Coleman Law Firm

portrait

Coleman Law Firm

Lawsuit & Dispute, Business, International, Estate, Estate Planning

  • Fax: 662-513-0072

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.

J Price Coleman

Lawsuit & Dispute, Business, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy & Debt

J. Price Coleman

Tax, Arbitration, Estate Planning, Securities

Price J Coleman

General Practice

Coleman Law Firm

Personal Injury, Trade Associations, Securities, Estate Planning, Trusts Law firm

Coleman Law Firm

General Practice Law firm

Coleman Law Firm

Power of Attorney, Real Estate, Traffic, Dispute Resolution, Criminal Law firm


Smith & Dobbs, PLLC

Family Law, Criminal, Business, Estate, Real Estate

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Dunbar Davis, PLLC

Accident & Injury, Divorce & Family Law, Car Accident, Employment, Litigation

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Chiniche Law Firm Pllc

Criminal, Divorce & Family Law, Employment, Business

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Daniel Coker Horton & Bell

Lawsuit & Dispute, Business, Divorce & Family Law, Employment, Government

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Smith, Murphy & Dobbs, LLC

Accident & Injury, Criminal, Estate, Insurance, Health Care

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Kegan Coleman Law Firm, PLLC

Accident & Injury, Slip & Fall Accident, Personal Injury, Workers' Compensation, Car Accident

Lawyer.com Featured 

CONTACT

Henke - Bufkin PA

Real Estate, Industry Specialties

Mitchell Mcnutt & Sams

General Practice

Mona Pittman, Attorney At LAW

Child Custody, Medical Malpractice, Criminal, Landlord-Tenant, Motor Vehicle

Myatt Law Firm, PLLC

General Practice


Coleman Law Firm
1100 Tyler Ave
Oxford, MS 38655
34.3652008,-89.5200782

MAIN LOCATION

1100 Tyler Ave
Oxford, MS 38655

Recent Legal Articles

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.
When Seeking Modification of Visitation with a Child, Parents Need Not Show a Substantial Change in Circumstances
in a post-judgment divorce action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut considered, in part, whether a trial court abused its discretion when it modified a visitation order. The plaintiff argued that the court did not find a substantial change in circumstances or that modification was in the child’s best interests. Furthermore, she claimed the court erred when it did not consider the defendant’s present-day ability to parent the minor child. The judgment was affirmed.
Court Awards Wife Alimony: Her Husband’s Interest in Several Businesses
in an alimony decision rendered in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford, the Court awarded to a wife her husband’s interest in three separate limited liability companies.  The parties were married in 1988, and are the parents of two adult children.  The wife was a real estate broker, while, according to the court, the husband was unwilling to seek, obtain or maintain gainful employment.  Rather, the husband owned and/or had an interest in several businesses, as well as several properties pursuant to his interests in various limited liability companies.
Court Adjusts Child Support Payment After Minor Children Leave Custodial Parent to Live with Their Mother
while a motion to modify custody is pending, can a court temporarily modify a child support order after the minor children changed their residence from one parent to the other for a significant period of time? In a post-judgment divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford answered this question affirmatively.
Post Petition Divorce Property Settlement May Not Impact Spouses’ Homestead Exemptions in Bankruptcy Court
in re Gasztold, 11-21287, 2011 WL 5075440 (Bankr. D. Conn. Oct. 25, 2011)
In Light of Husband’s Earning Capacity, Court Approves $6,963 Per Monthly Child Support Award
in a post-judgment divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford considered a plaintiff wife’s motion to modify child support following the parties’ judgment of dissolution. The court found that both parties experienced a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification, and that it was proper to base the child support payments on the defendant husband’s earning capacity from both his employment and investments.
Guardian Ad Litem Can Ditch Case
the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport considered a plaintiff’s motion to open, seeking to reopen a stipulation she signed regarding a motion to modify custody regarding guardian ad litem. Upon review, the court denied the motion.
Ambiguous Separation Agreements Lead to Extrinsic Evidence of Intent
in a post-judgment divorce action regarding separation agreements, the Supreme Court of Connecticut rejected a lower court’s determination that an ambiguous term of a separation agreement was clear and unambiguous. It further found the trial court’s exclusion of extrinsic evidence that would establish party intent regarding the meaning of that term was improper.
Court Imputes Gross Weekly Income Upon Failure of Disclosure
in the process of marriage dissolution, it is imperative that each party provide a full and frank disclosure of financial information to avoid failure of disclosure. Misrepresenting assets and income is “a serious and intolerable dereliction… which goes to the very heart of the proceeding.” Therefore, a court will remain unsympathetic when a party, whose own wrongful conduct limited his or her financial information available for court review, later complains that a court-calculated monetary award is improper.
Grandparents Who Seek Visitation Over Parental Opposition Have a Tough Legal Hill to Climb
can grandparents get visitation rights to their grandchildren even if the child’s parents oppose such visitation? The answer is yes, but not without a tough standard to overcome. In 2002 the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Roth v. Weston. The Court held “a rebuttable presumption [is created] that visitation that is opposed by a fit parent is not in a child’s best interest.” “In sum, therefore, we conclude that there are two requirements that must be satisfied in order for a court: (1) to have jurisdiction over a petition for visitation contrary to the wishes of a fit parent; and (2) to grant such a petition.” Roth v. Weston, at 234.
Understanding Workers' Compensation: A Comprehensive Guide
workers' compensation is an insurance program that provides benefits to employees who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses.
State Farm Won't Renew California Homeowner Insurance
find out what State Farm's decision means for California homeowner insurance. Get an analysis of how it will affect your policy!