Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Janet Austen v. Franklin Herman

Paid petition · Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 419 September Term, 2021 · judgment April 12, 2022


Certiorari denied · June 26, 2023
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

Most importantly, if the trial Judge miscalculated the alimony recipient’s monthly income (or pay) was it right for the appeals court to uphold her decision? Should permanent alimony be discontinued when the person receiving the alimony is 68 years old; was married for 24 years and was not responsible for the demise of the marriage? The person paying the alimony dissipated $983,915.00 (Appendix E) in the 2 years prior to the divorce. This dissipation caused by the use of cocaine, payment for an apartment for an “exotic dancer” and her son as well as cars, dental care, gym passes, medical care and jewelry for 2 Vi years. Should permanent alimony be discontinued if doing so will leave the receiver homeless when she retires (which could be any day); while the person paying the alimony (although retired) receives Social Security Benefits of $3,776.00/month which accounts for a Medicare payment of $ 148.00/month. Retirement Income, 2 homes, 3 cars and his own business for a total of over $2.7million. Should the person paying the alimony have been allowed to include his 3rd wife of 5 years expenses in his financial statement. The Judge during

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Janet C. Austen

For respondent
David C. Gardner
Gardner Law Firm, PC

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Jun 26 2023
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 06 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
  3. May 18 2023
    Brief of respondent Franklin Herman in opposition filed.
  4. Feb 17 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 18, 2023)