Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Court Contempt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pro se appellant urges appeals court to remand for fact‑finding in contempt dispute
Summary
Kathleen Glasgow Touro, appearing pro se, asked the appeals court for an opportunity to present evidence and to clarify the scope of additional factual findings underlying contempt orders; opposing counsel said most ordered transfers were completed and a compliance hearing remains set.
A pro se appellant, Kathleen Glasgow Touro, appeared before the appeals court and asked the panel to remand portions of contempt proceedings to permit additional fact‑finding. Touro said she had been denied the chance to present documentary evidence at earlier hearings and that unresolved factual questions—such as how much tuition was paid during the pendency of proceedings and whether stipulated transfers were properly executed—remain in the record.
“I'm not here today to ask you to overturn anything…I’m just asking for the ability to present evidence,” Touro told the panel, describing the practical consequences and identifying amounts she said were at issue.
Counsel for the wife, Nancy Fried, responded that many of the transfers required by the contempt orders had been completed, and that a compliance hearing remained scheduled to determine outstanding balances. Fried also explained the procedural posture: two contempt judgments (dated August 9, 2024, and May 14, 2025) were at issue, and questions of timeliness and whether notices of appeal were filed appropriately were raised during argument.
The panel explored whether an evidentiary hearing had been requested or whether facts were already preserved in the record. The court took the matter under advisement.
