Tenn. Family Feuds Over Children
Teresa/Colorado
by MARTA W. ALDRICH
Associated Press Writer
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Sammy March was about to start kindergarten, his
little sister Tzipi still in diapers, when their mother vanished four years
ago.
Janet March, a young artist born into wealth and privilege, is presumed
dead, though her body has never been found and no one has been charged.
Her disappearance has now pitted her husband, Perry March, against her
parents, Lawrence and Carolyn Levine, in a complex and unprecedented child
custody case involving the Tennessee Legislature, the U.S. State Department
and the judicial systems of Tennessee, Illinois and Mexico.
The Levines want custody of Sammy and Tzipi, now 9 and 6, because they
believe March killed their 33-year-old daughter and is an unfit father.
March, 39, says he's innocent, and that the Levines have used their money
and power to trample on his civil rights. The case is expected to go to
trial late this fall.
''This case is ... filled with emotions about the most fundamental and
personal of family ties,'' said Jeff Mobley, the court-appointed conservator
of Janet's estate.
''This is a family tragically altered by events we still can't explain.''
On the surface, Janet March seemed to have a comfortable life.
She recently had moved into a $750,000 custom home that she helped design.
Her husband was an attorney in her father's prominent law firm, and the
family was influential in Nashville's Jewish community.
Then she vanished on Aug. 15, 1996.
Friends describe Janet as a responsible mother who would not abandon her
children. But March says he came home that day to find his wife complaining
she needed a vacation. He says she wrote a 12-day to-do list on the home
computer then, while the children were sleeping, left in her Volvo with
three bags, a passport and $5,000 in cash.
March acknowledges his nine-year marriage was strained. Family members say
Janet was scheduled to meet with a divorce lawyer the day after her
disappearance.
When she didn't return in two weeks -- missing Sammy's sixth birthday and
his first day of school -- the family went to police. But by then, the trail
was cold. Police found her Volvo a week later in the parking lot of a
Nashville apartment complex.
An exhaustive search turned up no clues.
March stopped cooperating with police when the investigation began focusing
on him. He says he didn't go to police earlier because the Levines wanted to
keep family problems private and believed she would return.
March says his cordial relationship with the Levines soon unraveled. He was
fired from the family firm, his pension fund was frozen and his Tennessee
law license was stripped.
He moved his children to a Chicago suburb, then in 1999 to Ajijic, Mexico,
where his retired father lives. March opened a legal consulting business,
ended his children's visitation with the Levines and says he recently
married a local woman with three children.
All the while, Lawrence Levine was laying the groundwork to gain permanent
custody.
Levine worked with a state senator to amend Tennessee's parental rights law
so a court can remove custody from a parent convicted or found civilly
liable in the death of the child's other parent.
He obtained a civil default judgment against March in January as a Nashville
judge declared Janet legally dead and ruled him responsible. A jury later
awarded the Levines $113.5 million -- the largest judgment in Tennessee
history.
After seeking advice from U.S. State Department officials, the Levines flew
to Mexico and, on June 21, got a Mexican judge to enforce a Chicago judge's
visitation order. They took the children from school while March was being
interrogated by immigration officers.
The Levines returned to a Nashville judge to get temporary custody and
requested permanent custody under the revised state law they helped write.
''The Levines have orchestrated a perfect chess play here,'' said March's
Chicago attorney, Vincent Stark. ''It shows that if you've got the money and
the power, you can get things done.''
March, who faces arrest in Nashville for violating a court order to return
several of Janet's personal items to the Levines, is now fighting for his
children from Mexico. He believes the amended Tennessee law is
unconstitutional.
''I want my kids back,'' March said in a telephone interview.
''I have been the subject of judicial rape in Nashville ... and my children
have been stolen from me. But there is a United States Constitution and
eventually someone will read it and enforce my rights under it.''
Levine attorney Harris Gilbert says the couple always has followed the law
and pursued the children's best interests.
''This wasn't an abduction or kidnapping,'' he said. ''They are doing what's
right for their family and doing it in a lawful manner.''
For four years, the Levines have declined to comment publicly about March or
the custody battle. Their friends and family have protected their privacy,
and their attorneys have refused to comment, citing a gag order.
But Gilbert said the Levines ''are having a great time'' getting
reacquainted with their grandchildren -- ''the joy of their lives.''
''It's one thing to lose a daughter, but to be deprived of the right to see
your grandchildren had been absolutely devastating to them,'' he said.
AP-NY-08-19-00 0124EDT<
PattyC4303
<ctf...@homesweethome.com> writes:
This article sure leaves me with a bunch of questions!
For what reason was his law license stripped from him? What was the evidence
presented in the civil trial that brought about a finding saying the husband
was responsible for the wife's death? I thought a default judgment meant the
defendant didn't respond to the complaint, so how's a jury fit in awarding
millions?
Certainly the whole thing sounds suspicious for the husband, but... It sounds
like he and his lawyers have a point that he was railroaded.
PattyC
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Maggie
>This article sure leaves me with a bunch of questions!
>
>For what reason was his law license stripped from him?
***He failed to respond to a complaint filed with the TN Supreme Court's Board
of Professional Responsibility. At the time of the suspension he was living in
Mexico.
pattyc said;
What was the evidence
>presented in the civil trial that brought about a finding saying the husband
>was responsible for the wife's death?
**Apparently the marriage was "troubled" and March refused to return to the US
to be deposed. Since it was a default judgment, there probably didn't have to
be a whole lot there.
pattyc said:>the
>defendant didn't respond to the complaint, so how's a jury fit in awarding
>millions?
The woman's parents asked for $20 million, but the jury award came in much
higher. From the Nashville Tennessean:
The jury's verdict included $3 million to compensate the Levines, suing on
their daughter's behalf, for pain and suffering; $2.5 million representing her
lost income and earning capacity; $18 million to compensate the Levines for
their suffering in connection with her wrongful death; and $25 million in
punitive damages.
In addition, the jury awarded $40 million to benefit the two March children for
the loss of their mother, plus $25 million in punitive damages.
Nashville attorney David Raybin, who said he has participated in wrongful death
cases in which active criminal cases were pending, said the suit was not
unusual and the jury award not excessive from a national perspective.<quotes
off>
pattyc said:
>Certainly the whole thing sounds suspicious for the husband, but... It
>sounds
>like he and his lawyers have a point that he was railroaded.
***Sort of--the in-laws are smart and well-connected. They did everything
right and it's all apparently legal. But this guy is a real, real scoundrel.
He's been practicing law without a license in Mexico and selling insurance with
a partner who is just as dirty as he is (the partner's license to practice law
in IL was suspended). He's been accused of threatening to hire hitmen to kill
complaining clients, threatening suits when clients complain, charging more
than Mexican law allows, etc. You can read more about it at:
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/02/13/march13.shtml
You'll need to do a search for more recent articles.
Maggie
Fun Facts:
Warren Beatty is older than Ned Beatty.
Tiger Woods earned more tournament money in the first seven months of 2000 than
Jack Nicklaus did in his entire career.
Sarah
with a divorce lawyer is extremely interesting. As to the husband's TN
law license, that can _only_ be revoked by the state licensing board for
cause -- such as embezzling from his law firm, violating client/atty
privilege (tho that is more likely to draw a censure than cause him to
lose the license entirely). So not only was his marriage failing, but
he was not the most ethical lawyer on the planet.
I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the man. Why move the kids to
MX (even if their grandfather had retired there) if he wasn't afraid of
the investigation finding something?
PattyC4303
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) writes:
>Pattyc said:
>>This article sure leaves me with a bunch of questions!
>>
>>For what reason was his law license stripped from him?
>
>***He failed to respond to a complaint filed with the TN Supreme Court's
>Board
>of Professional Responsibility. At the time of the suspension he was living
>in
>Mexico.
>
>pattyc said;
>What was the evidence
>>presented in the civil trial that brought about a finding saying the husband
>>was responsible for the wife's death?
>
>**Apparently the marriage was "troubled" and March refused to return to the
>US
>to be deposed. Since it was a default judgment, there probably didn't have
>to
>be a whole lot there.
>
>pattyc said:>the
>>defendant didn't respond to the complaint, so how's a jury fit in awarding
>>millions?
>
>The woman's parents asked for $20 million, but the jury award came in much
>higher. From the Nashville Tennessean:
>
>The jury's verdict included $3 million to compensate the Levines, suing on
>their daughter's behalf, for pain and suffering; $2.5 million representing
>her
>lost income and earning capacity; $18 million to compensate the Levines for
>their suffering in connection with her wrongful death; and $25 million in
>punitive damages.
>In addition, the jury awarded $40 million to benefit the two March children
>for
>the loss of their mother, plus $25 million in punitive damages.
>Nashville attorney David Raybin, who said he has participated in wrongful
>death
>cases in which active criminal cases were pending, said the suit was not
>unusual and the jury award not excessive from a national perspective.<quotes
>off>
>
>pattyc said:
>>Certainly the whole thing sounds suspicious for the husband, but... It
>>sounds
>>like he and his lawyers have a point that he was railroaded.
>
>***Sort of--the in-laws are smart and well-connected. They did everything
>right and it's all apparently legal. But this guy is a real, real scoundrel.
>
>He's been practicing law without a license in Mexico and selling insurance
>with
>a partner who is just as dirty as he is (the partner's license to practice
>law
>in IL was suspended). He's been accused of threatening to hire hitmen to
>kill
>complaining clients, threatening suits when clients complain, charging more
>than Mexican law allows, etc. You can read more about it at:
>
>http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/02/13/march13.shtml
>
>You'll need to do a search for more recent articles.
>
>
>
>Maggie
Thanks for all that, Maggie. BUT... it seems my understanding of the default
judgment idea was correct. He didn't respond. So why was there a trial? If a
"judgment" occurs, usually that means the finding has Happened. When that
happens, I'd thought that means there is no trial. Why a trial then? Which is
held usually to lead to a finding...? Wait a sec, I am thinking this thru,
relating it to what I know about med mal and personal injury cases. Sometimes,
even if liability is admitted, they have the trial to dispute damages. Which
would be the award... maybe that's it?
ON another subject with this, not answering a complaint usually results in a
default judgment against the defendant. I still don't see why that would lead
to a person losing the right to practice law. Seems that is another arena and
category of fault finding altogether.
I admit I didn't yet read the additional info, and will. But as of now, am
still confused about the facts on this.
Maggie
>Thanks for all that, Maggie. BUT... it seems my understanding of the default
>judgment idea was correct. He didn't respond. So why was there a trial?
***I'm not sure there was. There was no jury--the judge simply ruled against
March--a default judgment. I assume the judge had to investigate enough to
determine the suit wasn't frivolous.
pc said:
> If a
>"judgment" occurs, usually that means the finding has Happened. When that
>happens, I'd thought that means there is no trial. Why a trial then?
**I'm confused. Where was a trial mentioned?
pc said:
Which
>is
>held usually to lead to a finding...? Wait a sec, I am thinking this thru,
>relating it to what I know about med mal and personal injury cases.
Sometimes,
>even if liability is admitted, they have the trial to dispute damages.
>Which
>would be the award... maybe that's it?
***Gotcha. Yes. A *jury* determined damages. Apparently once the judge made
his finding, the law requires a jury to award damages.
>
>ON another subject with this, not answering a complaint usually results
>in a
>default judgment against the defendant. I still don't see why that would
>lead
>to a person losing the right to practice law. Seems that is another arena
>and
>category of fault finding altogether.
***One doesn't lose his license to practice law in a legal proceeding. The
state licensing board has the discretion to make the determination. Apparently
the rule in TN is that if a complaint is made and the lawyer refuses to answer
it, he loses his license. Sounds fair to me. If that wasn't the case, all a
dirty lawyer would have to do is refuse to answer a complaint.
PattyC4303
writes:
>I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the man. Why move the kids to
>MX (even if their grandfather had retired there) if he wasn't afraid of
>the investigation finding something?
I'm not saying I do have sympathy for the man. However, I never tell myself
someone is guilty of anything based on things like not talking, hiring lawyers,
moving, acting goofy, or not buying a gravestone.
I like to know what the facts are that make a person guilty. Versus the
appearance of guilt via such as the above.
But I do agree with you that if the law license was suspended, there is
something about his LAW PRACTICE, versus he didn't show up for this proceeding.
Unless of course, and I don't know this, it's part of the attorney's ethics
code or something to NOT do something like ignore a complaint in court about
anything?
Maggie
>writes:
>
>>I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the man. Why move the kids to
>>MX (even if their grandfather had retired there) if he wasn't afraid of
>>the investigation finding something?
>
>I'm not saying I do have sympathy for the man. However, I never tell myself
>someone is guilty of anything based on things like not talking, hiring
lawyers,
>moving, acting goofy, or not buying a gravestone.
>
>I like to know what the facts are that make a person guilty. Versus the
>appearance of guilt via such as the above.
>
>But I do agree with you that if the law license was suspended, there is
>something about his LAW PRACTICE, versus he didn't show up for this
proceeding.
> Unless of course, and I don't know this, it's part of the attorney's ethics
>code or something to NOT do something like ignore a complaint in court about
>anything?
***READ the article I posted, pattyc.
And, a word to the wise, *always* consider the source.
JonesieCat
Teresa/Colorado wrote in message ...
>Tenn. Family Feuds Over Children
>by MARTA W. ALDRICH
>Associated Press Writer
>
>
>NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Sammy March was about to start kindergarten, his
>little sister Tzipi still in diapers, when their mother vanished four years
>ago.
>
>Janet March, a young artist born into wealth and privilege, is presumed
>dead, though her body has never been found and no one has been charged.
>
>Her disappearance has now pitted her husband, Perry March, against her
>parents, Lawrence and Carolyn Levine, in a complex and unprecedented child
>custody case involving the Tennessee Legislature, the U.S. State Department
>and the judicial systems of Tennessee, Illinois and Mexico.
>
"March, who faces arrest in Nashville for violating a court order to return
several of Janet's personal items to the Levines, is now fighting for his
children from Mexico." Any idea what the personal items were? And why
they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
perhaps?
JonesieCat
PattyC4303
<cj_m.rm@yahoospamless> writes:
> Any idea what the personal items were? And why
>they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
>perhaps?
>JonesieCat
I wondered about that also, Jonesie. Does the husband not inherit the wife's
belongings? What right do the parents of the wife have to her "personal items"
whatever they were?
Gimarie330
>>they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
>>perhaps?
>>JonesieCat
This case has been given forefront news here in Nashville ever since it
happened in Aug. of 1995.
i remember that the OJ Simpson trial was hot and heavy then........and had
strong feelings this guy, Perry March, had gotten away with murder easier than
OJ.
It was extremely clever of him to convince Janet's parents that they had a
tiff and she just went on a trip to "take some breathing room". SO when janet
didn't show up for her son's 6th birthday, the parents went along with the lie
that she was visiting a brother out in CA. The police were not brought in till
2 weeks after the fact. PLENTY of time to cleanly dispose of a body.
The main theory that has ensued regarding her death is thus......Perry had a
black belt in Karate.......Janet was a petite woman......he KARATE chopped
her.....wrapped her body in a fancy rug. .WHERE and HOW Perry disposed of the
body is still a mystery.
The Levines are a wealthy, noted family here in Nashville. When Perry married
Janet he was given a law job in the Dad's firm.
Janet was an artist who did many magnificent paintings.......and one of the
paintings is one of the disputed personal items. Most of the valuable personal
items were gifts from the parents to Janet and Janet and Perry as a married
couple.
The Levines had also given Janet and Perry a loan to fiance their gorgeous
French Renaissance Home (Janet designed it) The Levines called for payment on
the loan, which forced Perry to sell it. He is a scoundrel.........was willing
to work out a deal with grandchildren visitation if the Levines gave him money.
They wouldn't......thus began the exodus to Chicago, then Mexico.
Mr and Mrs. Levine have no doubts that Perry killed Janet.
JonesieCat
Gimarie330 wrote in message
<20000820004725...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
Who's bro was Janet supposedly visiting?? And how is it her parents were
entitled to Janet's personal items? The husband does sound guilty to me,
but I'd like to know more details - and it sounds like "details" abound.
Anybody writing a book about this?
Thanks for info, Gimarie
JonesieCat
Gimarie330
>Who's bro was Janet supposedly visiting??
Janet's brother. The story was just made up for the public at the party. The
parents didn't want the embarrassment of telling friends that Janet had just
taken off for a few days due to marital problems (The parents believed Perry's
story that Janet had needed a solo vacation)
And how is it her parents were
>entitled to Janet's personal items?
Some of those personal items were family keepsakes given to Janet by the
parents.
Sarah
PattyC4303 wrote:
> Thanks for all that, Maggie. BUT... it seems my understanding of the default
> judgment idea was correct. He didn't respond. So why was there a trial?
The trial was placed on the docket, and he failed to show up for the
trial. The trial judge, at that point, at trial, ruled that he had
defaulted as a no-show. That's how it works.
Sarah
status. She was also said to be an artist, and if she was building a
name for herself, her disappearance would make the value of her work
skyrocket, because it automatically makes it _extremely rare_.
Sarah
PattyC4303 wrote:
>
> In article <ggEn5.34056$c5.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "JonesieCat"
> <cj_m.rm@yahoospamless> writes:
>
> > Any idea what the personal items were? And why
> >they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
> >perhaps?
> >JonesieCat
>
> I wondered about that also, Jonesie. Does the husband not inherit the wife's
> belongings? What right do the parents of the wife have to her "personal items"
> whatever they were?
The ruling that he was responsible for her disappearance/assumed death
automatically voids his inheritance of _anything_ belonging to his
wife. The children inherit, and the grandparents have a right to
recover those goods from him on their behalf.
Maggie
>>
>> In article <ggEn5.34056$c5.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "JonesieCat"
>> <cj_m.rm@yahoospamless> writes:
>>
>> > Any idea what the personal items were? And why
>> >they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
>> >perhaps?
>> >JonesieCat
>>
>> I wondered about that also, Jonesie. Does the husband not inherit the
>wife's
>> belongings? What right do the parents of the wife have to her "personal
>items"
>> whatever they were?
>
>The ruling that he was responsible for her disappearance/assumed death
>automatically voids his inheritance of _anything_ belonging to his
>wife. The children inherit, and the grandparents have a right to
>recover those goods from him on their behalf.
***I believe sarah is wrong. While a criminal finding of "guilty" would do
what she says, I do not believe a civil finding of "responsible" would do the
same.
JonesieCat
Maggie wrote in message <20000820141432...@ng-mg1.aol.com>...
>>PattyC4303 wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <ggEn5.34056$c5.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "JonesieCat"
>>> <cj_m.rm@yahoospamless> writes:
>>>
>>> > Any idea what the personal items were? And why
>>> >they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
>>> >perhaps?
>>> >JonesieCat
>>>
>>> I wondered about that also, Jonesie. Does the husband not inherit the
>>wife's
>>> belongings? What right do the parents of the wife have to her "personal
>>items"
>>> whatever they were?
>>
>sarah said:
>>The ruling that he was responsible for her disappearance/assumed death
>>automatically voids his inheritance of _anything_ belonging to his
>>wife. The children inherit, and the grandparents have a right to
>>recover those goods from him on their behalf.
>
>***I believe sarah is wrong. While a criminal finding of "guilty" would do
>what she says, I do not believe a civil finding of "responsible" would do
the
>same.
>
>Maggie
>
However, since the judgement against him is huge, perhaps that is the basis
for assets to be turned over the the grandparents (on behalf of the
children?). The way the article read, it sounded as if maybe the reason he
fled to Mexico was because he didn't want to turn over anything to the
grandparents, but now I think he went to Mexico because of what he suspected
would be coming down on him, and the court rulings & orders were subsequent
to his move there. Gimarie, would that be right?
JonesieCat
JonesieCat
Gimarie330 wrote in message
<20000820053141...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
think that? I misunderstood.
As for Janet's personal items, will you read farther down what I've posted
in this thread? Thx for all the info. This is such an interesting case.
JonesieCat
Teresa/Colorado
Teresa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Major events in the case of Janet March
Compiled by Annette Morrison / Staff Writer
1996
. Aug. 15: March disappears from her Forest Hills home. Her husband, Perry,
says he and his wife were having marital problems, that she packed several
bags and left home because she wanted a vacation from him and their two
children.
. Aug. 29: Perry March and his wife's parents call police to report Janet
March missing.
. Sept. 12: Police announce they are treating the case as a homicide after
searching Janet March's car. Her purse and personal belongings were still in
the car when it was found.
. Sept. 17: Metro police label Perry March a suspect in the "disappearance
and/or homicide" of his wife. The Levines, Janet March's parents, obtain an
emergency court order barring March from taking the children out of
Tennessee, but March has sent them to Chicago with his father.
. Dec. 13: The Levines finally get to see the grandchildren in a locked
courtroom after a Chicago judge rules March was in contempt of court for
violating an earlier visitation order.
1997
. Jan. 15: Perry March files a petition in Chicago asking a judge to let him
bring his children back to Nashville so he can re-establish his law
practice.
1998
. June: The Appellate Court of Illinois rules a judge overstepped his
authority when he ordered Perry March to let the children spend every other
weekend with the Levines and three weeks in the summer.
. July 15: Judge Clement rules Perry March is in contempt of court and says
he must pay legal fees, court costs and moving fees the Levines have
incurred trying to resolve questions about Janet's estate.
1999
. May 28: The Tennessee Supreme Court suspends Perry March's law license for
failing to respond to a complaint filed by the state's lawyer discipline
board.
. May 29: March's brother, lawyer Ron March, announces in a Chicago court
hearing that Perry and the children have moved to Mexico. He says Perry
plans to become a permanent resident of Mexico where he will work as a
consultant.
. June 9: Another Illinois judge grants the Levines temporary visitation
with their grandchildren. The Levines want to take their grandchildren to a
family reunion during the weekend. The judge also grants them visitation
every second weekend through October when he will decide on final visitation
rights.
. June 11: Arthur March, Perry March's father, brings the children to
Chicago and the Levines are reunited with their grandchildren.
. Aug. 18: The Chicago judge issues an arrest warrant for Perry March for
failing to appear in court with his children.
. Oct. 18: The Chicago judge rules the Levines can visit their grandchildren
once a month but only in Mexico.
2000
. Jan. 14: Clement rules that Janet March is dead and her husband is
responsible for her death, in a civil wrongful-death trial.
. March 17: Clement sentences March to an indefinite stay in Metro Jail for
failing to return personal items to the Levines.
. April 27: A jury in Clement's court orders March to pay the Levines $113.5
million for her wrongful death.
. June 21: Using a Mexican court order, the Levines take their grandchildren
from their school in Mexico and bring them back to the United States.
Teresa/Colorado
Now, the FBI is looking for Mr. March.
Teresa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, 7/20/2000
-----------------------------
FBI seeking Perry March, lawyer says
By John Shiffman / Staff Writer
The FBI wants to speak with Perry March and take him "into custody,"
according to an Illinois lawyer appointed to represent his children.
That revelation, the first to publicly indicate federal law enforcement
interest in March, came yesterday in a detailed seven-page report filed in a
Chicago court.
Courts in Chicago and Nashville had previously issued arrest warrants
against March for failing to follow court orders in civil and child
visitation matters.
FBI involvement in the case is significant, in part because the bureau has
latitude to work in Mexico, where March now lives. Though the FBI does not
have the power to arrest people in Mexico, it does work international cases
with Mexican national police.
Nashville police named March a suspect in the disappearance and/or killing
of his wife, Janet Levine March, in August 1996. Police have never charged
anyone in the case.
FBI spokesmen yesterday would not confirm or deny whether the bureau was
seeking March.
Federal sources outside Nashville have said they believe the FBI interest
isn't related to child custody issues.
March's attorney, Vincent Stark, said it's "the first time ever" he has
heard of FBI interest in his client. "It's unwarranted," he said.
The public link to the FBI came in a report to a Cook County, Ill., judge by
Redina Friedman, an attorney appointed by the court to represent the
interests of the March children. They are the subjects of a custody battle
between March and his in-laws, Lawrence and Carolyn Levine of Nashville.
In the court documents, Friedman related a July 10 phone call in which March
alleged the Levines were not allowing him to speak with his children.
Friedman alleged that March threatened her during the call, and she reported
it to the FBI and Chicago police.
Friedman said the FBI agent in Chicago told her to let them know if she saw
March so that "he would be picked up."
"The FBI agent informed me that Perry March would be taken into custody on
an unrelated matter," Friedman wrote, "which the agent was not at liberty to
discuss."
Teresa/Colorado
revealed this article.
Teresa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, 7/09/2000
--------------------------------
Levines' petition claims March 'abused' and 'neglected' children
By Kirk Loggins / Staff Writer
Lawrence and Carolyn Levine cited several Tennessee statutes -- including
one that they helped to write -- in the petition they filed last Monday
asking Davidson County Juvenile Court to grant them custody of their
grandchildren.
The Levines say that their son-in-law, former Nashville lawyer Perry March,
has "abused" and "neglected" the two children, first by allegedly killing
their mother in 1996 and then by moving the children to several locations in
Illinois and Mexico "to escape legal authority."
Juvenile Court Judge Betty Adams Green granted the Levines temporary custody
of their daughter's children last Monday, under the terms of a law giving
Tennessee courts "temporary emergency jurisdiction" if a child is present in
the state and "is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse."
The Levines' request for permanent custody is based on March's alleged
"emotional and psychological abuse" of the children since their mother,
artist Janet Levine March, disappeared on Aug. 15, 1996.
The grandparents said that Perry March has told the children their mother
"ran away and abandoned them," that he has physically punished the children
"for expressing their love for the Levines," and that he recently told the
children that if they do not return to Mexico he will kill himself. They
also said that March "has held the children hostage" to try to "extort"
money and legal help from them.
The Levines say that his conduct makes Perry March, who now works as an
unlicensed legal and financial adviser in the Mexican resort town of Ajijic,
"unfit to properly care for the children," as defined by another section of
state law.
They cited an amendment to Tennessee's child custody law, enacted by the
General Assembly in May, which added a new reason for terminating a parent's
custodial rights: "The parent has been convicted of or found civilly liable
for the intentional and wrongful death of the child's other parent or legal
guardian."
Sen. Joe Haynes, D-Goodlettsville, who sponsored the amendment in the state
Senate, acknowledged that Lawrence Levine, a lawyer, helped to draft that
language, which applies to Perry March now that a Davidson County judge has
found him liable for the death of his wife in a civil damage lawsuit filed
by the Levines.
Metro police named March a suspect in his wife's "disappearance and/or
homicide" in September 1996, but her body has never been found, and no
criminal charges have been filed against him.
Davidson County Probate Judge Frank Clement Jr. declared Janet March legally
dead in January and held her husband liable for her death after Perry March
failed to appear for three court-ordered depositions in the case.
Perry March has not appeared in a courtroom in Nashville in more than a
year, and he is not currently represented by a lawyer here. He argued his
own case by telephone when Clement refused last month to set aside the
default judgment that he granted to the Levines in January.
March has denied doing anything to harm his wife, and he has accused the
Levines of manipulating the Tennessee courts and of "kidnapping" his
children from their school in Ajijic on June 21.
The Levines took possession of the children in the presence of a Mexican
judge, who helped them to enforce a 39-day visitation order issued by a
judge in Chicago, where March took the children after he left Nashville in
1996.
Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Judge Anthony Young, during a hearing in Chicago
on Thursday, reacted angrily to news that the Levines had filed for custody
of their grandchildren in Juvenile Court in Nashville.
Young said he has exclusive jurisdiction over the children because the
Levines' request for visitation rights has been pending in Illinois since
December 1996. He said that the Levines were barred "from taking any action
on those children in any court other than this."
But legal experts here say that it's possible that Green and Young may issue
a series of conflicting orders that will eventually have to be ironed out by
a federal judge.
Nashville attorney Jim Martin, who helped to prepare the Levines' custody
petition, said that the temporary custody order that Green signed on Monday
will allow the Levines to keep possession of their grandchildren beyond the
39 days of visitation approved by Young. Green's order is intended to remain
in effect until she can hold a trial on the custody dispute.
Martin said Friday that he does not expect anything to change in the custody
case until Young's next scheduled hearing in Chicago, on July 19.
The records of child custody proceedings in Juvenile Court here are not open
to the public, but The Tennessean obtained a copy of the Levines' custody
petition in Chicago, where it was filed as an exhibit in the visitation
case.
Teresa/Colorado
--------------------------------
Janet's dad unrelenting in struggle with March
Lawrence Levine testifies in April as part of his custody battle with Perry
March. (Randy Piland / Staff)
By Kirk Loggins / Staff Writer
Aggressive, hard-working, competent, thorough.
That's how fellow lawyers describe Lawrence Levine's approach to his work
and his clients.
But Levine's colleagues say the civil trial lawyer has focused most of his
time and energy, for almost four years, on legal problems of his own,
stemming from the disappearance of his daughter, Janet Levine March, in
August 1996.
His efforts seem to be paying off, at least for the moment, now that he and
his wife, Carolyn, have been granted temporary custody of their
grandchildren, whom they removed from the possession of their son-in-law,
Perry March, in Mexico last month.
Levine, 64, is a "hard bargainer" who "has been totally absorbed" in the
struggle to gain custody of his grandchildren and to hold March accountable
for the apparent death of his daughter, said George Cate Jr., another senior
member of the Nashville bar.
Attorney John Nolan, who has opposed Levine in court over the years, said he
has been impressed by the "lowkey, effective" lawyer's commitment to his
daughter's case.
"I think what he is doing is a natural reaction for most fathers and
grandfathers," Nolan said.
Carolyn and Lawrence Levine spend less time now at West End Synagogue, of
which they were active supporters for many years.
"The focus of their lives has shifted," said Rabbi Ronald Roth, who helped
to conduct a memorial service for Janet March three months after she
disappeared.
Lawrence Levine has refused to discuss with reporters his daughter's fate
and his struggle with his son-in-law, and several of his friends and former
law partners declined to be interviewed for this article, citing respect for
his desire for privacy.
Lawrence Levine grew up in New York and attended the University of Michigan,
where he met Carolyn Rosenblum of Nashville. They were married in 1960, and
he began practicing law here in 1961 in a small, solo office in the Stahlman
Building downtown.
He began to concentrate on insurance defense work, and he prospered, like
many other Tennessee lawyers, by representing people involved in the
collapse of the Butcher brothers' Knoxvillebased banking empire in the
mid-1980s.
Levine has been a name partner in downtown law firms for more than 20 years,
and his current firm, Levine Mattson Orr & Geracioti, now has 11 lawyers.
Perry March worked there from 1991-1996.
Lawrence Levine testified in Probate Court in April that he had planned to
retire in January 1997 so that he could spend "full time" with his
grandchildren.
But his life changed radically when Janet March disappeared on Aug. 15,
1996 -- the night before she was scheduled to meet with a divorce lawyer.
Levine came to believe, early on, that his sonin-law killed his daughter and
somehow disposed of her remains so well that no trace has ever been found.
Levine couldn't keep Perry March from moving to Chicago, with his two
grandchildren, when Metro police named March a suspect in the "disappearance
and/or homicide" of his wife in September 1996.
But Levine began what has become a series of court battles in Tennessee,
Illinois and Mexico when Perry March filed a lawsuit in Davidson County
Probate Court in October 1996, trying to get access to bank accounts that
had been set aside for his and Janet's children, Samson, then 6, and
Tzipora, then 2.
Levine and his wife went to court in Chicago in December 1996 to get
visitation rights after March refused to let them see their grandchildren,
and they skirmished with March in Probate Court here in 1997 over financial
matters, including what to do with the Marches' recently completed $726,000
home in Forest Hills, which the Levines had helped to finance.
The Levines were stunned when Perry March moved to Mexico with his children
in May 1999, but they soon upped the ante in the legal struggle with their
son-in-law by filing a civil damage lawsuit in Probate Court, accusing March
of the "wrongful death" of their daughter.
Probate Judge Frank Clement Jr. had issued an order for March's arrest,
meanwhile, for failing to return personal items that the Levines say he took
when he moved to Chicago in 1996. The judge presiding over the child
visitation case in Chicago ordered March arrested for violating a series of
visitation orders there.
Clement granted the Levines a default judgment on their wrongful death suit
in January -- declaring Janet March legally dead and finding her husband
liable for her death -- after Perry March failed to appear for three
court-ordered depositions.
Clement convened a jury in April, which awarded the Levines $113.5 million
in damages after hearing testimony about Janet's life and work and the
Levines' close ties to their grandchildren.
Lawrence Levine told the jury how much he enjoyed taking his grandson,
Sammy, to the family vegetable garden, where "he'd get on my shoulders to
pick the corn." The Levines' lawyers showed the jury excerpts from family
videotapes, in which Janet March tried to teach her son how to operate a
gift from her father, an electric car that was beyond the little boy's
capabilities -- at age 16 months.
Soon after March moved to Chicago, Levine testified, his son-in-law sent him
a letter, saying that "if I would give him half of everything that Carolyn
and I owned, that he would let us see the children."
Perry March had been represented in most of the prior court proceedings here
by criminal defense lawyer Lionel Barrett, but no one spoke on March's
behalf during the jury trial in April. Barrett retired in May, and Perry
March has not had a lawyer in Nashville since then.
The Levines' lawyers acknowledged that their clients would have a hard time
collecting any of the massive civil damage award against Perry March, but
Lawrence Levine made use of the wrongful death judgment in a different way a
few weeks later.
He helped to write an amendment to Tennessee's child custody law, adopted by
the legislature in May, adding a new reason to terminate a parent's
custodial rights: "The parent has been convicted of or found civilly liable
for the intentional and wrongful death of the child's other parent or legal
guardian."
Levine spent several weeks in Mexico this spring, laying the groundwork for
the seizure of his grandchildren at their school in the resort town of
Ajijic on June 21, while Perry March was being questioned by Mexican
immigration authorities in the nearby city of Guadalajara.
An earlier attempt to take the children for court-ordered visitation, on May
12, failed.
The Levines said, in a custody petition they filed last week in Davidson
County Juvenile Court, that March has had "serious problems with his
business dealings in Mexico," and they fear that "if the children are placed
back in (his) care, there is a strong likelihood he will flee with the
children to yet another country."
The Levines' battles with their son-in-law are far from over, if March
follows through on attempts last week to keep the custody dispute alive in
Illinois -- a place to which, he said in court pleadings last year, he had
no plans to return.
Gimarie330
>I suspected the same, Maggie, since there was no criminal proceeding.
>However, since the judgement against him is huge, perhaps that is the basis
>for assets to be turned over the the grandparents (on behalf of the
>children?). The way the article read, it sounded as if maybe the reason he
>fled to Mexico was because he didn't want to turn over anything to the
>grandparents, but now I think he went to Mexico because of what he suspected
>would be coming down on him, and the court rulings & orders were subsequent
>to his move there. Gimarie, would that be right
The gifts that the Levines sought in court were family heirlooms and gifts
given SOLELY to Janet before and during her marriage. (In addition to an oil
painting Janet had done of her Father's Law Firm with her dad and perry in the
forefront)
If Janet and Perry had divorced....most of.those "personal" gifts would not
constitute marital property, so Perry could not argue that line.
There of course is GREAT sympathy for the Levines in this town........and with
Perry being such a grubber for money, he probably would have sold off the
heirlooms......No sentimental value to him.
I don't know the legal basis for the award of some of the property.
I know that the house was only in Janet's name and her parents fincanced it
AND they showed no leniency to Perry when calling for him to get out of the
house or pay the balance.
Gimarie330
Saturday, 3/18/2000
------------------------------------------------------------
March faces jail in property case
By Kirk Loggins / Staff Writer
A judge sentenced former Nashville lawyer Perry March to an indefinite stay at
Metro Jail yesterday for failing to return personal items to the parents of his
long-missing wife, Janet Levine March.
Davidson County Circuit Judge Frank Clement Jr. said Perry March "has the keys
to the jail," meaning he can avoid the sentence by complying with court orders
Clement issued in 1998.
But March wasn't in court, and his in-laws and their lawyer acknowledged it
will be hard to get him back here from his new home in Mexico.
"We may have difficulty enforcing the decree, but we'll get him someday," said
attorney Harris Gilbert, who represents the missing woman's parents, Lawrence
and Carolyn Levine.
No criminal charges have ever been filed in connection with Janet March's
disappearance in 1996, but Metro police say they would still like to interview
her husband in person.
In 1998, Clement ordered March to return to the Levines a cross-stitched baby
quilt and a beaded evening bag that Janet March had used.
Clement also ordered Perry March to pay for repairs to two pieces of furniture
that the Levines said were damaged when he took them to Illinois in 1996.
Clement began fining Perry March $50 a day more than a year ago for failing to
return the items. Those fines are still accumulating, Gilbert said yesterday.
March's attorney, Lionel Barrett, said yesterday that he talks with March "on a
very regular basis."
"His pressing concern right now is his children," who are 5 and 9, Barrett
said. "He feels it best, for the present time, to remain in Mexico."
Last May, March, 39, moved with his children to the lakeside resort town of
Ajijic in the Mexican state of Jalisco.
March did not respond to a message left yesterday at his office in Ajijic.
PattyC4303
writes:
>
>PattyC4303 wrote:
>>
>> In article <ggEn5.34056$c5.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "JonesieCat"
>> <cj_m.rm@yahoospamless> writes:
>>
>> > Any idea what the personal items were? And why
>> >they are apparently are so important to both sides? Family heirlooms
>> >perhaps?
>> >JonesieCat
>>
>> I wondered about that also, Jonesie. Does the husband not inherit the
>wife's
>> belongings? What right do the parents of the wife have to her "personal
>items"
>> whatever they were?
>
>The ruling that he was responsible for her disappearance/assumed death
>automatically voids his inheritance of _anything_ belonging to his
>wife. The children inherit, and the grandparents have a right to
>recover those goods from him on their behalf.
I know when you are convicted in a criminal court of murder, you lose the right
to inherit. It isn't making sense to me that the same goes for a civil
finding. Then again, I have been wrong once or twice before.
PattyC4303
(Gimarie330) writes:
>The gifts that the Levines sought in court were family heirlooms and gifts
>given SOLELY to Janet before and during her marriage. (In addition to an oil
>painting Janet had done of her Father's Law Firm with her dad and perry in
>the
>forefront)
>
>If Janet and Perry had divorced....most of.those "personal" gifts would not
>constitute marital property, so Perry could not argue that line.
>There of course is GREAT sympathy for the Levines in this town........and
>with
>Perry being such a grubber for money, he probably would have sold off the
>heirlooms......No sentimental value to him.
>I don't know the legal basis for the award of some of the property.
> I know that the house was only in Janet's name and her parents fincanced it
>AND they showed no leniency to Perry when calling for him to get out of the
>house or pay the balance.
I undertand that one partner can own something exclusively, and that can figure
into divorce consideration re: property. But even if not marital property, are
not items belonging to one mate inherited by the surviving spouse after death?
Again, assuming that a civil finding of responsibility for wrongful death does
not negate inheriting.... I don't get how the parents or kids have the "right"
to the wife's property.
How about if the wife had a will outlining that those items would go to
specific individuals (like her kids or parents)? Now that would make sense to
me. And maybe the parents' names were on the house and they owned part of it
anyway?
Not voicing support of this seemingly rotten hubby. Just trying to understand
what's legal or not.
PattyC4303
(Gimarie330) writes:
>A judge sentenced former Nashville lawyer Perry March to an indefinite stay
>at
>Metro Jail yesterday for failing to return personal items to the parents of
>his
>long-missing wife, Janet Levine March.
>
>Davidson County Circuit Judge Frank Clement Jr. said Perry March "has the
>keys
>to the jail," meaning he can avoid the sentence by complying with court
>orders
>Clement issued in 1998.
Well, obviously the judge had some legal reason for this ruling. So I think
there is an angle here as to the "why" that we don't know yet.
Maggie
>I undertand that one partner can own something exclusively, and that can
>figure
>into divorce consideration re: property. But even if not marital property,
>are
>not items belonging to one mate inherited by the surviving spouse after
>death?
***I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, but in most states
if a person dies intestate, his/her spouse *and children* are entitled to the
estate--not just the spouse. IIRC, in Virginia, it's something like 60% to
spouse, 40% to children (or used to be).
>Again, assuming that a civil finding of responsibility for wrongful death
>does
>not negate inheriting.... I don't get how the parents or kids have the
>"right"
>to the wife's property.
>
>How about if the wife had a will outlining that those items would go to
>specific individuals (like her kids or parents)? Now that would make sense
>to
>me. And maybe the parents' names were on the house and they owned part
>of it
>anyway?
***I'm as puzzled as you are re the personal property, but as for the house, I
believe I read that the parents held the (rather large) mortgage on it and
called it in when it became apparent to them that their son-in-law had killed
their daughter.