Cynthia Albin to represent in December 2021. After a settlement conference on 02/09/22, the issues between The Parties remained unresolved. March 3, 2022 • Cynthia Albin and I had another email exchange regarding why I refused to sign the Con- sent Judgement and Stipulation she sent me a draft of following the settlement conference between her, Attorney Jack Cavanagh, and Judge Green on 02/09/22. March 9, 2022 • Cynthia Albin emailed me with the only correspondence she received in response to her attempts to contact Attorney Jack Cavanagh regarding the redundant motion they filed (see 03/01/22) which was the same as the one I already filled an outstanding Counter-Motion in response to. The only thing preventing settling the case was The Court identifying and dividing The Parties’ liabilities and assets in a Martial Property Settlement Agreement entered by The Court which reflected the terms of the final home sale rather than a continued co-ownership. March 11, 2022 • I emailed Ms. Albin asking her if we needed to respond to their redundant pleadings, even though there was already an outstanding motion filed by me which objected to the same motion when they filed it in November 2021. March 14, 2022 • Ms. Albin emailed me to re-assert her position, which was totally opposite from the position she held upon her agreement to enter the case (see events listed under December 2021). The Parties’ Post-Nuptial Agreement specifically stated that The Court would defer to “the wife” as to the date of the home sale, and that The Court would perform a statutory review and strike terms no longer valid as a result, without invalidating the entire agreement, when entering a final Marital Property Settlement Agreement. • In Missouri, pre- and post-nuptial agreements include directives about how The Parties would like The Court to execute the identification and division of their marital liabilities and assets in the event of a divorce being filed. In contrast, a Martial Property Settlement re- flects how The Court actually did identify and divide parties’ marital liabilities and assets upon divorce, whether or not it was based on the directive of a pre- or post-nuptial agree- ment or not. A pre- or post-nuptial agreement is not legally equivalent to The Court’s final judgement, which is why in industries that require accountability to The Law, such as mortgage lending, a pre- or post-nuptial agreement cannot be submitted in place of a final divorce judgement entered by The Court to determine someone’s post-dissolution debt-to-income ratio and assets. • Accordingly, The Opposing Party had no legal basis to suggest that The Court would not serve its mandated function, and instead request that I sign a stipulated consent judgement stating that the way the property division was being handled was congruent with Missouri Law. Ms. Albin read the motion I filed just prior to retaining her in December 2021 which cited Missouri Law, and Case Law, that establish the legal bounds that Missouri Courts must operate within when dividing marital liabilities and assets in order to provide fi- nality for the e ffi ciency of The Courts and preservation of The Public’s interests.
7
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online