Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/254.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2019-04-23 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-04-23
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The combined summary of the document is as follows:
The document involves a real estate transaction with Aaron Surina as the seller, and it is filled with potential instances of unfair treatment and bias against him. Gustafson Law, involved in the transfer of Mr. Surina’s property to Bradley and Stacie Barker, testified in a hearing to which Mr. Surina was not invited. This suggests non-disclosure of information and potential unethical conduct.
Moreover, the document indicates substantial payoffs, taxes, and charges, which could be burdensome if Mr. Surina was not fully aware or did not consent to them. The closing agreement also allows changes without further reference when signed and delivered to the closing agent. This could be seen as a potential unfairness if Mr. Surina was not informed or did not fully understand its implications.
The document also reveals several areas of bias against Aaron Surina in the handling of the property transaction. The closing agent holds significant power, with no responsibility for any title defects, encumbrances not disclosed in the report, or ensuring the seller installs a carbon monoxide alarm(s). This could expose Aaron to unnecessary risks and potential liabilities.
Furthermore, the documents suggest a potential bias against Aaron in the division of responsibilities and costs. The costs and expenses are to be split equally between the buyer and the seller, without consideration for individual circumstances. This might put an unfair burden on Aaron if his financial situation is less stable.
Aaron is also burdened with numerous responsibilities outside of escrow, which might not be equipped to handle. The lack of escrow involvement in many aspects of the process seems to unfairly place the burden on Aaron, possibly leading to potential legal and financial pitfalls.
The document also appears to be a standard legal advisory, advising parties involved in a real estate transaction to consult their attorneys on various matters. This may not be feasible for Aaron due to financial or other reasons, thereby creating an unjust burden.
Finally, the document includes an obligation for Aaron to pay an amount of $4,000.00 in favor of Siriyana Poljari, with the case handled by Keith A. Glanzer. However, the document lacks clear details on the cause or circumstances leading to this financial obligation. This raises questions about the fairness of the judgment or order.
Overall, the document reflects potential injustices against Aaron Surina in the form of an undisclosed financial obligation and unnecessary intrusion into personal information. The absence of clear reasoning behind these actions casts a shadow of bias or unethical conduct upon the legal proceedings and the entities involved.
About The Author
