Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/550.0 MOTION 2023-10-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-10-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Comprehensive Summary:
The court documents pertaining to Surina v Surina reveal Aaron Surina facing significant financial distress due to alleged unethical conduct, potential bias, and possible injustices. Mr. Surina asserts that Sirinya Surina, the Petitioner, failed to provide him with IRS Form 8332 for tax years 2020 and 2022, thus inhibiting him from claiming tax exemption for their children. This non-compliance with court orders and tax laws has resulted in substantial financial loss for Mr. Surina.
Mr. Surina claims he was consistently meeting his child support obligations via income garnishment, yet he discovered substantial back support arrears levied against him without prior notice or opportunity to contest. This act, potentially violating his rights to due process, suggests unethical conduct. Despite fulfilling his obligations, Mr. Surina’s employer’s non-compliance with the income withholding order led to him being unjustly labelled a “deadbeat dad”, implying a possible bias.
In his motion to vacate judgement, Mr. Surina argues that he has been unjustly burdened by child support arrears assigned without proper notice or the chance to challenge. He pinpoints the negative financial impact due to the Petitioner’s refusal to comply with court orders and the labeling of him as a “deadbeat”, despite his consistent fulfillment of court-ordered obligations.
Furthermore, Mr. Surina has taken full financial responsibility for the children, negating any risk of poverty. Nonetheless, he alleges that the petitioner has baselessly accused him of not financially supporting their children. In light of these accusations, he requests the court to vacate the back support arrears and order the petitioner to reimburse him for the significant financial losses incurred.
The motion to vacate judgement seemingly undermines Mr. Surina’s rights, as it was drafted and submitted without giving due consideration to his position. The document’s handling suggests a violation of Mr. Surina’s legal rights and hints at judicial bias against him. His notarized affidavit was sworn voluntarily and without any form of coercion, contrasting with alleged unethical behavior or bias against him.
Overall, the court documents do not provide a balanced representation of the case, undermining the principles of justice that the court should uphold. It’s crucial to examine the broader case context, including the evidence presented, the conduct of the legal representatives, and the court’s treatment of Mr. Surina, to identify potential injustices.
About The Author
