Terrence Howard‘s taking an “L” in his longstanding spousal support war with his ex-wife … who just won in appeals court. This divorce case of Terrence Howard has been going on for years. This shows how a case in the Family law court system can last as it seems forever. A case such as Howard’s should make a person involved in a divorce reflect is it really worth it to drag a case out for years to achieve exactly what? To lose money? Im sure Terrence lost thousands paying his family law attorneys and his appellate lawyers to drag a case out for spite and contempt of heart. Noone wins in cases that drag out over years to fight and fight and win absolutely nothing but lose thousands to the Family Court system.
In Terrence Howard’s case he chose to fight a payment of spousal support to his ex wife. Often the appellate process can take years because of the nature of the appellate process in the Superior Court system. Often the Trial Court family law judges are permitted what is called broad discretion to handle their family law cases such as spousal support. Since the appellate three judge panel is permitted broad discretion to rule on spousal support matters that makes it difficult for an appellate court to overturn cases that the trial judge ruled on.
According to court docs, Michelle Ghent Howard got a ruling on their spousal support overturned. Two years ago, Terrence convinced the court he’d been forced to sign their marital settlement under duress. He claimed she was threatening to go public with naked photos and videos. Interestingly, Terrence claimed the threat of putting nude photos of himself on the web was enough to coerce him into signing a contract. Often when once thinks of duress they think of someone facing physical or severe emotional harm. Terrence claims duress was fear of nude photos of himself leaked. Often the defense to a signing of any contract in the State of California would be duress or coercion. In addition, if a party claims they did not sign a contract without their consent it could be a plausible defense to signing the contract.