Arima taxi driver wants out

AN Arima man who wants to appeal a magistrates court’s decision ordering him to pay his ex-wife $100 weekly 14 years after their divorce has threatened to sue the State.

Raymond Paponette, through his attorneys Jeron Joseph and Reynold Waldropt, said his constitutional rights were being infringed after the clerk of the peace failed repeatedly to file the notice of appeal to challenge being made to pay spousal support to his ex-wife.

In his pre-action protocol letter, dated August 30, the attorneys are requesting that the office holder at the court be compelled to file Paponette’s notice of appeal, that a declaration be made that the clerk of the peace failed to file the notice within reasonable time and award Paponette damages and other remedies deemed fit.

The 54-year-old taxi driver said in his statement that he married his former wife on November 11, 1995 and on July 14, 2004 their marriage officially ended.

He submitted that the marriage was abusive both physically and emotionally and he accused her of numerous acts of infidelity. Paponette even alleged that he was once burnt with an iron during an altercation between them.

On June 10, 2002, an Arima magistrate ordered that he pay $50, weekly in spousal support, which was increased by 100 per cent three years later, on March 31, 2005 by another magistrate. He submitted that at the time they were no longer married. The judge hearing the divorce case was not told that there was a spousal support in place and no alterations were made as a result.

Paponette submitted that both he and his ex-wife have since moved on and found love in others but the spousal support remains in place, at $100 weekly, contrary to law which mandates that the spousal support discontinue once the recipient is in a new relationship. The letter stated his ex-wife has since found employment in the US on a contractual basis and was no longer in need of financial support from him.

The letter claims that while Paponette’s ex-wife is in the US a relative of her’s collects the maintenance which the attorneys say, “cannot be described as being fair.” The monthly allowance for the taxi-driver was described as an unnecessary financial burden, so much so that at times his new found love would pay the sum to avoid Paponette being arrested for not adhering to the court’s order. Paponette further submitted that he suffered a back injury in 2005 when a garbage truck reversed on him pinning him to a wall. The injury has severely impacted his ability to drive for long hours making earning a livelihood strenuous.

Paponette submitted that following all of this, he applied to the Arima Magistrates’ Court to have the spousal support quashed but was denied on February 19, 2016. A few days later, he filed an appeal and, since then, has been waiting on the notice of appeal from the magistrates’ court which has never been submitted to the Appeal Court while his spousal support remains in effect.

Since then Paponette’s attorneys have written to officials in the Judiciary including the Clerk of Appeals at the Court of Appeal Registrar on April 1 and 6, May 2, October 3 and December 7, last year, inquiring about the status of his notes of appeal so that he can appeal the 2016 ruling but has never received a response.

In March this year, the final letter was penned and addressed to the clerk of the peace at the magistrates’ court. In the pre-action protocol letter, the attorneys stated that the failure of the clerk constituted a denial of justice preventing him from accessing his appeal.

“We accuse the clerk of the peace of falling down on the job, by failing to perform his statutory duties. In light of these developments, as outlined in this letter, we have been instructed by our client to institute proceeding against the State, who is the employer of the clerk of the peace. We expect a reply with 14 days and should the clerk of the peace continue to fail to perform his statutory duties, that we shall issue proceedings against the State forthwith for constitutional and other redress,” the letter stated.