Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/356.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2020-02-10 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-02-10
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Upon review of several court documents related to the case of Aaron Surina, several potential instances of unfair treatment and possible bias have been identified that might have disadvantaged Mr. Surina.
Initially, an issue arises surrounding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) signed by all parties on December 20, 2019. The QDRO contained errors, causing it to be rejected by Fidelity, which resulted in a cost of $1,200 to Mr. Surina. Despite the availability of a pre-approved QDRO drafted by Sirinya Surina, which would have reduced the cost to $300, Aaron was seemingly pressured into signing the erroneous document.
The QDRO stipulates an unclear division of Mr. Surina’s retirement plans, awarding Sirinya Surina $16,595.88 without specifics on how this amount was calculated. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential bias. The QDRO also fails to consider any outstanding loan balance as of the valuation date, which could have reduced the amount payable to Sirinya, resulting in a potential unjust financial burden on Mr. Surina.
Furthermore, Sirinya is protected from potential account losses while Aaron is not, and she is allowed to initiate a distribution of the award as soon as it’s qualified and segregated, without any consideration for Aaron’s financial situation.
In terms of legal representation, Sirinya Surina had the advantage of an attorney, Keith Glanzer, while Aaron Surina was self-represented. This disparity could have disadvantaged Mr. Surina in the proceedings, potentially leading to an inequitable division of assets.
The sudden withdrawal of Sirinya’s attorney, Keith Glanzer, could have further disrupted the continuity and overall fairness of the legal process, potentially hindering Aaron’s ability to effectively engage in the proceedings.
Finally, the court seemingly favored Sirinya in the division of assets. In the event of Sirinya’s death, the awarded assets would be distributed according to the plan’s administrative procedures, potentially disadvantaging Mr. Surina’s rightful claim. Additionally, the court requires Mr. Surina to return any benefits inadvertently paid to him that belong to Sirinya, adding to his financial burden.
In conclusion, these documents collectively suggest a potential bias against Aaron Surina, leading to possible unfair treatment and unjust division of marital assets. Further review and potential legal action may be warranted to address these concerns.
About The Author
