Document: DECREE OF DISSOLUTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/347.0 DECREE OF DISSOLUTION 2019-12-20 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-12-20
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: DECREE OF DISSOLUTION
The dissolution decree issued by the court appears to bear potential bias and unfairness against Aaron Surina. The decree’s mandate requiring each spouse to pay their own fees, regardless of their respective financial situations, demonstrates a lack of thorough consideration and possible bias. Furthermore, the uneven distribution of personal property, as depicted in Exhibit W and Exhibit H, may also show bias if the properties’ value or significance is not equitably divided. The decree’s lack of transparency concerning these exhibits could suggest potential unfairness.
The decree’s ruling that each party is responsible for their debts incurred since their separation could potentially cause financial hardship for Aaron, as it fails to consider the parties’ varying capacities to repay these debts. The decree’s decision not to order spousal support may be seen as unjust, especially if Aaron’s financial position is significantly worse off than his former spouse’s, and considering his role as the primary caregiver for their children.
The decree also mentions a ‘final Parenting Plan’ and a ‘final Child Support Order,’ but the lack of details about these orders could lead to perceived bias against Aaron, as it fails to provide transparency and could potentially impact his rights as a father.
Furthermore, the court denied Aaron’s request to declare his ex-spouse as a vexatious litigator and dismissed his claim of community waste, potentially exposing him to future unnecessary litigation and limiting his financial resources post-divorce. The court’s refusal to consider Aaron’s request for alleged community property in Thailand and the unequal allocation of community property, including the proceeds from the family residence sale and a retirement program, suggest a potential imbalance in the justice system.
Moreover, the court’s decision to resolve conflicts between the verbatim transcript and written orders in favor of the transcript could disadvantage Aaron, particularly if any oral rulings were unclear or ambiguous.
Lastly, Aaron’s perceived disadvantage extends to the distribution of assets and payment of judgments. The court allowed the proceeds from a property sale to nearly entirely satisfy judgments awarded to his wife, facilitated by an immediate disbursement of funds held by her attorney, Keith A. Glanzer. This decision appears to disproportionately favor his ex-spouse and prompts questions about the court’s impartiality. Additionally, Aaron’s obligation to pay $1,000 to the property attorney at closing further diminishes his share of the proceeds.
In summary, the decree, in its current form, seems to unfairly disadvantage Aaron Surina, raising concerns about potential judicial bias and unethical conduct by attorneys involved in this case.
About The Author
