Document: DECREE OF DISSOLUTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/353.0 DECREE OF DISSOLUTION 2019-12-20 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-12-20
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Combined Summary:
The court documents reveal an apparent bias and potential unfair treatment against Aaron Michael Surina during his dissolution proceedings. The decree showcases several ambiguities and a noticeable lack of transparency that could potentially disadvantage Mr. Surina. Specific details about debts, personal property, restraining orders, and jurisdiction over the children are either vague or missing, leaving Mr. Surina potentially vulnerable to financial and personal disadvantages.
Moreover, the court’s handling of the division of community assets and property appears unbalanced. Despite Mr. Surina’s contributions to the community property, his ex-wife seems to have received a larger share of the assets. Immediate disbursements from the sale of their community property residence and his retirement program were granted to his ex-wife, while Mr. Surina’s share appears disproportionately less. His list of possessions, as detailed in Exhibit H, seems to be valued significantly lower than those allocated to his ex-wife.
Furthermore, Mr. Surina was burdened with significant financial obligations. He was required to pay $1,000.00 to his property attorney, and a considerable amount from the sale of the community property residence was used to pay various judgments awarded to his ex-wife.
The court also denied several of Mr. Surina’s requests while considering serious allegations against him, such as labeling him a vexatious litigator. Although this request was denied, its mere consideration could be viewed as potentially unethical and biased. The court’s denial of Mr. Surina’s request to divide alleged community property in Thailand and its decision to divide the sale proceeds of the family residence as community property without providing a clear rationale can be perceived as unjust.
In essence, the court documents seem to exhibit a bias against Aaron Surina, placing a heavier financial burden on him while favoring his ex-wife in the distribution of assets and liabilities. This appears to be an unjust and potentially unethical resolution to the dissolution proceedings.
About The Author
