A Terroristic Divorce

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW

SONYA HEALY
(Defendant)* : #2007-12477

v. :

TERANCE HEALY
(Plaintiff) * :

EMERGENCY APPEAL IN SUPPORT (APL)

The Order issued on July 21, 2010, and appealed by the defendant on August 6, 2010, places the parties in great financial jeopardy and risks their coverage in regard to medical benefits.

Issue 1: Medical Benefits

1. The Order issued July 21, 2010 orders the Plaintiff to provide medical benefits when it is the defendant who is employed and receiving benefits from her employer. The plaintiff is not employed.

2. This part of the order appears to be a typographical error.

3. Valerie Angst indicated at the June 3, 2010 Conference that her client was providing medical and dental benefits for the Plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff had not received any insurance cards during the preceding 3 years and was unaware of this benefit.

5. Plaintiff requested the insurance cards relating to his coverage. Mrs. Angst indicated she would send them.

6. Plaintiff did not receive the cards.

7. At the July 14, 2010 hearing, the cards were once again requested.

8. Valerie Angst indicated that the cards were not delivered to the Plaintiff but were instead delivered to the Plaintiff’s brother, Brian.

9. Plaintiff’s brother, Brian, had not delivered the cards to him.

10. Plaintiff has no contact with his brother Brian.

11. Plaintiff asked why the cards were delivered to his brother instead of himself, further pointing out that the Defendant had to drive past the Plaintiff’s home, his brother John’s home (with whom he has regular contact), and his mother’s home (whom he sees regularly), to deliver the cards to the brother with whom he has no contact.

12. Plaintiff further pointed out that the last time documents were delivered in this manner, they were fraudulent documents delivered months after the date on the documents and created by Valerie Angst in an attempt to create chaos regarding property issues.

13. Plaintiff was then instructed by Mindy Harris, to contact the insurance company to obtain the cards himself.

14. After contacting the Insurance company for copies of the cards, the Plaintiff was informed that the cards can only be sent to the insured at her address.

15. The Plaintiff has no way of obtaining the insurance cards himself.

16. After a conference regarding equitable distribution, the Defendant and her attorney were AGAIN informed of the situation and the inability to obtain the insurance cards.

17. Instead of offering to provide the documents, the Defendant and her attorney indicated it would be necessary to petition the court regarding the matter.

ISSUE 2: Official Date Stamp on the Order

18. The order has been date stamped by the Domestic Relations Office “2011 JUL 21 P 1:58?.

19. The date stamp is one year in ahead and late in the afternoon. A simple error? Am I to believe that no one noticed the incorrect year on the ‘official’ date stamp even though it was almost 2PM? DID EVERYTHING THAT DAY GET THE WRONG DATE STAMP? There has been no corrected copies of the order received as yet.

20. If this is indeed a simple office error, the people responsible should realize the impact that their simple errors can have on the lives of the people affected by these orders, and the incredible delays caused by the court schedule which make these errors take months to resolve – all the while increasing the financial hardship of the parties involved.

ISSUE 3: Reasonable time to review information and prepare the order.

21. This order was written on July 15, 2010 and signed on July 21, 2010 by Mindy Harris

22. Considering the hearing which was scheduled for 9AM did not begin until after 1PM, and that all of the plaintiff questions were not responded to because of the remaining full schedule of afternoon hearings already backed up, how did Mindy Harris have the time to do a thorough review of the facts before coming to her decision for the order?

23. The impact of the order financially on the parties would make it reasonable to expect a minimum attention to the details. So even though Mindy did all the work on July 15th, the document was not signed until a week later (July 21, 2010), then docketed and then incorrectly time stamped.

ISSUE 4: Earning Capacity

24. Though accepting my earning capacity from the May 19, 2008 transcript, the order does not take into account that I have been unemployed for over 3 years now… or that my unemployment has been caused by my wife, her attorneys and her private investigators, etc….

25. My wife’s income is not adjusted for her intentional reduction in salary as she began planning her divorce.

ISSUE 5: Financial responsibility

26. The order indicates that the Plaintiff now must provide medical insurance for the parties. This replaces the previous order (which she has completely ignored) to provide my medical insurance for which she was given credit.

27. The defendant was given credit for this ‘deduction’ even though (1) she has never provided insurance cards, (2) her attorney lied about the issue on June 3, 2010, (3) her attorney promised to provide the insurance cards on June 3, 2010 and they have not yet been received, (4) her attorney falsely indicated that insurance cards had been sent directly to me from the insurance company over the last 3 years, (5) her attorney falsely indicated that cards had been delivered to me during the period through my brother, (6) her attorney indicated I could have always gotten the cards myself even though I was unaware of the insurance provider to contact and was prohibited by court order from contacting my wife’s company, (7) the support master indicated I should just call to get the cards, however the cards can only be sent to the insured’s address.

28. According to the Order the Defendant is not responsible for the medical benefit.

29. The amount awarded for APL is not enough to permit the Plaintiff to obtain the insurance benefit for himself, let alone for both parties..

30. The order as written places the Plaintiff at risk for further legal actions directly related to the courts assignment of additional financial responsibility.

ISSUE 6: Effective Date

31. The effective date for support orders by law is the date when the benefits request was filed. In this case, the request was made July 2007, and related motion filed at the same time.

32. The request for APL was re-filed on March 19, 2010, because it had not been scheduled in over 3 years.

32. When the effective date was called to the master’s attention she indicated that the plaintiff would have to find out why that request was never scheduled through the DRO which failed to schedule it.

33. The Plaintiff has not been able to obtain any explanation from the DRO.

ISSUE 7: Mortgage

34. The APL fails to take into account the mortgage on the marital residence which has been paid in full by the plaintiff for over 3 years now.

35. The plaintiff has paid the mortgage while the defendant
(1) has taken all the tax deductions though she did not pay any part of the mortgage,
(2) has not paid any local or state taxes on the property,
(3) has not paid sewer, water, electric and gas bills which are associated with the property,
(4) has been shown to be directly involved in fraud regarding the mortgage payment,
(5) has filed multiple petitions in attempts to evict me from the home after she manipulated mortgage payments,
(6) has repeatedly and fraudulently filed that her credit standing was being affected by my payment schedule for the mortgage.

36. The Defendant has received all of the benefits of the mortgage, while the Plaintiff and his family take on the debt.

37. The Defendant is in breach of contract regarding the Agreed Order and the order should not be effective any longer.

It is the law in Pennsylvania that a party to a bilateral contract . . ., breaches a contract when she fails to do something she expressly or impliedly agreed to do. Johnson v. Finestra, Inc. (Construction Division), 305 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir. 1965). If the breach amounts to a material failure of performance, the other party is discharged from any liability under the contract. Borough of Greentree v. Tortorette, 205 Pa. Super. 532, 533, 211 A.2d 76, 77 (1965).

Issue 8: Mounting Debt

38. The mortgage is $2557/month. To date the Plaintiff, and his family, have paid over $ 90,000 in mortgage payments.

39. The plaintiff has paid $14,000 in child support for his one son, Brennan. While the Defendant had run up considerably more than that amount in legal costs while seeking the support.

40. The plaintiff has the mounting debt of the mortgage, the utilities on the home (PECO, Water, Sewer), and his credit cards which are over $ 20,000.

41. ‘My lawyer said it would hinder you financially” was the message from Sonya Healy when in September 2007 my wife explained seeking child support after preventing my son from living at home.

Hindering me financially was something begun began in February 2007 when the defendant, and her agents, sabotaged my business, infiltrated my computers and began manipulating the banking and financial transactions, while making false reports to police and law enforcement authorities in their successful attempt to avoid their prosecution..

A crime for which they have yet to be prosecuted.

The District Attorney has yet to explain her failure to act on the crime reported in July 2007 to local police, in August 2007 to County Detective Kuter, in February 2008 to County Detective Peffall, and in March 2008 to County Detective D’Angelo.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Pro Se

* With regard to this issue, the role of Plaintiff and Defendant are reversed. It creates some confusion with regard to who is Defendant and Plaintiff. It was noted in the petition, and here on the web.