Law Office Of Carole Cross

portrait

Law Office Of Carole Cross

Family Law, Military, Other, Divorce & Family Law

  • Fax: 817-459-2850
  • Language: French:Spanish

Please include all relevant details from your case including where, when, and who it involves. Case details that can effectively describe the legal situation while also staying concise generally receive the best responses from lawyers.

Carole A. Cross

Military, Other, Family Law, Divorce & Family Law

The Lee Law Firm

Bankruptcy & Debt, Business Organization, Consumer Rights, Tax Litigation, Power of Attorney

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

The Siddique Firm, PLLC

Accident & Injury, Personal Injury, Wrongful Death, Car Accident, Slip & Fall Accident

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Law Office of Jack G. Duffy, Jr. P.C.

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Personal Injury, Accident & Injury

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Machi & Associates, P.C.

Accident & Injury

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Robinson Law Firm

Accident & Injury, Personal Injury, Wills & Probate, Car Accident, Wrongful Death

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

CRAIG A CHOATE, PC

Estate, Business, Corporate, Trusts, Adoption

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Bailey & Galyen Attorneys at Law

Accident & Injury, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Estate, Car Accident

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Law Offices Of Al Malone

Tax, Bankruptcy, Power of Attorney, Employment Contracts, Child Custody

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Anderson Legal Group, P.C.

Divorce & Family Law, Family Law, Criminal, Wills & Probate, Juvenile Law

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Daniel R. Bacalis, P.C.

Divorce & Family Law, Alimony & Spousal Support, Child Support, Child Custody, Estate Planning

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Law Office Of John B. Runge

Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice, Child Support, Divorce, Family Law

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

The Griffin Firm

Divorce & Family Law

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Law Office of Kathy E. Roux

Estate, Bankruptcy, Consumer Rights, Divorce & Family Law, Foreclosure

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Pamela Fernandez Attorney at Law

Criminal, Divorce, Wills

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Richerson Law Firm

Business, Divorce & Family Law, Employment, Lawsuit & Dispute, Consumer Bankruptcy

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Bailey & Galyen Attorneys at Law

Bankruptcy & Debt, Criminal, Divorce & Family Law, Accident & Injury, Workers' Compensation

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

David S. Kohm & Associates

Accident & Injury, Personal Injury, Bankruptcy & Debt, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

David S. Kohm & Associates

Accident & Injury, Personal Injury, Bankruptcy & Debt, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Law Office of Christina Fox, PLLC

Misdemeanor, Car Accident, Divorce & Family Law, Bankruptcy, DUI-DWI

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Law Office Of Carole Cross
464 Mid Cities Blvd
Hurst, TX 76054
32.8672236,-97.1736098

MAIN LOCATION

464 Mid Cities Blvd
Hurst, TX 76054

Recent Legal Articles

Court Modifies Unallocated Alimony and Support Down to $3,200 per Month
in Rosen v. Grand, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. FSTFA044000277S (Aug. 25, 2011, Wenzel, J.), the plaintiff’s husband filed a motion to modify his unallocated alimony and support payments six years after the parties’ divorce.  The plaintiff and defendant were originally married in 1989 and had two children together. When they were divorced on January 13, 2005, the court incorporated into its final decree the terms of a separation agreement entered into between the parties.
Can a Connecticut Court Enforce or Modify My Divorce Judgment if it Was Issued in Another State?
can a Connecticut Court Enforce or Modify My Divorce Judgment if it Was Issued in Another State?
Court Awards Wife Alimony for a Period of Ten Years with Safe Harbor for Husband Up to $250,000 Annually
in a dissolution of marriage action pending in the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, the Court awarded the wife unallocated alimony and child support in the amount of $1,000 per week.  The parties were married in 1999 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were minors at the time of trial.  The Husband was thirty-eight years of age, had a degree in engineering, and worked for a family business owned by his father.  The wife was forty years of age.  She did not have a college degree and worked only seven hours per week.
Wife Found in Contempt of Court’s “Automatic Orders”
in a decision rendered in a dissolution of marriage action, a wife was found in contempt for depriving her husband of information regarding the parties’ two minor children in violation of the court’s “automatic orders.”  In this particular case, the parties were married 1991, and were the parents of two children.  At the time of trial the husband was forty-three years old and in generally good health.  He had an associate’s degree and worked for a supply company earning approximately $51,000 annually.
Court Awards Wife Alimony Based on Husband’s Earning Capacity Despite His Unemployment
in a divorce action pending in the Judicial District of Stamford at Norwalk, the court awarded a wife alimony and child support based on the husband’s earning capacity even though he was unemployed at the time of trial. 
Court Denies Mother’s Request to Relocate with Minor Child
in a post judgment divorce action originating in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, Judge Prestley denied a mother’s request to relocate to France with the parties’ children.  The parties were married in 1981 and after twenty-six years, sought and obtained a divorce in 2008.  During their marriage, the parties had three children, born in 1988, 1992 and 1998.  The youngest child was the only minor at the time of the post judgment action.
In Dissolution Matter, Trial Court Orders Amended Complaint After Third-Party Intervenes
in a divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford considered a third-party defendant’s motion for order regarding the status of pleadings in a marriage dissolution action.
Taking the First Step: How to Hire and What to Expect from a Divorce Lawyer in Connecticut
taking the First Step: How to Hire and What to Expect from a Divorce Lawyer in Connecticut
Court Conditions Alimony Payments on the Sale of the Parties’ Marital Residence
following trial in a dissolution of marriage action pending in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court awarded the wife alimony, but conditioned payments on the sale of the marital residence.  The parties were married in 1973 and were the parents of two children, both of whom were over the age of twenty-three at the time of trial.  The husband was most recently employed by a family run business he formed in the early 1990’s, until he quit on January 1, 2012.
Court Grants Wife’s Motion to Dismiss Divorce Action Where Parties Moved to Connecticut with Intention of Returning to California
before filing for divorce in Connecticut, prospective litigants must satisfy certain statutory jurisdictional criteria.  This often becomes an issue where parties were married in Connecticut, but one spouse (or both) subsequently moved to another state.  As illustrated by a decision rendered in the Superior Court of Stamford, this type of situation could impact a court’s ability to hear the case.
Determining Jurisdiction in Custody Cases Under the UCCJEA
when a parent relocates with minor children following the entry of custody orders, clients are often faced with the challenge of determining where to file post judgment motions.  A decision rendered in the Superior Court of Norwich explains the court’s authority, or jurisdiction, in such instances.  In that particular case, the parties were the parents of one minor child.
Physician Obtains Downward Modification to Alimony Obligation
in a post-judgment divorce action, a physician was successful in obtaining a downward modification to his alimony obligation due to a substantial decrease in his income.  The parties were divorced back in 2007, and pursuant to the judgment of dissolution, the husband was required to pay alimony to the wife in the amount of $6,000 per month for a period of eleven months, followed by $5,000 per month thereafter.  The amount of the alimony obligation was modifiable upon a substantial change in circumstances in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-86.
In Post Judgment Divorce Action, Court Determines that $1.2 Million Payment to Husband was Income, Not Liquidation of an Asset
in a post-judgment decision rendered, the Superior Court of Fairfield at Bridgeport addressed whether a payment that a husband received from his employer after the parties’ divorce constituted an asset or, alternatively, income.  The parties in this action obtained an uncontested divorce in 2008.  As part of their separation agreement, the husband was obligated to pay the wife child support in the amount of $1,600.00 per month.
Child Care Costs and the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines
in a decision rendered previously, the Connecticut Appellate Court explained the definition of “child care costs” as set forth in the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.  In that particular case, the parties were married for approximately five years and were the parents of two minor children.  During the year of 2003, they entered into a custody stipulation which was subsequently incorporated into a comprehensive separation agreement.  The separation agreement provided that the husband would pay the wife $2,500 per month in unallocated alimony and child support for a period of five years, followed by straight child support.
Court Modifies Alimony Award to $40,000 Per Month
in certain cases, a court is permitted to modify orders regarding alimony and child support after a divorce has been finalized.  Although there are a variety of circumstances under which a modification may be warranted, cases often involve situations where one party’s income has significantly increased or decreased.
Court Grants Mother Sole Custody of Her Daughter
in a custody decision, a New York appellate court affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant a mother sole custody of the parties’ child.  In this particular case, the parties were divorced in 2001, and for several years thereafter shared joint custody of their daughter.  The mother had primary physical custody subject to liberal unsupervised visitation with the father. The mother moved for sole custody, requesting that the father’s visitation be suspended, or alternatively, that it be supervised.  The father cross-moved for sole legal and physical custody, claiming that the mother was interfering with his visitation.
Trial Court Declines to Award Alimony in High Asset Divorce Action
in a divorce action in association with an alimony dispute, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport considered the distribution of assets and property in a high-income marital dissolution matter.
Child Support Award of 20% of Father’s Variable Bonus Income Held Abuse of Discretion
in a post-judgment divorce action, the Supreme Court of Connecticut found that the trial court did not properly apply child support deviation criteria when it awarded an open-ended child support award of 20% on a defendant father’s variable bonus. The court deemed this as contradictory to the child support guideline principles and an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Court Enjoins Defendant From Spending Personal Finances to Secure Future Child Support Payments
in a post-judgment divorce action regarding child support, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport considered whether to grant a plaintiff wife’s motion to enjoin the defendant husband from spending recently-obtained monies. She asked the court to place a portion of the money in escrow as security on child support payments.
Trial Court Invalidates Prenuptial Agreement Where Husband Failed to Disclose Substantial Pension
in a divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Branch of Fairfield at Bridgeport considered a plaintiff husband’s claims that he and his wife signed a valid prenuptial agreement and, as such, any awards by the court inconsistent with the agreement’s terms would be improper.