Document: TRIAL BRIEF
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/330.0 TRIAL BRIEF 2019-08-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-08-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Combined Summary:
The court proceedings pertaining to Aaron Surina’s case reveal a marked bias against him, potentially indicative of unfair treatment and unethical conduct. Despite the court’s insistence that ‘fault’ holds no relevance in the distribution of marital property, the court documents unethically scrutinize Mr. Surina’s actions.
This bias is primarily evident in the court’s handling of the family home’s financial issues. The court issued a Temporary Order in September 2017, obliging Mr. Surina to cover family expenses, including the mortgage. However, it rapidly turned against him, issuing a Contempt Order and a judgement favoring his spouse, Sirinya Surina, when he ceased payments in September 2018. This swift action suggests an uncaring disregard for Mr. Surina’s circumstances or reasons for stopping payments.
Further bias is evident when addressing the sale of the family residence. Accusing Mr. Surina of obstructing the process, the court appointed Sirinya Surina as the sole representative for the sale without providing substantial evidence supporting such a claim. It additionally insinuated that Mr. Surina’s supposed delays caused the community a loss of approximately $6,410.75, unfairly accusing him of financial harm without allowing him to defend his actions.
Mr. Surina’s refusal to file an insurance claim for the property’s roof replacement is also unjustly presented as a negative action. The court alleges this refusal reduced the final sale proceeds by $5,000, causing an additional $15,000 borrowing by the buyers. This assumption unfairly attributes negligence or malice to Mr. Surina, without considering any possible justifiable reasons for his actions.
To exacerbate the bias, the court suggests compensating the community for his supposed ‘waste’, an approach that implies punishment rather than equitable asset distribution. The court’s intent to consider this ‘waste’ during property settlement unfairly penalizes Mr. Surina, demonstrating a lack of impartiality.
In conclusion, the court documents reflect an unjust portrayal of Aaron Surina, presenting an unfair and unethical narrative. The court’s handling of his case discloses a severe bias against him, as it consistently frames him negatively without affording a fair chance for defense or explanation. This biased conduct warrants thorough scrutiny, as it denies Mr. Surina the fairness and impartiality fundamental to such proceedings.
About The Author
