May Transcript | |
File Size: | 4349 kb |
File Type: |
The Hearing is established as a response to a request by Respondent to modify Judgment to award Shenandoah property as his sole and separate
1(27)-2(2)
1(27)-2(2)
The Court refers to the Judgment, making disputed statement that Shenandoah property was awarded to Petitioner as sole and separate property, and hears that the property has not been sold
2(4)-2(9)
Respondent claims that the mortgage on the property has not been being paid by Petitioner, hurting Respondent credit rating
2(10)-2(11)
Petitioner counsel establishes that house had been listed on market, providing direct information to the Court
2(18)-2(28)
2(4)-2(9)
Respondent claims that the mortgage on the property has not been being paid by Petitioner, hurting Respondent credit rating
2(10)-2(11)
Petitioner counsel establishes that house had been listed on market, providing direct information to the Court
2(18)-2(28)
Petitioner states that house was listed at 850,000 and dropped to 750,000
3(2)-3(3)
Petitioner counsel outlines their interpretation of Judgment, that property belongs to Petitioner until sold
3(10)-3(16)
Respondent tells Court he has saved property from foreclosure many times over an almost three year period
3(18)-3(28)
3(2)-3(3)
Petitioner counsel outlines their interpretation of Judgment, that property belongs to Petitioner until sold
3(10)-3(16)
Respondent tells Court he has saved property from foreclosure many times over an almost three year period
3(18)-3(28)
Respondent tells Court that the disagreement has harmed his relationship with his children
4(7)-4(8)
Respondent explains to the Court that there are issues with a quick sale of the house due to Capital Gains and out-of-pocket expenses required
4(11)-4(14)
Respondent tells Court that he believes Petitioner has no interest in welfare of children, explains Respondent has had to take measures to prevent foreclosure of Shenandoah property via mortgage payments
4(17)-4(19)
Respondent explains that Judgment did not cover this situation
4(27)-5(1)
4(7)-4(8)
Respondent explains to the Court that there are issues with a quick sale of the house due to Capital Gains and out-of-pocket expenses required
4(11)-4(14)
Respondent tells Court that he believes Petitioner has no interest in welfare of children, explains Respondent has had to take measures to prevent foreclosure of Shenandoah property via mortgage payments
4(17)-4(19)
Respondent explains that Judgment did not cover this situation
4(27)-5(1)
Respondent explains that Petitioner has occupied home for twenty-three months
5(4)-5(10)
Court defers to Petitioner counsel for opinion
5(14)-5(16)
Petitioner counsel states that there have been problems with mortgage payments, claims Respondent has not provided receipts of payment
5(17)-5(27)
5(4)-5(10)
Court defers to Petitioner counsel for opinion
5(14)-5(16)
Petitioner counsel states that there have been problems with mortgage payments, claims Respondent has not provided receipts of payment
5(17)-5(27)
Petitioner counsel offers alternative actions to Court
6(3)-6(6)
Respondent outlines that the Shenandoah property was meant to be sold, that the Judgment was not appropriately signed, that Petitioner counsel has confused the properties in question to the Courtourt to the extent of the sale of an additional Wooster property, and that not only this sale but the maintenance and mortgage of the Shenandoah property have been a tremendous hardship to Respondent
6(8)-6(22)
Respondent appeals to the government for help with his case
6(25)-6(26)
6(3)-6(6)
Respondent outlines that the Shenandoah property was meant to be sold, that the Judgment was not appropriately signed, that Petitioner counsel has confused the properties in question to the Courtourt to the extent of the sale of an additional Wooster property, and that not only this sale but the maintenance and mortgage of the Shenandoah property have been a tremendous hardship to Respondent
6(8)-6(22)
Respondent appeals to the government for help with his case
6(25)-6(26)
Respondent requests he be allowed to manage Shenandoah property to prepare it for sale, offers to pay the Fair Market Value for the property
7(1)-7(6)
Court clearly state that Petitioner, Respondent, or Third Party should purchase the house at Fair Market Value and that Respondent has a point in wanting to avoid the further liability of the mortgage
7(17)-7(20)
7(1)-7(6)
Court clearly state that Petitioner, Respondent, or Third Party should purchase the house at Fair Market Value and that Respondent has a point in wanting to avoid the further liability of the mortgage
7(17)-7(20)
Petitioner counsel “anticipates problems with sale” and with a valuation of Shenandoah property based on history
8(11)-8(14)
Courtourt state that both parties have 30 days to present that Fair Market Value for the Shenandoah property and the Ability to Pay if they wish to purchase, and that the highest offer with both will take the Shenandoah property
8(11)-8(20)
Court accommodates Petitioner and counsel on scheduling
9(3)-9(22)
Court acknowledges that current situation may have hurt Parties'’ credit
10(1)-10(5)
Court requests that either side wishing to buy provide proof of adequate financing
10(9)-10(11)
Petitioner counsel represents to Court that Petitioner will not be purchasing house
10(15)-10(17)
Court gives Petitioner permission to reject possible offers
10(20)-10(22)
Court requests broker suggestions from both sides
10(22)-10(25)
Court asks Petitioner counsel to prepare an Order
10(26)-10(28)
10(1)-10(5)
Court requests that either side wishing to buy provide proof of adequate financing
10(9)-10(11)
Petitioner counsel represents to Court that Petitioner will not be purchasing house
10(15)-10(17)
Court gives Petitioner permission to reject possible offers
10(20)-10(22)
Court requests broker suggestions from both sides
10(22)-10(25)
Court asks Petitioner counsel to prepare an Order
10(26)-10(28)
Respondent confirms address submitted to Court at an earlier date at request of Petitioner counsel
11(1)-11(28)
Respondent confirms to the Court that he has acquired counsel at personal expense
1(15)-1(16)
Court mentions disputed Order for sale of Shenandoah property
1(20)-1(22)
Petitioner appraisal is higher than Respondent
1(22)-1(26)
Court denies motion brought by Respondent
1(24)-1(26)
Court reaffirms that Respondent , Petitioner, or a Third Party can purchase Shenandoah property
2(2)-2(6)
Court acknowledges the disparity in the appraisals of Shenandoah property
2(7)-2(14)
Respondent counsel points out that many of the stated facts are incorrect
2(17)-2(20)
Court reaffirms that Shenandoah property must be sold as Petitioner is living inside
2(21)-2(27)
Respondent counsel confirms house must be sold for at least 800,000
3(1)-3(3)
Respondent counsel estimates Respondent is supporting two outstanding mortgages, totalling 722,000
3(4)-3(12)
Respondent informs Court that he is trapped into paying Mortgage for Shenandoah property, and that Petitioner has no ability to refinance Shenandoah property and has not paid mortgage share in almost thirty months
3(13)-3(24)
Respondent reminds Court he has saved Shenandoah property from foreclosure repeatedly
3(27)-4(1)
Respondent reminds Court of Capital Gains consequence incurred by time that has passed
4(8)-4(13)
Court sustains Petitioner counsel objections
4(16)-4(19)
Court does not acknowledge Capital Gains issue
4(20)-4(28)
Court stressed that issue must be wrapped up as soon as possible
5(5)-5(7)
Respondent counsel stresses that Petitioner has occupied property for too long since J
5(8)-5(10)
Petitioner counsel presents contested facts, stating that Parties’ offers meet at 800,000 and that Petitioner wants property sold
5(16)-5(26)
Petitioner counsel admits mortgage has not been paid
5(27)-5(28)
Petitioner counsel brings up separate issue of loan on Wooster property as reason for lack of payment, evidence allowed by Court over Respondent counsel objection
6(2)-6(17)
Court stresses that Respondent wants Shenandoah property settled, that Petitioner will lose a considerable amount of money in a sale, suggests that Petitioner take money offered by Respondent
6(18)-6(27)
Respondent counsel agrees house should be sold, Petitioner counsel affirms that Petitioner does not agree with this course of action
7(1)-7(10)
Court repeats how little Petitioner has to gain from current situation
7(11)-7(14)
Court wants property sold immediately, sends to recess to think about “dollars and cents,” acknowledges that stalling for time will not be well taken
7(16)-7(26)
Petitioner counsel claims that funds in escrow do not belong to Respondent
9(14)-9(20)
Court asks what Petitioner wants for Shenandoah property
9(25)-9(26)
Petitioner counsel provides e-mail for “house down the street” selling for 990,000, wants to place Shenandoah property on market at this price
9(27)-10(9)
Court asks is presented property is comparable to Shenandoah property, Petitioner counsel does not confirm
10(10)-10(14)
Petitioner counsel asserts presented home is comparable
10(15)-10(22)
Respondent counsel objects and is overruled, reacts in surprise to decision
10(25)-11(2)
Respondent counsel points out that the same broker requested by Petitioner had house on market at 850,000 for twenty-four months and did not sell
11(3)-11(5)
Court does not acknowledge Capital Gains issue
11(9)-11(15)
Respondent counsel points out that delay in original Shenandoah property sale and Petitioner occupancy has cost Respondent a 250,000 Capital Gains deduction
11(15)-11(19)
Court brings up tax issue, Respondent counsel affirms that there is no issue
11(20)-11(28)
Court pursue tax issue
12(1)-12(3)
Respondent counsel points out that tax liabilities are not at issue
12(4)-12(11)
Court offers that house be purchased
12(21)-12(23)
Respondent counsel asks for acceptable price, Court states that market sets price
13(1)-13(4)
Respondent counsel confirms that Respondent has provided pricing information, asks Court to decide purchase amount
13(5)-13(11)
Court asks Petitioner counsel for price, Court accepts 990,000 in ninety days over Respondent counsel objection
13(12)-13(19)
Respondent counsel comments to Court that figure of 990,000 has been “picked from air”
13(20)-13(24)
Respondent counsel informs Court that he has not been shown any offer for 990,000
13(25)-13(28)
Respondent counsel points out that only Respondent has provided requested evidence of home value
14(1)-14(5)
Respondent counsel points out that Respondent has made every effort to follow Court orders
14(13)-14(17)
Court refuses to make direct finding
14(18)-14(27)
Respondent counsel points out that not even an address has been provided for the 990,000 property
15(1)-15(3)
Court says that Respondent must pay one-half of net equity, as Shenandoah property is community property
15(6)-15(19)
Court refuses further appraisal
15(20)-15(22)
Court further extends trial
15(26)
Court accommodates P, further extends trial
16(11)-16(12)
Respondent counsel points out that continued mortgage delinquency will continue to hurt Respondent , Court does not acknowledge
16(13)-16(20)
Respondent counsel states to Court that there have been issues with cooperation, communication, and transactions with P
16(21)-16(24)
Court reserves sanctions but expresses “faith” in Petitioner counsel
17(4)-17(7)
Respondent counsel recaps that Respondent can bring appraisal in thirty days if no net equity buyout
7(10)-7(14)
Court accommodate Petitioner counsel scheduling
17(18)-17(27)
Respondent counsel attempts to affirm that Respondent can tender half net worth on August 12th
18(2)-18(3)
Court won’t allow Respondent to be heard
18(5)-18(6)
1(15)-1(16)
Court mentions disputed Order for sale of Shenandoah property
1(20)-1(22)
Petitioner appraisal is higher than Respondent
1(22)-1(26)
Court denies motion brought by Respondent
1(24)-1(26)
Court reaffirms that Respondent , Petitioner, or a Third Party can purchase Shenandoah property
2(2)-2(6)
Court acknowledges the disparity in the appraisals of Shenandoah property
2(7)-2(14)
Respondent counsel points out that many of the stated facts are incorrect
2(17)-2(20)
Court reaffirms that Shenandoah property must be sold as Petitioner is living inside
2(21)-2(27)
Respondent counsel confirms house must be sold for at least 800,000
3(1)-3(3)
Respondent counsel estimates Respondent is supporting two outstanding mortgages, totalling 722,000
3(4)-3(12)
Respondent informs Court that he is trapped into paying Mortgage for Shenandoah property, and that Petitioner has no ability to refinance Shenandoah property and has not paid mortgage share in almost thirty months
3(13)-3(24)
Respondent reminds Court he has saved Shenandoah property from foreclosure repeatedly
3(27)-4(1)
Respondent reminds Court of Capital Gains consequence incurred by time that has passed
4(8)-4(13)
Court sustains Petitioner counsel objections
4(16)-4(19)
Court does not acknowledge Capital Gains issue
4(20)-4(28)
Court stressed that issue must be wrapped up as soon as possible
5(5)-5(7)
Respondent counsel stresses that Petitioner has occupied property for too long since J
5(8)-5(10)
Petitioner counsel presents contested facts, stating that Parties’ offers meet at 800,000 and that Petitioner wants property sold
5(16)-5(26)
Petitioner counsel admits mortgage has not been paid
5(27)-5(28)
Petitioner counsel brings up separate issue of loan on Wooster property as reason for lack of payment, evidence allowed by Court over Respondent counsel objection
6(2)-6(17)
Court stresses that Respondent wants Shenandoah property settled, that Petitioner will lose a considerable amount of money in a sale, suggests that Petitioner take money offered by Respondent
6(18)-6(27)
Respondent counsel agrees house should be sold, Petitioner counsel affirms that Petitioner does not agree with this course of action
7(1)-7(10)
Court repeats how little Petitioner has to gain from current situation
7(11)-7(14)
Court wants property sold immediately, sends to recess to think about “dollars and cents,” acknowledges that stalling for time will not be well taken
7(16)-7(26)
Petitioner counsel claims that funds in escrow do not belong to Respondent
9(14)-9(20)
Court asks what Petitioner wants for Shenandoah property
9(25)-9(26)
Petitioner counsel provides e-mail for “house down the street” selling for 990,000, wants to place Shenandoah property on market at this price
9(27)-10(9)
Court asks is presented property is comparable to Shenandoah property, Petitioner counsel does not confirm
10(10)-10(14)
Petitioner counsel asserts presented home is comparable
10(15)-10(22)
Respondent counsel objects and is overruled, reacts in surprise to decision
10(25)-11(2)
Respondent counsel points out that the same broker requested by Petitioner had house on market at 850,000 for twenty-four months and did not sell
11(3)-11(5)
Court does not acknowledge Capital Gains issue
11(9)-11(15)
Respondent counsel points out that delay in original Shenandoah property sale and Petitioner occupancy has cost Respondent a 250,000 Capital Gains deduction
11(15)-11(19)
Court brings up tax issue, Respondent counsel affirms that there is no issue
11(20)-11(28)
Court pursue tax issue
12(1)-12(3)
Respondent counsel points out that tax liabilities are not at issue
12(4)-12(11)
Court offers that house be purchased
12(21)-12(23)
Respondent counsel asks for acceptable price, Court states that market sets price
13(1)-13(4)
Respondent counsel confirms that Respondent has provided pricing information, asks Court to decide purchase amount
13(5)-13(11)
Court asks Petitioner counsel for price, Court accepts 990,000 in ninety days over Respondent counsel objection
13(12)-13(19)
Respondent counsel comments to Court that figure of 990,000 has been “picked from air”
13(20)-13(24)
Respondent counsel informs Court that he has not been shown any offer for 990,000
13(25)-13(28)
Respondent counsel points out that only Respondent has provided requested evidence of home value
14(1)-14(5)
Respondent counsel points out that Respondent has made every effort to follow Court orders
14(13)-14(17)
Court refuses to make direct finding
14(18)-14(27)
Respondent counsel points out that not even an address has been provided for the 990,000 property
15(1)-15(3)
Court says that Respondent must pay one-half of net equity, as Shenandoah property is community property
15(6)-15(19)
Court refuses further appraisal
15(20)-15(22)
Court further extends trial
15(26)
Court accommodates P, further extends trial
16(11)-16(12)
Respondent counsel points out that continued mortgage delinquency will continue to hurt Respondent , Court does not acknowledge
16(13)-16(20)
Respondent counsel states to Court that there have been issues with cooperation, communication, and transactions with P
16(21)-16(24)
Court reserves sanctions but expresses “faith” in Petitioner counsel
17(4)-17(7)
Respondent counsel recaps that Respondent can bring appraisal in thirty days if no net equity buyout
7(10)-7(14)
Court accommodate Petitioner counsel scheduling
17(18)-17(27)
Respondent counsel attempts to affirm that Respondent can tender half net worth on August 12th
18(2)-18(3)
Court won’t allow Respondent to be heard
18(5)-18(6)