Columnist Sandra Thompson: Spread blame for drawn-out divorce case

IN SEPTEMBER 1997, former Family Court Judge Terrance Marren was issued a public reprimand and fined $1,000 by the Judicial Discipline Commission for taking too long to decide three divorce cases.

Ironically, one of those cases, Lombardo vs. Lombardo, remains unresolved.

The Lombardo divorce originally was filed in February 1993. The case went before Marren on March 29, 1995, but he didn't render a decision until Jan. 8, 1996.

That was an unreasonable delay, according to the commission.

In May 1996, Family Court Judge Gloria Sanchez ruled that Marren's order was proper.

But the case didn't end there.

In 1996, Vince Lombardo appealed Marren's original decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. That court only recently -- more than three years later -- ruled that Lombardo's contentions lacked merit.

Vince and his ex-wife, Donna, have spent close to $200,000 in attorney's fees in this case. The fees continue to mount as Vince has asked for a rehearing before the Supreme Court.

While there are custody issues involving their two children, the main dispute is over community property and financial considerations. Some of the items in dispute throughout the case boggle the mind: a salad spoon and fork, a cue stick, 12 bottles of wine (worth about $10 each), a garment bag, light fixtures and framed prints.

How specific can a court order get? Donna was told to replace the glass in a light fixture or pay Vince what it's worth.

But Donna says that while some of the July 1996 orders have been followed, others remain unresolved.

She wants closure. She wants the original order followed. She thought that would happen after the Supreme Court ruling, but now she waits for the justices to consider Vince's motion for a rehearing.

Vince says he wants closure, but that the case is "worse now than before." He says the order was erroneous and that in one instance, Marren revisited the same issue, and ordered him to cash out Donna twice because the judge forgot his original order.

"I've been victimized by the inefficiency of Marren and the Supreme Court, and am caught up in a bureaucratic web," he adds.

Family Court reform efforts have focused on more timely decisions and judicial fairness. But who bears the ultimate responsibility for a drawn-out case? The judge, the attorneys or the litigants?

In many cases, all three share the burden.

Judges often are resoundingly criticized for undue delays in making decisions. But complicated and contentious cases such as this aren't easy to digest.

If the Lombardo case could have been resolved at the outset for, say, $30,000, why spend $200,000 fighting the decision?

"I'm not a guy to say something is 100 percent wrong but I'm going to do it anyway," Vince says of his disagreement with the original order.

Donna, who has remarried, wants to get on with her life and return a semblance of stability to her children's lives. "I'm begging someone to tell him (Vince) to get on with his life," she says.

It's unclear at this time whether the Supreme Court will grant a rehearing. This case is not likely to ever be fully resolved, and the system, attorneys and litigants will share the blame for that.

*

The Coalition for Family Court Reform will sponsor a protest at 9 a.m. Tuesday in front of Family Court, Bonanza and Pecos roads. The group, whose motto is "United We Stand, Divided No One Listens," will protest untimely and unfair judicial decisions, perceived bias and the jailing of parents in custody cases, among other issues.

The coalition is seeking input from dissatisfied litigants. Call 440-7000.

archive