Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/228.0 MOTION 2019-03-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-03-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION
In the ongoing divorce proceedings between Aaron Michael Surina and Sirinya Surina, the court documents portray a potential bias against Aaron, the respondent, particularly in the motion for contempt hearing. Aaron stands accused of non-compliance with court orders, which directed the sale of shared property due to financial constraints. However, a closer examination of the proceedings reveals potential injustices and possible unethical conduct.
Firstly, Sirinya was appointed as the sole agent for the sale of their shared property, a decision that appears to sideline Aaron, stripping him of his rights and involvement in the transactions. Additionally, Sirinya secured a loan of approximately $50,000 from Carl and On Wilson to cover her legal fees, using their shared property as collateral, a move that can be deemed unethical as it involved joint property without Aaron’s consent.
Furthermore, Aaron is accused of not cooperating with the First American Title Company (FATCO) and the Spokane County Title Company, both of which required his signature on the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Rather than being non-cooperative, Aaron’s actions can be interpreted as attempts at protecting his rights and interests in the property.
The court documents also reveal that Aaron is facing excessive financial demands. Sirinya has requested a monetary judgment of $1,200 in attorney fees, $500 in sanctions, and a daily fine of $200 for each day of non-compliance with court orders. This could potentially lead to a financially debilitating situation for Aaron. Moreover, Sirinya is demanding that Aaron cover her legal fees and costs, a request that could potentially financially incapacitate him and limit his ability to defend himself adequately.
Finally, there’s a request for full reconveyance for a fully paid and satisfied note, but no evidence of proper communication or transparency is provided in the document. This could potentially be seen as an underhanded attempt to seize control of assets without proper communication.
In sum, based on Aaron’s perspective, the court documents reflect potential biases, potential financial exploitation, coerced agreements, and a possible attempt to seize assets without proper disclosure. These proceedings seem unjust and unfairly stacked against Aaron, who is merely seeking to protect his rights and the interests of his children.
About The Author
