August Transcript | |
File Size: | 5490 kb |
File Type: |
Court acknowledges Ex Parte filed by Respondent for price drop
2(1)-2(3)
Petitioner and Petitioner counsel consent to price drop to 850,000
2(10)-2(12)
Petitioner and Petitioner counsel deny Respondent can buy out, ask for opportunity for Petitioner to purchase
2(13)-2(15)
Court acknowledges Respondent Ex Parte
2(16)-2(20)
Petitioner counsel admits home should be priced at 849,000
2(24)
Court note that 990,000 tp 849,000 is significant decrease
2(27)-2(28)
2(1)-2(3)
Petitioner and Petitioner counsel consent to price drop to 850,000
2(10)-2(12)
Petitioner and Petitioner counsel deny Respondent can buy out, ask for opportunity for Petitioner to purchase
2(13)-2(15)
Court acknowledges Respondent Ex Parte
2(16)-2(20)
Petitioner counsel admits home should be priced at 849,000
2(24)
Court note that 990,000 tp 849,000 is significant decrease
2(27)-2(28)
Petitioner counsel asks that Petitioner can buy Shenandoah property with Respondent escrow funds
3(5)-3(16)
3(5)-3(16)
Petitioner counsel brings up tax issue to claim escrow outlined in judgment
3(18)-4(3)
Petitioner counsel attempts to claims escrow funds with tax issue
4(6)-4(14)
3(18)-4(3)
Petitioner counsel attempts to claims escrow funds with tax issue
4(6)-4(14)
Respondent notes that Petitioner affirmed Petitioner was unwilling to purchase Shenandoah property on June 11, 2013
4(15)-5(1)
Respondent points out that 990,000 figure was extremely high
5(1)-5(3)
Respondent points out that the newly requested 850,000 price is the original listing price
5(6)-5(9)
Respondent claims that Petitioner clearly knew Shenandoah property and 990,000 property were not comparable
5(10)-5(23)
Respondent points out problems with quality of Shenandoah property
5(18)-5(21)
Court refers to May 20, 2013 interpretation of J by Commissioner Cowan
5(25)-5(28)
4(15)-5(1)
Respondent points out that 990,000 figure was extremely high
5(1)-5(3)
Respondent points out that the newly requested 850,000 price is the original listing price
5(6)-5(9)
Respondent claims that Petitioner clearly knew Shenandoah property and 990,000 property were not comparable
5(10)-5(23)
Respondent points out problems with quality of Shenandoah property
5(18)-5(21)
Court refers to May 20, 2013 interpretation of J by Commissioner Cowan
5(25)-5(28)
Court again cites May 20 interpretation
6(7)-6(8)
Court affirms reduction to 849,000
6(15)-6(17)
6(7)-6(8)
Court affirms reduction to 849,000
6(15)-6(17)
Petitioner counsel attacks actions of Respondent
6(25)-7(7)
Petitioner counsel claims escrow funds are community property
7(12)-7(15)
Petitioner counsel re-raises tax issue
7(18)-7(20)
Petitioner counsel attempts again to award escrow funds to Petitioner
7(22)-7(25)
Petitioner counsel admits Respondent can buy house
7(25)-7(26)
6(25)-7(7)
Petitioner counsel claims escrow funds are community property
7(12)-7(15)
Petitioner counsel re-raises tax issue
7(18)-7(20)
Petitioner counsel attempts again to award escrow funds to Petitioner
7(22)-7(25)
Petitioner counsel admits Respondent can buy house
7(25)-7(26)
Court raises tax issue
8(1)-8(3)
Court asks for evidence on tax issue to be presented
8(6)-8(7)
Respondent points out that tax issue is irrelevant
8(8)-8(9)
Court does not respond to Respondent
8(10)-8(12)
Petitioner counsel claims tax returns were amended by Respondent, and that funds were withdrawn from escrow by Franchise Tax Board
8(19)-8(26)
8(1)-8(3)
Court asks for evidence on tax issue to be presented
8(6)-8(7)
Respondent points out that tax issue is irrelevant
8(8)-8(9)
Court does not respond to Respondent
8(10)-8(12)
Petitioner counsel claims tax returns were amended by Respondent, and that funds were withdrawn from escrow by Franchise Tax Board
8(19)-8(26)
Court suggests that remaining escrow funds belong to Petitioner
9(3)-9(5)
Court requests accounting on taxes and escrow funds
9(5)-9(7)
Petitioner counsel approves 849,000 figure, wants to use a broker
9(10)-9(14)
Respondent is not agreeable to this situation
9(16)
Petitioner counsel wants time to situate escrow funds before Shenandoah property goes on market
9(19)-9(23)
Court brings up Respondent ability to buy out
9(27)-9(28)
9(3)-9(5)
Court requests accounting on taxes and escrow funds
9(5)-9(7)
Petitioner counsel approves 849,000 figure, wants to use a broker
9(10)-9(14)
Respondent is not agreeable to this situation
9(16)
Petitioner counsel wants time to situate escrow funds before Shenandoah property goes on market
9(19)-9(23)
Court brings up Respondent ability to buy out
9(27)-9(28)
Court affirms Respondent can buy out
10(4)-10(6)
Respondent points out he can provide purchase funds, and that financial documents regarding Shenandoah property are in his name
10(7)-10(15)
Court refuses offer, turns questions to Petitioner counsel
10(16)-10(19)
Respondent points out financial liabilities of selling house, references the loss on house in terms of Capital Gains
10(20)-10(26)
10(4)-10(6)
Respondent points out he can provide purchase funds, and that financial documents regarding Shenandoah property are in his name
10(7)-10(15)
Court refuses offer, turns questions to Petitioner counsel
10(16)-10(19)
Respondent points out financial liabilities of selling house, references the loss on house in terms of Capital Gains
10(20)-10(26)
Respondent reminds Court Shenandoah property is in his name
11(5)-11(7)
Respondent points out he is willing to comply with Minute Order by paying half of net equity, points out loss sale could incur
11(6)-11(10)
Court refers to Shenandoah property as Petitioner property
11(11)-11(12)
Respondent reminds Court he has paid mortgage, saved house
11(13)-11(17)
Court again refers to Shenandoah property as Petitioner property
11(19)-11(20)
Court says Petitioner and Respondent will have to come to agreement
11(23)-11(26)
11(5)-11(7)
Respondent points out he is willing to comply with Minute Order by paying half of net equity, points out loss sale could incur
11(6)-11(10)
Court refers to Shenandoah property as Petitioner property
11(11)-11(12)
Respondent reminds Court he has paid mortgage, saved house
11(13)-11(17)
Court again refers to Shenandoah property as Petitioner property
11(19)-11(20)
Court says Petitioner and Respondent will have to come to agreement
11(23)-11(26)
Court asks for resolution
11(27)-12(2)
Petitioner counsel asks for ninety days
12(3)-12(6)
Court wants resolution
12(7)-12(9)
11(27)-12(2)
Petitioner counsel asks for ninety days
12(3)-12(6)
Court wants resolution
12(7)-12(9)
Petitioner counsel asks for sixty days, Court allows
13(11)-13(14)
Respondent reminds Court of hardship of further extensions
13(15)-13(16)
Court says Respondent can buy home immediately
13(17)-13(19)
Court affirms May Minute Order
13(23)-13(24)
Petitioner counsel requests statements from Wells Fargo in Respondent name be sent to Petitioner
13(23)-13(28)
13(11)-13(14)
Respondent reminds Court of hardship of further extensions
13(15)-13(16)
Court says Respondent can buy home immediately
13(17)-13(19)
Court affirms May Minute Order
13(23)-13(24)
Petitioner counsel requests statements from Wells Fargo in Respondent name be sent to Petitioner
13(23)-13(28)
Court asks Petitioner counsel to draft Order for signing
14(1)-14(2)
Petitioner counsel states belief Respondent will not have buy-out money
14(9)-14(12)
Respondent tells Court he believes Petitioner will not allow buy-out
14(19)-14(20)
Respondent reminds Court of mortgage hardship, unacknowledged
14(25)-14(27)