# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Manzo v. Manzo > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2094%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1988 - **Citation:** 488 U.S. 853 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2094%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.