Document: DECREE OF DISSOLUTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/348.0 DECREE OF DISSOLUTION 2019-12-20 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-12-20
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: DECREE OF DISSOLUTION
The combined summary is as follows:
The court decree, involving respondent Aaron Surina in a divorce case, raises several concerns suggestive of bias, potential unfairness, and possible unethical conduct. The document’s handling of personal property and debts is questionable. It grants each party their separate property, including business interests, without requiring any transfers of potentially shared assets and orders each party to shoulder their own debts. This approach ignores the possibility of shared assets accumulated during the marriage and fails to consider equitably distributing debts incurred, both of which may disadvantage Mr. Surina.
Furthermore, the court overlooks the issue of Mr. Surina’s laptop, previously ordered to be returned by the petitioner. This laptop, housing Mr. Surina’s personal documents and family photos, remains in the petitioner’s possession, an oversight that strips Mr. Surina of his personal belongings.
The decree also abstains from ordering spousal support and instructs each party to bear their legal fees and costs. Without further context, these directives potentially seem unfair, especially if Mr. Surina was the lower-earning spouse or is financially unstable.
The court’s handling of child-related matters is similarly concerning. The decree, without clear justification, orders Mr. Surina to claim the children on his taxes from 2019 onwards, possibly imposing undue financial burden. The mandate regarding post-secondary support is also troubling, stating no such support is required, potentially jeopardizing the children’s future financial stability.
Overall, the decree appears to lack comprehensive and fair consideration of Mr. Surina’s financial and personal situation post-divorce. The lack of transparency and potential for financial disadvantage suggest a bias against Aaron, indicative of possible unethical conduct. This treatment raises questions about the impartiality of those involved, including attorneys Stanley Kempner, Keith Glanzer, or representatives of Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, or Keith Glanzer.
About The Author
