Posted on 11/22/2007 7:21:56 PM PST by Coleus
A state appeals court on Wednesday refused to automatically bar alimony from spouses who kill a child, in a decision that suspended payments to an Old Tappan woman serving time for the lethal beating of her 14-year-old son. "Nothing in this opinion prevents the Legislature from amending the alimony statute," the judges wrote. "But we do not read the present statute nor the ... case law to create that automatic disqualification." The decision was issued in the case of Linda Calbi, who is serving a three-year prison term after pleading guilty to beating her son, Matt, on Aug. 17, 2003, during a violent argument at their home. He died hours later from internal bleeding and cardiac arrest.
"I don't understand how anyone can look my brother in the face and tell him that he has to pay this woman alimony," said Brian Sokoloff, brother of Linda Calbi's ex-husband, Chris. "Half of this opinion espouses sympathy for my brother, and the other half is saying, 'Too bad.' " Linda Calbi was originally charged with murder, but the charges were later downgraded to aggravated assault, based on expert reports that medical error contributed significantly to the boy's death. She was sentenced last year to three years in prison and won't be eligible for parole until November 2008. The Calbis were divorced in 2001 after 15 years of marriage. A few months after Matt's death, Chris Calbi fell behind his alimony payments and filed papers in court seeking a reduction or termination of his payment obligations.
"She took the life of her oldest son, scarred her younger son for the rest of his life, and tore the fabric of my soul from me," Chris Calbi wrote in papers filed in Superior Court in Hackensack. "To reward this evil and violent woman by allowing her ... to derive a financial benefit from the family she destroyed ... can only be described as a perversion of our justice system." A judge ordered him to continue making payments, then later interrupted alimony for the period that Linda Calbi is incarcerated. But Chris Calbi's arrears had risen to more $40,000 by then, and the judge ordered him to pay $400 a month to his ex-wife's prison account. Alimony is determined mostly on the basis of economic considerations and rarely involves moral factors. So while a second marriage to a well-to-do spouse is enough to terminate alimony, a criminal conviction isn't, said Ian Hirsch, an attorney who previously represented Linda Calbi.
"Alimony has nothing to do with the criminal act. He is obligated to pay it," Hirsch said. "It's not much of an argument to say that she killed his child and she should be punished for it by losing the payment." The three-judge appeals panel stuck to those principles Wednesday. "We cannot mend the hole in Christopher's heart anymore than we can expiate Linda's guilt," the judges wrote. "However, what we can and must do is consider whether the impact of Matthew's death on Christopher resulted in an economic change of circumstances such that his ability to pay alimony was prevented or hindered." The panel suspended Chris Calbi's payments until a hearing is held in Hackensack to make that determination. The panel also vacated the father's arrears after Matt's death.
The panel also noted that Linda Calbi can apply for alimony after she leaves prison. Linda Calbi, who represented herself in the appeal, is incarcerated at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility in Clinton. Sokoloff, who has acted as a spokesman for Chris Calbi, said his brother will continue his battle. "The record before the court lays out a consistent and increasing pattern of spousal and child abuse culminating in the death of Chris' son," he said. "The court acknowledges that, and then invites the Legislature to change the law. "We are going to turn our attention to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and we are going to turn our attention to the Legislature and governor."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Good lord, this is just wrong on so many levels!
All child killers should get is the chair.
I hate to say it, but the court exercised judicial restraint. The matter is one for the legislature, but I should think that the man might get some injunction against paying while the matter is before the State Supremes, or the Legislature of NJ.
The petitioner and the court have exposed aflaw in the current law. The court ruled in a way that should get the problem fixed for the future.
As a matter of justice, the agencies involved in enforcing the judgment should look the other way.
This sounds to me like the Court is going to make an effort to find a way to legally void her alimony after she killed the son.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I think only in cases where one spouse has foresaken their career for the other’s, for example, should there be some alimony granted. And then only for some period of time to get them back into the job market. But some states will allow a person to collect for years, provided they don’t remarry.
I agree she doesn’t deserve support. But legislating from the bench is still offensive to a conservative mindset, even when it would achieve a result you agree with.
I guess that’s a big no on child support, too.
Hasn’t she suffered enough?
First her son died and now they are trying to take away her alimony!
/sarcasm off/
If she got justice for beating her son to death instead of only three years in prison she would be executed and alimony would be a moot point.
Our courts and judges are approaching terminal idiocy.
Sue her for the wrongful death of their son and ask for attorney fees and $400/month damages.
DK
Thats a good idea. I don’t see how the btch can get out after only 3 yrs either. Should be more like 30 yrs or death would be even better.
She doesn’t deserve support because the state is supporting her and seeing to all of her basic necessary needs.
I would like to know why he was in arrears of $40,000.
Sorry, didn’t read this was after his son’s death. That can explain it.
I still say, she is entitled to nothing because she is being supported and all of her basic needs are being taken care of.
The legislature definitely needs to fix this, as a matter of common sense, no incarcerated criminal should be receiving support payments or alimony. Alimony should be suspended until released and support should go to any surviving children (and if living with the other parent, would be moot).
I’m not willing to permanently revoke alimony for incarcerated criminals because I can potential cases where men set their wives or soon to be exes up to take a fall for some white collar crime and then have their alimony revoked.
Certainly in the case of murder, they would need to rewrite the penalties to include revokation of alimony as one of them. The judges can’t just make up new laws and penalties no matter how richly desrved they may be.
Old Tappan, NJ one of the richest towns in NJ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.