In supplement to a letter to the

Clerk of the Court dated June 4, 11986

from Mr. Silverstein, my client has

advised me that I may not sign the Order

in the form proposed by Mr. Silverstein

for two reasons. First, he believes he

did not agree to having a portion of his

Air Force check set forth in the

agreement sent directly to Mr.

Silvertein's client. Second, he believes

7a

——————

PAW NE BS POPS aN Waa gn

I have misadvised him with respect to his

pension and has indicated to me that he

has received advice from military

advisors that there is a requirement of

ten (10) years of marriage before

military pension may be considered as

marital property by the states.

At the moment, it appears I am still

representing Mr. Manzo, and if an Order

is signed in the form presented, I am

instructed by Mr. Manzo to file @

Petition for Reconsideration.

I shall wait to hear from you after

your consideration of Mr. Silverstein's

Order.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth J. MacFadyen

KJM/cab

7a

FON DR pA VP ON IS ye PCS) NED PAG

|

ANDREW C. MANZO IN THE

Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT

vs. FOR

LORRAIN M. MANZO ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Defendant DIVORCE #3206925

es

JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE

This cause having been duly

submitted to the Court on the 4th day of

April, 1986, and testimony having been

taken thereon,

It is thereupon, this 16 day of

June, 1986, by the Ciruit Court for Anne

Arundel County.

ORDERED that the said ANDREW C.

MANZO, the above-named Plaintiff, be and

he is granted a DIVORCE A VINCULO

MATRIMONTIT from the Defendant,

WORRAINE My Manae,

TT 18 FURTHERED ORDERED that the

Agreement set forth en the reeerd in epen

eourt en the 4th day of April, 1986,

fa

relative to alimony, property rights,

Court costs, etc., be and the same is

hereby approved and made a part thereof

and incorporated in the Judgment, having

the same force and effect as if fully set

forth herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no right

of alimony shall accrue onto either of

the parties hereto, by virtue of their

express waiver thereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this is a

gualified domestic relations order as

defined in Article 10 Section 1408 of the

United States code, as from time to time

amended. In accordance therewith, the

military retirement payment of retired or

retained benefits, from the disposable

retired or retainer pay of a former

member of the armed serviced, the actual

payment thereof coming from the Air Force

Accounting and Finance Center RPT located

in Denver, Colorado 80279 to

8a

Andrew C. Manzo, social security

#04418709, the participant in the

retirement program who is presently

living at 755 Elmhurst Road, Severn,

Maryland 21144 is the retirement plan

which is subject to this Order. The

alternate payee is Lorraine M. Manzo who

presently resides at 8073 Green Orchard

Road, Apartment 22, Glen Burnie, Maryland

21061. The Defendant/Alternate payee's

eguitable interest in said retirement

program is hereby declared to be 25.5% of

the disposable retired or retainer pay,

form the disposable retired or retainer

pay of the Plaintiff. The Defendant,

LORRAINE M. MANZO, shall receive 25.5% of

the aforesaid retirement benefit payments

made from the disposable retired or

retainer pay to the participant, ANDREW

C. MANZO, including any death benefits,

if, as, and when, such payments are made.

The Defendant presently being a retired

8a

i

member of the armed services, any rights

which might otherwise accrue under the

Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Civil Relief Act

of 1940 are inapplicable.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the

Plaintiff and the Defendant shall equally

bear the cost of these proceedings.

JUDGE

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Kenneth J. MacFadyen, Esquire

Attoney for Plaintiff

Andrew C. Manzo

Fred Howard Silverstein, Esquire

Attorney for Defendant

Lorraine M. Manzo