Document: COPY
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/544.0 COPY 2023-10-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-10-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The document raises several concerns regarding potential bias and unjust treatment of Aaron Surina, in a legal dispute with his ex-spouse, Sirinya Surina. Although Mr. Surina has willingly submitted an affidavit, the legal proceedings seem to favor Ms. Surina. For instance, she has given consent for Keith Glanzer to pay her share of the trust account funds directly to Carl Wilson and/or Bang-Orn M. Wilson without deducting any costs or fees. This arrangement, lacking transparency, could potentially burden Mr. Surina financially, indicating potential judicial bias and possibly unethical conduct.
Further, the court documents could be read as favoring Sirinya Surina unfairly. The agreement appears to disproportionately favor the successful party, allowing them to recover costs at the unsuccessful party’s expense, which could disadvantage Mr. Surina. There is also no mention of Mr. Surina’s legal representation, unlike Ms. Surina who is represented by Mr. Keith Glanzer, indicating a lack of equal representation.
Moreover, a promissory note issued by Ms. Surina to Carl Wilson and/or Bang-Orn M. Wilson, bearing a notably high interest rate and a harsh acceleration clause, puts an undue financial obligation on Mr. Surina. The note also includes a provision for an exorbitantly high default interest rate and an unfair clause regarding attorneys’ fees and costs, potentially leading to substantial financial hardship for Mr. Surina.
A loan agreement included in the document could also be framed unfavorably for Mr. Surina. Any modifications to the agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties, which could be unfair if verbal promises were made to Mr. Surina. The loan is also stipulated for business, investment, or commercial purposes, not personal or family purposes, which could be misleading for Mr. Surina who might have been led to believe otherwise.
Furthermore, a judgment summary issued against Ms. Surina in favor of a third party, Carl Wilson, appears to lack transparency. It doesn’t seem to consider Mr. Surina’s involvement or rights, potentially impacting his financial situation or their shared responsibilities.
Lastly, the document indicates that Ms. Surina unilaterally changed the Trustee on their Deed of Trust without Mr. Surina’s involvement or consent, possibly undermining his rights. The appointed trustee, Paul L. Calabro, was given full powers with no apparent input from Mr. Surina. The document also signifies that the Deed of Trust has been fully paid and satisfied, and the trustee is requested to cancel all notes and evidence of indebtedness. However, it’s unclear whether Mr. Surina was part of this decision or even informed about it, indicating potential bias and unethical conduct.
In summary, the document raises significant concerns about potential bias, lack of transparency, unilateral decision-making, and possibly unethical conduct against Aaron Surina in the legal proceedings involving his ex-spouse, Sirinya Surina.
About The Author
