Document: TRIAL BRIEF
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/326.0 TRIAL BRIEF 2019-08-07 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-08-07
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: TRIAL BRIEF
In the court documents regarding the dissolution of Aaron Surina’s marriage, a number of alarming issues arise, suggesting a potential bias against him. It’s troubling that Sirinya Surina’s name was removed from the purchase agreement and loan documents for the family residence to secure a better mortgage interest rate, despite Aaron’s intention to add her to the title post-closing.
The court’s decision to order the sale of the family residence seems drastic, seemingly dismissing Aaron’s interests. The directive to deposit the net proceeds from the sale into Keith A. Glanzer’s trust also raises questions about the equitable distribution of funds. A discrepancy in fund handling exists as $1,000 was directly diverted to Mr. Surina’s real estate attorney, suggesting possible improper handling of funds.
The court’s jurisdiction to dispose of separate and community property during a marriage dissolution is questionable, raising concerns about potential judicial bias. The court’s leaning towards characterizing the sale proceeds as community property seems unfair, given the unclear nature of the property’s character.
The court’s discretion to consider a wide range of statutory factors could potentially disadvantage Mr. Surina. The court’s excessive focus on Mrs. Surina’s economic circumstances might overlook Aaron’s future financial stability and his post-divorce standard of living.
The documents also unfairly highlight Aaron’s superior financial condition and suggest this disparity should influence the division of sale proceeds. This fails to recognize that Aaron’s higher earnings shouldn’t automatically lead to a larger financial burden during asset division.
The document refers to the presumption that assets acquired during marriage are community property. However, it fails to recognize that the loan for the house was solely Aaron’s responsibility, suggesting he should have more claim to the property.
Moreover, the court’s dismissal of Mr. Surina’s claim that the property was his separate property contradicts the norms of property ownership. The court’s conclusion proposing Mrs. Surina receive a disproportionate share of community assets due to her economic circumstances and language status indicates potential bias.
Overall, the court documents exhibit apparent bias against Aaron Surina, undervaluing his financial contributions and overstating his financial position. This could be seen as an unethical conduct or bias against him in the division of assets. The documents undermine the integrity of legally binding documents and raise questions about the judicial system’s fairness.
About The Author
