Reviews

Ms. Corn has given me excellent advice on several occasions. She is not afraid to stand up for her clients no matter who the attorney is on the other side.

I have not only used Mary Beth before, but have worked with her in other cases as well. She is dedicated, hard working, straight to the point and very polite and professional. She did everything she could in her power to help us in whatever way she can. She is an attorney who goes above and beyond for her clients, and I would recommend her services to anyone. She is competent, smart, and has more then enough experience and knowledge to handle cases with confidence. I will definitely use her again.

We had a very bad experience with this lawyer and her office staff. She said she would be able to modify child support. We also asked about the alimony and why we needed to still pay if his ex was with someone for several years. She said there was nothing she could do about that and we could not get that removed. There was only one mediation and when I tried to get a bill to have a breakdown of fees I was told that they were not obligated to send me a bill. I have no idea how the $3500 retainer was spent and if we even spent all of it. Even though it was 2010, there was no mention or looking into Senate Bill 152 (House Bill 1181) -which was introduced in early 2005, and sponsored in the Florida Senate by Gary Siplin, an Orlando Democrat. Its proposal stemmed from a Florida case in which an alimony recipient/ former wife and her live-in boyfriend invited 50 friends and relatives to Las Vegas. Programs and t-shirts from the event read "Las Vegas Wedding Weekend," and a video of the event showed the couple standing beneath a chuppah, a canopy traditionally used in Jewish weddings. They exchanged vows and rings, and essentially staged an unofficial wedding, complete with ceremony, reception, friends, family, champagne toasts, cake, etc. Upon the ex-husband's petition for termination of alimony, Judge Robert Foster ruled that it was not a legal marriage because there was no marriage license, and that the alimony obligation therefore stood. Needless to say, the payor/ex-husband, obligated to pay $5,000 per month, was outraged that the law did not provide him recourse to terminate his alimony obligation under these obvious circumstances. We could have gotten the alimony revoked if she would have known about this. We have been paying an extra $500 a month of "temporary rehabilitative alimony" to someone who has been is a full time-live in relationship since 2006. That's $30,000 lost in 5 years. Very disappointed in her service and not one mention of this bill to us. It would have completely changed our case.