Andrew McClurg's

Sexist Judge Saves Husband in Divorce Case

Chick Iverson left his mark in more ways than one.

California lawyer Frank Zotter sent in Iverson v. Iverson, a California divorce case in which the trial judge, in Frank’s words, “demonstrates once again the wisdom of the old saying, ‘it’s best to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you a fool than to open it and leave no doubt.’”

The case involved the validity of a prenuptial agreement and the question of which of the parties had initiated the idea of marriage. The trial judge concluded that surely the wife had pursued the marriage. After all, the judge said, she was “lovely,” but “[h]ad nothing going for her except for her physical attractiveness.” Specifically, she “did not have much of an education, and did not have much of a background in business, and did not have much by way of material wealth.”

The judge simply couldn’t fathom the notion that the husband, Chick Iverson, would have been crazy enough to pursue marriage when “[h]e had just gone through a divorce which cost him a million dollars.” Marriage, the judge said, “would be the last thing on his mind. And why, in heaven’s name, do you buy the cow when you can get the milk free, as we used to say. And, so, he’s getting the milk free. And Cheryl is living with him in his home.”

The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering a new trial before a different judge on the basis that the trial judge’s sexist perceptions of the couple’s relationship made it impossible for the wife to have received a fair trial.

Who the hell was Chick Iverson? The case makes it sounds like he’s a big deal and he must have been because he told John Wayne he wanted The Duke to be best man at the wedding. Internet research discloses Iverson was the first Volkswagen dealer in L.A.

McClurg footnote: A source who requested anonymity sent this interesting follow-up information about the Iverson case:

Chick Iverson and John Wayne were best friends. That’s why John Wayne was the best man at his wedding to Mrs. Iverson. Mr. Iverson has since passed away and is actually buried next to John Wayne.

Chick Iverson owned the first VW dealership in Orange County, not LA. He imported the first Porsches to the west coast after WWII, and established a Volkswagen, Porsche, Rolls Royce, Audi and Chevrolet dealership in Newport Beach in the 60s which was sold in the 80s. It was the largest and best selling Volkswagen dealership in the United States.

Mr. Iverson made a hefty sum selling the wonderful bug to many a hippie. Mr. Iverson and Cheryl Iverson had a bitter divorce that would rival any Dynasty episode. The judge’s screw-up with his comments costs Mr. Iverson close to a million dollars in attorneys’ fees as he was paying for his attorney and Mrs. Iverson’s. Eventually, Mr. Iverson won and the prenuptual agreement was upheld.

Another McClurg footnote: More inside info about the colorful Chick Iverson, courtesy of Carl “Skip” Williams, a friend and former employee:

“Who the hell is Chick Iverson?” I had to laugh when I read that. You’re not from Orange County, CA. Let me add these few choice pieces to the article.

John Wayne and Chick were like Oprah and Gail. John Wayne was the Godfather to Chick’s son, who died at the age of 21 when he took a used Jaguar of the lot and ran off the cliff on his way to Laguna. Chick introduced John Wayne to his wife who worked on his ranch in South America. Chick Iverson was the executor to John Wayne’s Estate and controlled all the money for his children.

Chick Iverson was lucky in business and a genius. He was the son of immigrants. He had the largest cattle ranch in Oregon and the sixth largest in the US. He started as a salesman selling cars, with a high school education. His biggest decision was a fluke. He worked his way from salesman to general manager at a Porsche dealership in Chicago. He then opened up the first Porsche dealership in Orange County. Two years later he went looking to add another brand. His first choice was American Motors, second was Volkswagen.

When he decided to go with American Motors; he invited the representatives over to his house. One made a remark that offended his wife, so he went with Volkswagen and the rest is history.

— In re Marriage of Iverson, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1495, 1499 (1992). Thanks to Frank Zotter.

Court Relies on Eighth-Grade Math Book to Decide Case

eighth grade math book resolves complex case — Eighth-grade math book held to be controlling authority by a federal appellate court.

You gotta love an opinion that begins:

In this appeal we are asked to determine whether “.82″ is the equivalent of “82%.” Having successfully completed grammar school, we are able to answer the question in the affirmative.

An unsuccessful bidder for an offshore oil and gas lease brought suit against the Secretary of the Interior for awarding the contract to a competitor. The plaintiff offered a royalty of “73.45689%” in its bid. A competitor offered a royalty bid of “.82165.” The Secretary construed the competitor’s bid as one for 82.165 percent, and awarded the contract to it based on it being the higher bid.

The plaintiff asserted the Secretary acted arbitrarily and capriciously in construing .82165 to be 82.165 percent. The trial court agreed and entered judgment for the plaintiff.

The U.S. Court of Appearls for the Fifth Circuit reversed, relying on as its primary source of authority an eighth-grade math book called “Growth in Arithmetic,” which the Court said asked and answered the pertinent question: “Do you know how to change a per cent to a decimal?”

— Oil & Gas Futures, Inc. of Tex. v. Andrus, 610 F.2d 287, 287–88 (5th Cir. 1980). Thanks to Frank Zotter.

The World’s Most Succinct Judicial Opinion

Why waste words? Wouldn’t it be nice if more judges could cut to the chase like Judge J.H. Gillis of the Michigan Court of Appeals? Here’s his entire opinion in Denny v. Radar Indus., Inc.:

J.H. Gillis, Judge.

The appellant has attempted to distinguish the factual situation in this case from that in Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating and Manufacturing Co., Inc. (1969), 17 Mich. App. 259, 169 N.W.2d 326. He didn’t. We couldn’t.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

As the most succinct judicial opinion known to Lawhaha.com, Judge Gillis’ effort enters the Strange Judicial Opinions Hall of Fame.

— Denny v. Radar Indus., Inc., 184 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. App. 1970). Thanks to Richard McKewen.

LeAnn Rimes Rhymes

judge rhymes leann rimes — Judge used Leann Rimes tunes to solve her contract dispute.

In Rimes v. Curb Records, Inc., country music sensation LeAnn Rimes sought to void a recording contract on the basis that she was a minor when she signed it. Judge Jerry Buchmeyer, one of the original legal humorists, upheld a forum selection clause in the contract and granted the defendant’s motion to transfer the case to Tennessee—and he did it all to the tune of LeAnn’s hit songs.

Here’s a sample (footnotes omitted):

STATEMENT OF FACTS

(To be sung to the tune of LeAnn Rimes, “How Do I Live.” Copr. & (R) 1997 Curb Records, Inc.)

LeAnn Rimes

A very rich and famous star

Wasn’t so rich in times afar

But what a talent she had!

Enter Curb

To sign a contract, they hoped

After her talent they scoped

They saw the cash in her eyes

But LeAnn

Who at twelve was hardly dumb herself

Wanted to retain her future wealth

If you could have seen

Baby those attorneys changed everything

But so many lines!

They missed one thing.

CHORUS #1

Why did you sign, LeAnn Rimes?

So long ago

Off on that choice of forum?

Your attorneys didn’t know?

They made lots of changes, but one thing survived …

Forum clause, to that clause, what weight do we give?

INSTRUMENTAL INTERLUDE

VERSE #3

Many times

Back and forth from judge to attorney

Both in Texas and in Tennessee

There was so much to review

And LeAnn

With a guardian to oversee

She disavowed her own minority

Now she believes

Her age will invalidate everything

She ever signed

We must decide

CHORUS #2

How do we read the forum clause?

Binding or no?

How could she see, at age twelve

Or truly know

That the Curb-Rimes relations, would never survive?

Forum clause, to that clause, how much weight do we give?

Judge Buchmeyer wrote separate lyrics for the “Legal Analysis” and “Conclusion,” making the opinion a LeAnn Rimes Greatest Hits collection.

— Rimes v. Curb Records, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d 984, 985–86 (N.D. Tex. 2001). Thanks to Melissa Williams.

Creative Statutory Interpretation Put to Test

Ohio Court of Appeals Judge Mark Painter combined humor and common sense in Gibson v. Donahue, where the plaintiff was injured being thrown from her horse, which was spooked by two Irish Setters that the defendant allowed to run free in an area restricted to equestrian use.

Talk about creative lawyering. The defendant tried to escape liability by relying on an Ohio statute intended to provide tort immunity for riding stable owners and horse show operators for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of equine activity (a statute Painter said “is noteworthy mainly for using the word ‘farrier’ ten times”).

Judge Painter observed that the case was one of first impression, “probably because no one before has been audacious enough” to try to extend the statute to a situation like this one.

Defendant did have a slim statutory leg to stand on. The statute extends immunity to “an equine activity sponsor, equine activity participant, equine professional, veterinarian, farrier, or other person.” However, Judge Painter said that for defendant’s construction to prevail, the statute would have to be read as applying to “any other person in the whole world.” Construed as defendant argued, “[a] person who negligently crashes an airplane into the crowd at an equine event would thus be immune to liability.”

By the way, a farrier is a blacksmith. Remember that if you’re a law student in Ohio. It might be on the bar exam.

— Gibson v. Donahue, 772 N.E. 2d 646, 648, 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).

Snake Nailed to Door Ruins Evening for Defendant

Ohio Court of Appeals Judge Mark Painter writes some amusing opinions. He had a bit more leeway to let loose back when he was a municipal judge presented with some highly unusual fact patterns.

In State v. Kirchner, the defendant was charged with aggravated menacing and resisting arrest. It all started just because he wanted to hang out one night at home with some friends–with a five-foot dead snake nailed to his door. Read on and enjoy:

The evidence adduced presented, at the very least, a bizarre situation. Cincinnati Police Officers Randy Froehlich and Steve Means received a radio dispatch to an address … in the “Over-the-Rhine” section of Cincinnati. The reason for the dispatch was “man nailing snake to door.”

Upon the officers’ arrival … they did in fact discover a five-foot-long black snake which had been nailed through its head to the door of defendant’s apartment. Though the record is silent on the point, assumedly the snake was deceased.

Quite naturally, the officers knocked on defendant’s door, which defendant answered, and sought to question defendant concerning the snake. The officers asked if they could come in and talk with the defendant, to which he replied, “no.” The entire situation deteriorated from that point forward, resulting in the events in this court.

Quite obviously, the defendant had a right, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to refuse to allow the officers to enter absent a warrant or perhaps exigent circumstances, which did not exist in this case. Of course, a prudent man would have talked with the officers to resolve the situation, but the Constitution applies to both prudent and imprudent men.

Defendant testified that the snake was not his, he had not nailed it to the door, and since it was not his snake, he did not believe it to be his responsibility to remove it. Defendant believed that the caretaker of the apartment building would eventually remove the snake, which had been hanging for approximately eight hours. Defendant did not wish to converse with any police officer, because he and his friends were engaged in a social visit, involving the use of Wild Irish Rose wine.

[A struggle ensued when the defendant stepped back and put his hands on his hips. A folding knife in a sheath was on his belt. The officers interpreted his movement as “going for” the knife. They drew their weapons, disarmed and arrested the defendant.]

The question remains as to what, if any, laws the defendant had violated. It might be noted that no charges were filed against anyone in connection with the mistreatment of the snake. Under Cincinnati Municipal Code Section 701-11, “[n]o person shall … cruelly beat, mutilate … any animal …..” An “animal” is defined … as follows: “‘[a]nimal’ shall, for the purposes of Sections 720-11 and 720-13, mean and include every living dumb creature.” The above definition would obviously include a snake, though the inartful wording might imply that it would be perfectly legitimate to torture a talking parrot. Be that as it may, since the defendant denied nailing the snake to the door, the officers were evidently not able to determine the identity of the nailor, the nailee obviously being unable to testify.

We do not find that defendant’s actions … constitute the crime of aggravated menacing. Perhaps the entire matter could be classified under “aggravated foolishness,” though there is no section in the Revised Code proscribing such conduct. If there were, our jails would be a great deal more crowded than they are presently.

Judge Painter found sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the defendant for resisting arrest.

— State v. Kirchner, 483 N.E.2d 497, 498–99 (Ohio Mun. 1984).

Plaintiff Called Out in Ball Game with Court of Appeals

Baseball fans may enjoy this opinion from Ohio Court of Appeal Judge Mark Painter. In a taxpayer suit against the Cincinnati Reds and the City of Cincinnati alleging failure of the city to collect stadium rent from the Reds, Judge Painter managed to lighten up the complex legal analysis by sprinkling baseball phrases throughout the 20-page opinion.

Judge Painter offers this succinct play-by-play in the opening paragraph:

In keeping with the less than stellar history of stadium construction in Cincinnati is this lawsuit involving the Cincinnati Reds, Cincinnati, and Hamilton County. It has twisted and turned, parties have been thrown out and substituted, and none of the parties can agree on the rules of the game. The Reds, Cincinnati, Hamilton County, the taxpayer-plaintiff, and the trial court have become enmeshed in a series of procedural and legal double plays and errors. It is difficult to determine who, if anyone, is on first.

We resolve the case by calling the plaintiff out.

— City of Cincinnati ex rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, 782 N.E.2d 1225, 1229–30 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).

Federal Judge and the Turtles are Happy Together

How can you not love U.S. District Judge William G. Young, chief judge for the District of Massachusetts, for his candor and willingness to come clean on an error he made in a case?

Confronted with a motion for new trial based in part on his allegedly erroneous jury instructions, he stated candidly: “[D]espite case-specific guidance from the court of appeals, I botched the instructions to the jury.”

Even better, Judge Young began his opinion in Suboh v. Borgioli by setting forth the lyrics to “a derisive ditty going around the courthouse” set to the music of “Happy Together” by the Turtles.

The original version of “Happy Together,” penned by Gary Bonner and Alan Gordon, reached No. 1 on the Billboard charts the week of Mar. 25, 1967. I’m not sure this version (from a group of lawyers who call themselves the Bar and Grill Singers) poking fun at the high-mindedness of federal judges, will reach that level of success, but it’s still fun.

Here’s a taste of the song as set forth in Judge Young’s opinion:

Imagine me as God. I do.

I think about it day and night.

It feels so right

To be a federal district judge and know that I’m

Appointed forever.

…

[CHORUS]

I’m a federal judge

And I’m smarter than you

For all my life.

I can do whatever I want to do

For all my life.

Appointed Forever, Bar & Grill Singers.

— Suboh v. Borgioli, 298 F. Supp. 2d 192, 194 (D. Mass. 2004). Thanks to Michael Hirschowitz.

Take Me Out to the Ballgame, and Out of the Pretrial Conference

A Texas lawyer is a big fan of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Make that a HUGE fan. So huge that he filed an “emergency motion for continuance” of a pretrial conference in a case that conflicted with Game 1 of the 2010 World Series between the Rangers and the San Francisco Giants. Here’s some of what he said:

1. The lawyer in charge of this matter for the defendant is Darrell W. Cook (hereinafter referred to as Darrell).

2. Since 1972, when Darrell was but a lad of thirteen, he has been a fan of the Texas Rangers Baseball Club (hereinafter referred to as “Rangers”)

3. As such he has developed a love of the Rangers that has gone generally unrequited for thirty-eight (38) years.

4. Darrell has been to more games than he can possibly recall, has been a season ticket holder in one form or another for over ten (l0) years and has either listened to or watched all or parts of thousands of baseball games played by the Rangers.

5. Everything between Darrell and the Rangers was business as usual this year:

a. Josh Hamilton was discovered drunken and covered in whip cream;

b. Ron Washington was discovered to have ingested a “controlled substance” during the 2009 All-Star break;

c. The top two starters for the Rangers at the beginning of the season, Rich Harden and Scott Feldman, looked like they were completely unfamiliar with the tasks assigned to them and made a mockery of their roles as leaders of the pitching staff; and

d. The team declared bankruptcy and was sold via an auction more befitting a used Buick than a major league baseball team.

6. So, when this setting was received Darrell was convinced he would be in attendance as it was unimaginable that anything the Rangers could do would interfere with such setting.

7. Then suddenly and without warning the Rangers began a steady march toward credibility. …

8. Thereafter the unthinkable occurred ….

The unthinkable, of course, was that the Rangers made it to the World Series. He concluded his motion by noting that “[t]he continuance is not sought merely for delay alone, but so that justice may be done.”

No denying the lawyer’s sincerity. I hope he got to go to the game.

— Emergency Motion for Continuance, City of Irving v. Villas of Irving, Ltd, Case No. T-01398471 01, Municipal Court, City of Irving, Texas, Oct. 25, 2010. Thanks to Thomas Samuel.

The Birth of Legal Mythbusters

Undocumented reports of weird laws, funny “real life” litigation transcripts, and outrageous lawsuits have been circulating for decades. Some of them are the same stories I read back as a practicing lawyer 30 years ago. People send them to Lawhaha.com all the time, but we never post them because they lack documentation.

Scott Martin’s email below prompted us to think more about the issue and to start a category for Legal Mythbusters. Lawhaha.com would love be the Annenberg Fact-Check center for legal humor, but we don’t have the resources. Actually, we won’t have any resouces. So we’re depending, as always, on you, the loyal Lawhaha.com reader.

If you have any information about whether famous legal tales are “real” or just “tall,” let us know. Meanwhile, here’s Scott’s thoughtful email:

Dear Professor McClurg:

I would very much appreciate your take on two odd phenomena that have long plagued my sensibilities as a lawyer: strange legal transcript excerpts and strange laws.

As you likely know, the “transquips” are humorous sections taken from the transcripts of “real trials.” They vary from Henny Youngmanish one-liners:

Q. Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?

A. No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.

To those with the long setup and stinging punch line:

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?

A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

A: No.

Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?

A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

As to “Strange Laws” here are a few attributed to my home state of Florida:

If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle. It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

You can find these things for all 50 states and countries throughout the globe.

The internet is rife with both of these forms of legal humor, and numerous books have been written on both subjects.

To me, these constitute legal humor—really humor of any kind—but only if they are true. However, I never, ever, ever see any accompanying citation to the cases or statutes from which these tidbits are taken. That really bugs me. While we don’t expect a joke to be traceable back to its creator, the very nature of these two types of humor suggests that they could be easily verified. If it’s from a transcript, there is a written record traceable to a particular case. If it is a law, there should be a citation (aside from common law, which I doubt speaks to securing pachyderms to parking meters).

… [W]hy do these claims persist? Is it the same explanation as for “urban legends”— i.e., the more ridiculous the claim, the more likely it is to be believed?

Sincerely,

Scott Martin

I agree. If these come from official transcripts and laws, let’s see some proof.

— Thanks to Scott Martin for helping to keep legal humor honest.