*1 TERM 163 Bowes v. Bowes to premeditation
related elements deliberation guilty first-degree defendant was found not murder. closely assignments brought We have examinéd all forward in defendant’s brief and conclude fair has had a trial, prejudicial free from error.
No error.
EULA S. BOWES v. MELLIE LEWIS BOWES
No. 17 (Filed May 1975) — — Alimony alimony earning capacity Divorce and effort 17—§ bad faith — insufficiency of evidence support finding Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to failing capacity defendant husband of a to exercise earn because obligation provide support of his marital reasonable plaintiff, alimony earning
for award of based on defendant’s capacity earnings aside, rather than his actual must be set where the plaintiff, evidence tended to show that defendant abandoned de- |16,000 grading fendant 1969, earned in excess of as a contractor in incorporated placed his business in 1970 and himself on a weekly salary $156.58, defendant earned defend- corporate $2,360 ant authorized a loan of to his son in 1973 for the payment house, son make a down daughter on a and defendant and his minor seven-day trip beach, four-day trip 1973 made a to the Canada, trip Vegas. and a one-week to Las — Alimony 2. Divorce and § 17— to exercise failure — — prima capacity showing proof facie burden of plaintiff prima showing Even if made a that defendant in- fade tentionally earning capacity failed to exercise his because of a dis- regard obligation provide of his marital reasonable plaintiff, explana- the burden did not then shift to defendant to offer negate plaintiff’s showing tion of had his circumstances and since proof throughout the burden of the case. dissenting. Justice Huskins Sharp joins dissenting opinion.
Chief Justice in the certiorari Appeals ON review decision of the Court reported App. 70, (1974) in 23 (opinion N.C. 2d S.E. J., Campbell, Vaughn, J.J., Parker and concurring), THE IN SUPREME COURT *2 Bowes
Bowes v. January Clark, judgment by D.J., the 28 entered vacated the Rockingham County re- and District Court 1974 Session proceedings in with its further accordance manded the cause for opinion. 1971 September on 28 instituted this action Plaintiff-wife alimony board, permanent alimony, and for divorce from bed custody daughter, support, and pendente lite, child of a minor attorney’s was heard of abandonment reasonable by fees. The issue Rockingham August jury at 28 1972 a the Civil Session County Upon jury a verdict that defendant-hus- District Court. Judge plaintiff, entered had abandoned District Clark band awarding plaintiff judgment bed and board. a divorce from Judge mat- judgment, “that the District also ordered this Clark support, permanent custody, and ters of child child upon hereby attorney retained for determination fees and are hearing Rockingham Court.” District further at this Session appeal from September 1 1972 defendant filed notice of On signed August ap- judgment the the entered 30 1972 and court Judge held date, peal Also, on this District Clark entries. same Following hearing remaining the an in on the issues. camera Sep- 20 presentation evidence, entered an order filed of the awarding child, custody ex- plaintiff the minor tember 1972 by parties (owned possession the home clusive and control of entirety), ownership Buick and of a 1965 tenants as automobile. provided that defendant was further order mortgage following (monthly payments: (1) make the $249.12 support) ; (3) (4) home) ; (weekly (2) child payment on $30.00 wife) ; and (weekly support and maintenance of $40.00 $1,300.00 legal (plaintiff’s fees). Defendant was also ordered pay home and to pay on the the annual ad valorem taxes cost of the action. reduc- motion for September On 27 1972 defendant filed arguments hearing on alimony. and the evidence
tion of After Judge October an order 30 motion, entered District Clark modifying judgment September 20 1972 filed on longer pay taxes the ad valorem no that defendant effect on the home. opinion filed on Appeals, appeal, the Court On August judgment entered on 30
September affirmed the How- awarding and board. divorce from bed judgments September filed 20 ever, vacated the court TERM 1975 Bowes v. Bowes grounds
and 30 October 1972 on the that the district court had jurisdiction hearings judgments no to hold the or to enter the pending appeal. Bowes, App. 373, 19 N.C. 198 S.E. (1973). result, 2d 732 aAs the cause was remanded for further proceedings permanent custody on the issues of alimony, child support.
At January Rockingham the 28 County 1974 Session of Court, Judge District District Clark conducted in camera two hearings. permanent alimony, The first was the issue of custody second was on the support. issues of child As *3 hearing, to the February second the court filed an order on awarding custody of the minor child to defendant on the ground get along that the child was “unable to with her mother.” appeal, however, On this we aré not concerned with the second hearing. hearing, plaintiff’s The first permanent on motion for ali- mony, January was held on 30 time, 1974. At that in addition testimony by Judge to the parties, offered Clark, the District upon plaintiff, agreed motion of stipulations also considered the by parties pre-trial August the a 1972, final order filed testimony presented jury August the and evidence at the trial in 1972, presented hearings of and the subsequent evidence at the 1 September 1972 and 19 October 1972. purposes decision, necessary For of our it is to focus bearing permanent alimony on the evidence on the award of plaintiff-wife. plaintiff’s The evidence, pertinent thereto, the was as follows: hearing, gave At the 19 October 1972 the follow-
ing testimony on direct examination: weekly “I salary on a week, am a $156.58 year. per salary comes to a total of This comes Company, Inc., from M. L. Bowes Construction I and am principal corporation. of this I stockholder have had my prepare profit accountant a statement and loss for through August 31, . . . 1972— equity corporation “The stockholder’s of Au- gust 31, 1972, $46,576.72. equity January is 1, as of My 1972, $18,000.00 $65,429.78. company approximately lost during period January 1, the nine-month from through August 31, date, my 1972. As of this com- COURT THE SUPREME IN y. Bowes $14,000.00. There sum of account the pany in its bank has owing by company, and presently two notes due are $25,000 note me—a personally endorsed which were piece equipment a addition, I have $22,000 note. In a and money attempted from repair. I to borrow that is in need equipment pur- piece and trade this order to the bank money any piece, lend me the bank wouldn’t a new but chase for this already paid I off one of the notes that is purpose unless there. due salary company my “I to increase with not able am My salary present at its level present time. has been year. approximately one $ $ ‡ $ losing money My now company because “. . . pay going keep up year, and I have more sal- each costs wages get expenses help Operating I ary need. and higher equipment I have because the now needs are now grading excavating I in the business replaced. am therewith, tractors, I have two a Cat dump D-C and in connection Bucyrus Crane, Grader, Loader, a 7-G Motor sheepfoot trucks, tandems roller. One 3 tandems ago, I two think it’s over about weeks was turned *4 operation not in at this time.
total loss—it’s people pay- present I seven “At the time have on the My Ronnie works for me—he and I am four short. son roll keeps and is familiar with books and records the books my shop company. I am in need of a to house bad weather, work on it. In this kind equipment in order to anything up, held and we haven’t done week are this we income this And is no for week. when it rains like so there time, in the winter we are more less this or stand- still, no income. with bought “I I mobile home for live in office. a used yet one, I until could build but I been able
an office haven’t expenses. I build and have lived the office to save in the back of the and I am There is bedroom trailer my away. sleeping on a bed that wife threw January 1, 1971, “In regard my through August business, [*] ‡ ‡ gross 31, 1971, [*] receipts was for $83,167.05. period TERM 1975 Bowes v. year receipts period Gross for the same this My gross year.
$95,584.73. receipts up are this The salaries wages through period, January August 1, 1971, for the 81, 1971, $39,256.39. were . .”. C.P.A.,
Also hearing, Jones, at the 19 October 1972 Frank accounting gave Construction, who did the work for Bowes following testimony: “The I records that from the indicate received company company approximately $18,000 that the this had a loss thing first nine months myself eight I depreciation determined was the months, figures given the other were to me L.M. Bowes Company, Construction Inc.” requested judicial Plaintiff also the court to take notice of years through
defendant’s tax returns for the 1970. These previously returns had September been introduced at the hearing. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4 submitted at that time is re- produced in full below:
Defendant’s Tax Returns (1964-1970 Stipulated Summary) *5 incorporation 5/1/70, *Prior to operated as Defendant aas proprietorship sole under name M. L. Bowes Construction Co. COURT IN THE SUPREME
Bowes r. judicial Having requested to take notice the court following proceeded testi- evidence, plaintiff to offer the above hearing. subsequent mony to the 19 October events through May paid defendant that of 1978 Plaintiff testified alimony support; that from per her week as and child $75.00 August May (with exception of one week 1973 to 31 31 in payment) paid her no defendant when defendant made June August support; that on 31 per and child week as $40.00 daughter went with defendant in his minor live 1973 her they trailer, four-room rental into and that later moved a office September house; that from 5 1973 to 27 December no (with exception weeks when defendant made of three alimony. paid per payment) her week as defendant $62.00 during that the summer months of Plaintiff also stated daughter seven-day trip and defendant took a her minor four-day trip beach, Canada, trip to and a one-week a Vegas. Las personal earnings, plaintiff that to her testified she
As Department as an at Leinwand’s Store alterations clerk worked per However, week after taxes. she and made $60.00 $70.00 job might any that be terminated time. addi- stated per tion, that she received month from the she testified $90.00 Concerning portion sup- of the home. her reasonable of a rental requirements, plaintiff port introduced an itemized exhibit monthly indicating expenses her total amounted to that $558.37 year). per ($6,700.44 son, Bowes, who Plaintiff called her Ronnie testified July on 7 1973 he direct borrowed examination making pay- purpose down from Bowes Construction ment on a home. According Ronnie, the terms of the trans- agreement, were as follows: to a verbal action “Pursuant being repaid I am to do so. I am need not be until able loan charged interest on this loan.” Ronnie further no stated employer, personally defendant, father authorized approved this transaction. pertinent evidence offered summarized below: president principal was and the shareholder
He president, Company, Inc. As he received Bowes Construction gross salary weekly salary ($148.83 net). His $200.00 *6 TERM 1975 Bowes v. Bowes by source of income and was Frank determined Mr. Jones, accountant financial advisor for Bowes Construc- outstanding
tion. Bowes Construction had two notes at a local bank, $25,000.00 one with a balance of and the with a other $20,000.00. apparently balance of note he had reduced the [We by balance on the second $2,000.00 note since the 19 October hearing.] personal monthly living His expenses, own in- cluding daughter, of his minor amounted to $556.69 per ($6,680.28 year). aspects maintaining
As to the financial the home in residing separation his wife had been since their subsequent divorce from board, presented bed and defendant following statistics: Fair market value of home
Tax valuation 30,000.00 of home Equity in 27,000.00 home Monthly mortgage payment 249.12 (city county) Annual ad valorem taxes & 547.45 (home, loan, etc.) Annual insurance 442.00 plaintiff’s testimony concerning rebuttal vacations, defendant testified trip the beach was to a friend’s house only expenses gas; where the were for food and the Cana- fully .trip paid by Club; dian was the Kiwanis and that Vegas trip, paid expenses, Las for which he most of the involved army an annual reunion past that he had attended for the three years. Defendant also stated that had into the moved four-room dwelling ($150.00 rental per month) because one-bedroom previously occupied home he mobile was too small for him daughter. and his minor On cross-examination, defendant said that he did not know gross the 1973 income of Bowes Construction or the number percentage outstanding or shares stock held the three state, individual shareholders of Bowes Construction. He did however, majority that he stockholder. examination, On re-direct testified that his ac- gross
countant, Jones, figures Mr. would have the to the as income of Bowes Construction and the distribution of outstand- ing However, testify particular stock. Mr. Jones did not at hearing party neither called him as a witness. IN THE COURT SUPREME
Bowes v. *7 including hearing parties, evidence of the After the above testimony previous hearings, adduced at Dis- prior and evidence following findings Judge the of fact and con- made trict Clark of law. clusions op
“Findings Fact spouse substantially dependent plaintiff is a who is The 1. support maintenance from the defendant. need of and in supporting spouse the from whom the The defendant is 2. substantially sup- in need of maintenance and plaintiff is port. alleged plaintiff in the abandoned the The defendant
3. complaint. living reasonably necessary expenses plaintiff has The 4. per the month over amount of and above in excess $558.00 purchase and main- periodic due for the installments of family in she of the residence which resides. tenance earning capacity special and The defendant has skills grading contractor which enable him earn aas $14,500.00 per from to con- in excess of which income family plaintiff provide the the same residence with tinue living substantially accustomed standard of and enjoyed and defendant as man she lived with the she wife; while separated himself from defendant
and that since the plaintiff he failed exercise his reasonable in 1970 has marital capacity to of of his obli- earn because gation provide support for and minor reasonable his wife child. of Law
Conclusions permanent plaintiff of entitled to an award family consisting of the possession and control of exclusive periodic parties payments and owned residence keeping support with the defendant’s reasonable other plaintiff needs of the and capacity, the reasonable of the case.” circumstances law, findings and conclusions on the above fact Based Judge that be awarded the ordered Clark District family residence; possession and control of
exclusive outstanding due on said resi- pay the taxes towas TERM Bowes 1973; mortgage pay- denee for that defendant to make all incuding property, ments on the deed of trust said those then arrears; that defendant towas return a TV set and a TV an- residence; previously tenna that from removed said pay Superior that defendant was into the office of Clerk Court, plaintiff, for the use and benefit of the month $200 February, 1974, per month thereafter. $400 entry signing foregoing judgment, To the de- objected exception. fendant appeal, and took On Court Appeals judgment grounds: (1) vacated the on two there finding making was no evidence defendant was *8 income; (2) a bad faith effort to earn a reasonable earnings determining, the wife’s the amount of were not taken into account in permanent alimony. 72-73, App. 23 N.C. at 208 S.E. 2d petition Plaintiff’s for writ of certiorari to the Court
Appeals was on 3 allowed December 1974. Gwyn Gwyn, Morgan by Gwyn plaintiff & Julius J. for appellant. Speekhard by Speekhard O’Connor & Donald K. defend- for appellee. ant COPELAND, Justice.
[1] The primary exception assignment of error in the case Finding at bar is based on the trial 5. In court’s of Fact No. finding, court, award, as a basis for its found that special grading capacity “defendant has skills and aas contractor which enable him to earn an income in excess $14,500.00 per separated . . . and that since the defendant himself from the in 1970 he has his rea failed to exercise capacity sonable to earn because aof of his marital obligation provide support to reasonable wife and minor his assignment question presented by child.” The is whether there sufficient was evidence before the court to trial earning capacity opposed an award based on to actual earn ings. alimony may it While is true that an award of be based ability upon supporting spouse’s distinguished to earn as income,- applied from actual the rule seems his when appears from the record that at- there has been a deliberate IN THE SUPREME COURT 172 y. Bowes spouse tempt part supporting to avoid his financial of the refusing accept gainful family responsibilities by or to seek by wilfully refusing job; by employment; secure or take intentionally deliberately business; by applying his not himself to low; by intentionally an artificial or depressing his income to go Annot., leaving employment into another business. See (1965) ; Sep 24 6, 47-49 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and 3d 1 A.L.R. 233(3) (1966); (1959). 27A Divorce 632 C.J.S. aration § § ; 121, (1962) Harris, 123 Accord, Harris v. 258 N.C. 128 2d S.E. Sguros 412, (1960) ; Conrad, 2d v. 252 N.C. 113 S.E. 912 Conrad 408, ; Sguros, (1960) Davidson v. Da 2d 79 v. N.C. S.E. ; Robinson, 625, 127 (1925) vidson, Robinson v. 189 N.C. S.E. 463, (1971). App. also 179 S.E. 2d See G.S. 10 N.C. “Alimony 50-16.5(a), provides: in such amount shall be having regard necessary, due circumstances render as the estates, earnings, earning capacity, condition, accustomed par living parties, and other facts standard supplied.) (Emphasis case.” ticular Conrad, supra, plaintiff-wife, was seek- who Conrad alimony ing pendente lite. divorce, without moved for ability concerning the evidence husband’s substance during pay net income that as insurance salesman his 1957, years $10,756.16 $15,357.94 prior been eight months $8,477.00 in for the first *9 by explained a decline in income 1959. Defendant-husband his by largest paid of his accounts and reduction in commissions one ruling by local insurance It not unfavorable the board. was an contended that defendant than
had assets other his income capable capacity. trial court found that defendant was of The plaintiff-wife earning $16,000.00 a and awarded $600.00 attorney alimony pendente and fees. per month lite by Rodman, opinion Spe- Court, in Justice reversed. This an cifically, stated: the Court on amount which be based the “The award should alimony sought the award when and is is defendant made, honestly engaged in a business the husband is if seeking adapted properly is in he is fact Sguros Sguros, profitably. v. N.C. operate his business
408, 2d 79.] S.E. capacity to earn rather than an award
“To base finding a evidence earnings, based on there should actual failing capacity to husband exercise his SPRING TERM Bowes v. Bowes obligation 'pro- earn a became his marital of Davidson,
vide reasonal his Davidson v. wife. supra. finding There no at to that effect in this Id. case.” 418, (Emphasis supplied.) 2d at 113 S.E. case, Conrad, the Davidson in court had cited trial alimony pendente
awarded lite which the net exceeded income Although opinion by Court, defendant. in this an Justice Adams, may conceded that on the the award be based income capacity husband, of the reversed the trial nonetheless court concerning and remanded the case for additional evidence estate, value of the husband’s “entire net annual income that is or should be derived from his estate or labor.” 189 N.C. 627, at at 683. S.E. The ability pay husband’s arose in different context a Sgwros alimony Sguros, supra. seeking
in
Plaintiff-wife was
without
pendente
divorce and moved for
lite. Defendant-
degree
bacteriology
husband
had
Ph.D.
at
the time the
action was
employed
instituted was
as a
tech-
tobacco research
salary
nician at
$10,740.00.
an annual
He had
additional
income
year.
per
from a
Reserve
approximately $1,000.00
Naval
unit of
resigned
At
however,
the time
hearing,
he had
from
positions
accepted
professorship
these
and had
at an annual
salary
$8,000.00.
stating
He
oppor-
filed an affidavit
that the
greater
university
tunities for advancement in his field were
as a
teacher than as a research technician. The trial court awarded
alimony pendente
$11,800.00.
lite based on an annual income of
appeal,
Court,
opinion by
Higgins,
On
in an
Justice
stated:
allegation
evidence,
finding
change
neither
“There is
nor
nor
his
positions
assigns.
was otherwise than for the reason he
disclosed,
Under the circumstances here
we
hold
long
good
right,
ship
faith,
accept
professor-
so
as he acted
though
salary.
at Miami even
at
a reduction in
court
monthly payments
salary
should have fixed the
on the basis of a
$8,000.”
N.C.
174 IN
Bowes v. the by proving evidence, is, from which facts cumstantial fact 225 Murdock, sought may proven to be inferred.” State 69, (1945). generally 224, See 226, 34 2d 70 S.E. N.C. Revision) 83, fn. 78 (Brandis Stansbury, N. Evidence C. § (1973). pro- plaintiff-wife the case, In the instant contends following (1) may facts:
scribed intent from the be inferred separate for bedroom In March of 1970 defendant established a May in- home; (2) defendant himself in the on 1 marital grading corporated as Bowes Construction his business M. L. gathered up Inc.; Company, (3) on March 1971 home; and personal effects and moved out of the marital his net (4) (the prior incorporation) defendant’s in 1969 to earnings incorpora- (the year $16,086.12, were while argues tion) earnings only $6,775.14. Plaintiff-wife his net were prima a case that that defendant these facts are sufficient to establish facie intentionally income, depressed or the cor- porate income, speculates to Plaintiff that de- an artificial low. accomplish objective or been able to in one fendant has more of ways: following intentionally (1) a has fixed He himself; corporate salary (2) corporate he has low diverted earnings good elsewhere; (3) he failed make faith effort has to a earnings. corporate increase to there record, we believe Based on a close examination allegations (1) and support one is insufficient evidence explana- (3). produced three tions Plaintiff no evidence to refute given by allegation (inten- However, two defendant. corporate earnings) plaintiff offered tional diversion of following (1) Defendant her evidence in contention: corporate $2,360.00 son, vice- to his authorized a “loan” July 1973; president corporation, and stockholder during daughter, (2) defendant and his minor summer four-day seven-day beach, 1973, trip months of made a trip Vegas. trip Canada, and a one-week to Las Although appears with to be inconsistent the above evidence earnings salary corporate corporate net defendant’s net and with (or losses) period for the 1970 to is not sufficient intentionally corporate funds that defendant diverted establish in support. obligation provide of his marital reasonable course, defendant’s as to “loan” to Of vice-president firm, undisputed son, employee it is *11 SPRING TERM 1975 Bowes v. Bowes corporate However, de-
that this transaction involved funds. fendant’s evidence indicated that the loan was made son so his Conceding payment could make the down on that this a home. may diverting transaction raise an inference that corporate obligation, funds in of marital it falls establishing Consequently, far short of this con- contention. we clude, record, on based the evidence in the it mere speculation presume to defendant authorized transaction this proscribed with the intent.
[2] Plaintiff, apparently aware of this failure of proof, argues that she has nonetheless offered to sufficient evidence shift producing Specifically, burden of evidence to she defendant. plaintiff proof. But, contends: “The offering carries the burden of after prima sufficient evidence to establish a in case facie favor, giving her to her the of benefit all reasonable inferences therefrom, non-persuasion be drawn the risk of shift should explanation to the defendant to offer for his circumstances.” Stansbury, (Brandis Revision) Plaintiff cites N. C. Evidence authority (1973), as for the above § contention. Suffice say, authority clearly to support cited fails to this conten tion. throughout plaintiff proof burden was on the any legal duty explana- case. Defendant no was under to offer any
tion as plaintiff’s (although evidence we note he so). fact, elected do based our examination of record, opinion plaintiff evidence in we are of the has prima to on failed make out a for the award of case facie earning capacity. plaintiff’s allegations true, based If are contends, she then produced she should have in evidence by employing procedures provided thereof Rules 45(c) the North Carolina Rules Civil Procedure. discovery These rules would have allowed her to examine any produce pertinent corporate supportive trial records allegations. This, however, Also, her that she did do. note not we subpoena corporate failed defendant’s ac- countant to examine pursuant him as an adverse witness 45(a) 43(b) and Rules of the North Carolina Rules Civil discovery provided plaintiff Procedure. These rules with an adequate developing type means of of evidence she needed any hardship imple- this case. fail discern We unusual require. mentation of these rules would THE COURT IN SUPREME y. Bowes *12 Appeals of brief, plaintiff that the Court In states her “[i]f nothing other correct, defendant’s confession or
is short acceptable This contention serve as evidence.” admission will definitely Plaintiff could and most has no merit whatsoever. Having discovery rules cited. failed have used the herein should only so, that other now a confession or to do she cannot assert way have made out her case. admission was she could Appeals that appeal the Court of Defendant contended on earnings give of trial court did not due consideration to alimony. determining parties G.S. its award of See both 50-16.5(a), agreed. supra. Appeals this The of Since Court neces- proceedings, is not cause must remanded for further it sary fully assignment error. it for discuss of Suffice us earnings say, taken into must be is clear wife’s v. e.g., Sayland See, Sayland, account. S.E. N.C. (1966). 2d stated, judgment
For herein of the Court the reasons Appeals of
Affirmed. dissenting.
Justice Huskins adjusted gross income The evidence shows that defendant’s $16,086.12. For the in 1968 was 1969 was and in adjusted gross $6,775.14. fell to calendar income his explanation is the for this drastic reduction? What separate In bedroom March 1970 defendant established completed the abandonment for himself and on 29 March 1971 per- moving taking his wife of the marital home and his out sonal effects with him. May 1970, Following incorporation on 1 business his weekly salary now placed
defendant He himself on a of $156.58. any earnings represents actual and that contends that sum his taking thereon, into must award account the to his wife be based earnings hand, separate the other of his wife. On intentionally in- depressed his has contends defendant obligations to her the trial tribunal come to avoid earning capacity justified basing an award defendant’s meager earnings acknowledges. rather than on the TERM 1975 Bowes Bowes de- satisfactory explanation appears in the record for No following incorporation drop in income drastic fendant’s having failed to majority the wife blames
his business. 45(c) discovery procedures 34 and provided in Rules utilize the says majority dis- these Rules of Procedure. The of the covery Civil produce to examine and “would have allowed her rules allega- any supportive her pertinent corporate at trial records matter differ- This, however, I view the she did not do.” tions. ently. suffi- plaintiff was my by the adduced view evidence nothing appearing, that finding, else cient intentionally purpose of incorporated for the his business hiding behind and was depressing to an artificial low his income *13 responsibilities corporate financial structure to avoid his findings an award and If desired to avoid such his wife. incorpora- prior capacity based on his demonstrated corporate with his tion, him to come forward the onus was on pertinent bills, docu- records, returns, receipted and other tax showing. negate prima facie mentary evidence, plaintiff’s pos- light in defendant’s are In session, of the fact that all such records require contrary law, to unrealistic, I think it is by use corporate pierce smoke screen defendant’s possession discovery in his show procedures. If the records produce says they show, for him to no trouble what he strongly suggests rather failure to do so
them in court. His position plaintiff’s is correct. his permits to abandon majority decision ascertain, requires at her her to impunity then with wife peril, I earnings corporate records. as revealed his true peril. truth at his would let him conceal respectfully dissent. I For reasons stated Sharp joins dissent. in this Justice Chief