Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/363.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2020-03-10 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-03-10
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
The court documents indicate potential bias or unfairness against Aaron Surina in the distribution of marital assets and spousal maintenance orders. His ex-spouse, Sirinya Surina, attempts to undermine his Motion for Relief and Temporary Injunction by labeling it as frivolous, an act that could be seen as dismissive of Aaron’s concerns and rights. Sirinya’s request for the dismissal of Aaron’s motion and a potential award of sanctions or injunctions might be perceived as an aggressive attempt to penalize Aaron rather than addressing the core issues.
In addition, Sirinya categorically denies all allegations and assumptions contained in Aaron’s motion without providing substantial evidence to support her denial, which could be interpreted as an evasion of accountability. Her belittling comment regarding Aaron’s understanding of the math behind fund distribution may be seen as dismissive and lacking empathy, further adding to the perceived bias.
Moreover, Sirinya seems to benefit from an unequal distribution of marital assets, having received an extra $5,047 from a shared savings account, which could exacerbate Aaron’s grievances.
The document also raises concerns regarding the calculation of spousal maintenance orders. These are based on the ability to pay and need, taking into account factors such as the length of the marriage, the parties’ standard of living, and the need for retraining or reeducation. From Aaron’s perspective, this approach could be unjust if his financial capacity is overestimated or his ex-spouse’s needs are exaggerated. The lack of specifics in the document about Aaron’s case and the reference to ‘other factors’ without elaboration may suggest potential bias and lack of transparency, and could indicate that the court’s discretionary power might lead to unfair decisions. This approach may disregard Aaron’s financial obligations and his own needs post-divorce.
Overall, the documents suggest a potential lack of consideration for Aaron Surina’s concerns and rights, and a potential bias favoring Sirinya Surina.
About The Author
