Document: ORDER DENY MODIF OF SUPP-RE TAXES
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/166.0 ORDER DENY MODIF OF SUPP-RE TAXES 2018-03-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-03-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
The court proceeding involving Aaron Surina appears to be marred by instances of bias and potential unfairness. A significant injustice was the denial of Mr. Surina’s request to modify his temporary child support and spousal maintenance orders. Despite a clear difference in his income, albeit a mere $42 per month, the court dismissed it as insignificant, potentially overlooking the long-term financial strain on Mr. Surina.
The court also made an unfair assumption of an increase in Mr. Surina’s income based on his fourth-quarter earnings, conveniently overlooking the fluctuations throughout the year. Additionally, the court’s dismissal of Mr. Surina’s lower income during the first two pay periods of the year seems to be an unjustified assumption, indicating a possible misunderstanding of his financial situation.
One glaring misrepresentation by the court was accusing Mr. Surina of requesting a modification of spousal maintenance, an order he never received, showing a potential lack of thorough understanding of his case by the court.
Adding to these injustices, the court further dismissed Mr. Surina’s concerns about filing a joint tax return with his estranged wife, who he suspected of hiding foreign income. The court disregarded his concerns without any investigation, possibly exposing him to legal and financial consequences.
Lastly, the court denied any request for attorney fees without a motion before the court, potentially adding to Mr. Surina’s financial burden. This accumulation of factors points towards a possible bias against Mr. Surina and a lack of consideration for his financial situation and concerns.
However, to ascertain the full extent of possible bias and potential unfairness, a more detailed examination of the document and its content is required. The provided summaries do not contain specific information about unethical conduct by attorneys, particularly Stanley Kempner or Keith Glanzer, or anyone representing Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, or Keith Glanzer. Thus, further information is crucial for a comprehensive analysis and representation of Mr. Surina’s case.
About The Author
