Evil Wife Steals $10K & Demands $8K to Pay Her Bills

Mr. Olsson, >> um I believe um the motion for access to the workshop. Uh Mr. Thompson had a couple of changes to some verbiage uh within the order and please correct me if I'm wrong, Rick. We made those changes. I've attached the proposed revised order as our exhibit H. Uh so as far as the terms, I believe we have it resolved. The only outstanding issue that we've spent um a lot of time going back and forth on is trying to schedule a date and time for this to happen. Um there's been disagreements on on either being in the middle of the week, which is very difficult for my client because he's working or has to leave work and then he has difficulty finding people to help him. Um and then there's been some scheduling conflicts. the parties utilized uh the petitioner's father the last time. So, this would be the second time um that we're trying to get this property exchange u resolved. Uh but then there was some scheduling conflicts uh with him. So, we've I've got a couple of weekends uh proposed. The other the other issue, your honor, was some a weekend or two that was proposed by Mr. Thompson. My client had the minor child. He doesn't he's not taking the minor child out there for the property exchange. doesn't want to take uh the minor child with him and wants to do it on a weekend where he doesn't have parenting time. Um so I think we need to get a firm date that works for everyone. Uh and that would be the only outstanding issue with respect to that motion. >> Mr. Thompson, do you disagree with anything that Mr. Olsen just related to the court? >> Uh your honor, I I the order No, I do not. The order is does have my proposed changes. The problem had been a date. There's supposed to be a third party monitor and it's not been Miss S of Brazil's issue. It's been trying to get the third party monitor lined up when Mr. Brazzle wants to do it. That that's been the issue, your honor. Um, and we proposed a number of dates. Mr. Brazzle didn't want to do it. He proposed a couple. Um, I think one of which was Valentine's Day and the third party monitor couldn't do that. So, we've been trying to work through that. Your honor, >> can't we just schedule this on a weekend sometime? >> That that was our >> Yeah, that was our suggestion, your honor. It's just a function of getting a third party monitor. And then Mr. Olsson had suggested using the sheriff's office, but we haven't received any word from Mr. Brazwell side of the case about that. Yeah, weekends I think is what should happen. >> All right, sir. Olen, would would that be a problem? just to schedule that for a Saturday here. >> No problem at all, your honor. Again, the my my client's got limited time on the weekends with with his son. So, he would just ask it to not be a time that he has parenting time the weekend. I know he's available the 21st uh of February or March 7th or two dates upcoming that work for him. But yeah, absolutely a weekend would be preferable, your honor. >> I would also think as soon as possible would be preferable. >> Yes, your honor. >> All right. So why not February 21st? >> We It's the third party monitor, your honor. We don't >> Yeah. >> Find a different third party monitor then. If if that's holding the holding things up, I think you just need to find a different third party monitor. >> Yeah, we agree completely, your honor. >> Can that be accomplished here this week, Mr. Olsson? >> Absolutely, your honor. >> All right. What time would we be starting this? I think you would ask for a 6 hour period. >> Yes. Yes, your honor. 8 9:00 a.m. Whatever works. want to do 9:00 a.m. No, we have no 9:00 a.m. I mean, we're buying. >> Okay, we 9:00 a.m. February 21 would be the time that the exchange would begin and entry onto the property for purposes of uh taking these items in accord with whatever agreement's been reached. And uh hopefully you can agree on this third party monitor over the course of the next couple of days so that this can take place with without a problem. >> I also wanted to uh uh wish the parties happy anniversary. Your divorce case is one year old as of today which is disturbing to the court. We do not appear to be close to a final resolution and that is troubling quite frankly and the court wants to see it change. We'll get into the other motion that may be before the court this morning, but council, the next thing we're going to do is that we're going to schedule a trial date before we go any further with this case. Um, we are going to reach a final resolution at some point. What still needs to be done as far as preparation, Mr. Thompson, before you're ready to try whatever issues remain? >> Uh, your honor, we uh Mr. Olsson and I discussed this. We had a meeting last month. We discussed this briefly. There will need to be some appraisals that need to be done. There are a number of LLC's um that have some real estate involved. That's been part of the the issue. Uh we need to get a joint appra business valuation and I think we talked about Jeffrey Quirin. I know the court has experience with Dr. Quirin. Um I yeah at least in cases I've had and I think Matt, Mr. Olsen, I I believe discussed that briefly last month in a meeting that we had. I'm sorry. And Mr. San Diego has domestic consiliation, your honor. He had, it's my understanding, he had the final interviews of the parties Friday. >> And so hopefully we'll get a recommendation uh in that in the short term, your honor. That will go a long way toward getting some of these other issues resolved. >> All right, Mr. Olsen, what would you add to that? >> There's some discovery. I'm going to send a follow-up letter to Mr. Thompson. We've issued discovery. We've got responses back. There's some other things that that still need to be uh provided. So, I'm going to get a letter over uh if not today, your honor, hopefully tomorrow to Mr. Thompson of remaining discovery. Um but everything else that that Mr. Thompson's relay to the court um is what we've discussed. And I would say, your honor, Mr. Thompson and I have probably met or discussed probably not if not weekly, bi-weekly, uh with respect to this case. So, I I would not that that makes much difference. your honor, but I would say that that he and I are are um very much cognizant of of the time lapse on the case and trying to get it moving forward. I would say more than anything, the biggest holdup is uh the DC recommendation and I know Mr. San Diego is aware of um the party's want to get this this thing moving and I know he's going to at least from my understanding he's going to try to expedite getting a recommendation um put forth um because that would be the only other tie up issued beyond um some appraisals and the discovery and and any involvement Jeff has. >> And your honor, one last thing and I just slightly in Mr. Olsson and I's defense we are second council each in the case. So we have not been engaged for the whole year. Um we have done Yeah, I know your honor. That doesn't help the scheduling, but >> we we have >> We're the ones that are going to be held accountable now. >> I know you're I know you're all grinning about it, but I shoot. I got to I got to bring that up at least. >> All right. Uh hearing that there's going to be need for appraisals, perhaps some additional discovery. I think we're looking at least two months out. I can offer a midApril trial date. Is that being overly optimistic, Mr. Olsson? I believe so, your honor. Um, and if anything is particularly with Jeff Quaren, um, I I know he's and I'm sure Rick's probably using him too or involved with him. I I think I've got Jeff on at least two other cases right now. Uh, and I know he's he's been busy. Um, and I I I just think with getting everything put together that we need and then having that prepared or ready to go, um, for purposes of a trial day, two months would be hard. I think I would the court may want to hit me after this. I think maybe in Juneish would be probably the most feasible time. Now, uh the other thing I'll throw out there, your honor, and I know I think I don't understand the court's position on this and Rick and I can follow up and do it. This case, honestly, once we get the domestic consiliation recommendation back and uh everybody's got their due diligence complete, we have a full picture where we're at. I mean, this case would still be right for mediation. Um, but I I think June would probably be the best um best date where we sit here in the middle of February. I can offer Tuesday, June 9. Obviously, an in-person proceeding in El Dredo, June 9, starting at 9:00. >> I'm available. You're on, Mr. Thompson. Yes, your honor. Bear with me, please. As the court recalls, I whenever I schedule my own, I usually get in trouble. But my June 9th, I just have a an outside meeting which I can postpone or um otherwise not your honor. So, um June 9th, I look good. >> All right. >> And if I'm not, Aaron will notify you immediately if I messed up. So, >> all right. Tuesday, June 9, 9:00 a.m. start courtroom B. Butler County Judicial Center is established as the trial date and time in this case. We need to schedule quickly regarding anything that still needs to be done to work toward that date. That seems a long way off, but it'll be here before we know it. So, the sooner that the appraisals get scheduled and and organized, uh I I'd also encourage a mediation in this case, uh the Witchaw metro area is blessed with several qualified mediators, even in domestic cases. So, I highly encourage that if council believes that that would be fruitful, but I do want to work toward a final resolution of the case and Tuesday, June 9 is established as a trial date. Now that it appears that the motion for access to the workshop has been resolved by agreements of the parties, do we still have issues regarding the motion for reimbursement from real property sale proceeds? >> Unfortunately, we do, your honor, >> is any part of that resolved, Mr. Olsen? >> I do not um I do not believe so. I would say Mr. Thompson has Well, I'll let Rick I don't speak on his behalf. They've So, the point is, Ron, there's there's a credit card that needs paid off. Um, it's about $26,000, and I'll get into it in more detail. There's been a discussion on paying some of that off. Um, so I I I guess Rick, not to throw this on you. Um, if if that's the starting point of what you've proposed to do, at least to pay off that balance, um, then then that would be the only thing that we've worked through. Otherwise, your honor, you know, we would like the court to intervene and make a decision on it. >> All right. The credit card debt appears to be almost 27,000. And how much do you actually have uh in funds uh in your account, Mr. Thompson? >> Uh approximately $60,000, your honor. It's a little bit more than that, but approximately 60,000. >> All right. It appears that obviously the credit card bill could be paid off in full with the proceeds. >> The I don't want to get to my argument, your honor, but there is an issue with that. Um the parties these funds do not belong to the parties. This is a limited liability company, your honor. So the way the motion reads, it reads as if this these are dollars from a from the proceeds of a sale of a home owned by um Mr. and Mrs. Brazle. It is not the case. Exhibit B that Mr. Olsen provided is the closing statement and the seller is 423 Investments LLC. Obviously, a different legal entity than the parties. The parties are members of that LLC, your honor. The problem that we have in paying this credit card statement is that there are bills, there are charges associated with that statement that do not involve this LLC. There are personal charges that Mr. Brazzle made. I pointed out some of them to Mr. Olsen. Um, Mr. Brazzle pointed out some personal charges that Ms. Brazzle has made. We also believe that there are charges on this card that do not relate to this limited liability company or this flip house. I put in correspondence. Matt and I met, Mr. Olsen and I met about a month ago to go over some of these items. We had a good meeting, couple hours, um, and I was able to account for about $10,000 from the credit card statement that related to this flip house, provided Mr. Brazzle provided a statement that these charges to Menards and Lowe's related to the flip house. Mr. Brazzle has an outside construction, drywall company, your honor. And so there's a concern that he was using this credit card for his other jobs and for other uh projects that do not involve this limited liability company. And if we go down the road of we're using the money that own that this limited liability company owns to pay personal and other expenses not really limited liability company then you lose the protection of that limited liability company. Uh so the bottom line is the parties do not own these dollars. the limited liability company does. The parties are members of that limited liability company. And one suggestion was if there are bills that Mr. Brazzle wants paid, there are bills that Miss Sith wants paid, the limited liability company based on what the two members want to do, can distribute those dollars evenly and then the parties pay those bills which they believe appropriate to be paid and then we sort it out at trial. your honor because there are a number and I don't want to go before Mr. Olson's argument u there are a number of other issues we have with some of the expenses incurred but the the threshold issue is these are limited liability limited liability company dollars uh your honor not the party's individual dollars so while I think paying off marital debt is great technically according limited liability company we shouldn't be using that limited liability company money to pay off their personal debt at this point unless it's distributed >> all All right, Mr. Thompson, have you provided a list to Mr. Olsen as to what is undisputed to be uh limited liability company charges? >> I provided we receive an affidavit from Mr. Brazil that these charges to the Menards and the Lowe's uh were directed toward the 423 Investment LLC project. Uh yes, you're on. I did. And they're in my ex they're in my exhibits, your honor. Right. send I sent Mr. Olson some letters. >> Is that correct, Mr. Olsson? >> It it is your honor. My client's got no problem signing an affidavit. U with respect to that. I I would add and I'm sorry not to circumvent the course going. Um this card that we're dealing with here was opened in May of 2022. These parties were married in April of 2021. So the card's entire existence was only during the marriage. I would tell the court and that's why I provided all these this this statements under exhibit C um for the card in its entire existence is I would tell you I would 80 to 90% of the charges on this card have been for uh renovation projects not only with this flip house but other properties that the parties have owned. Um you can look there's all kinds of transactions to floor and decor Lowe's uh Menards. Um, I would tell the court that there are some food transactions um with from that were done by my client. I've talked to him. Um, he'd be willing to sign an affidavit even swearing to that that those food transactions would have been for him taking out uh some of the guys that are working for him during the day if they went to get lunch or or buying lunch or whatever. Um, so all of the expenses but for I want to say four transactions um from my client and the the card statements are are are very helpful your honor because it shows whose card is doing what. So there's charges for uh respondent and then charges that the petitioner used the card for as well. Um but um as you I mean all of the all of the existence of a balance on this card has been for uh renovation projects or this flip house as well. Um, and the other thing I point out with that is the petitioners used the card um, used the card um, for expenses for the flip houses. There's there's some food transactions and thing like things like that as well from from prior where the balance would have been paid off um, before prior to the balance we're dealing with now. But there there four transactions. I think the trash bill for the lakehouse was paid um, and I think it was about $38 uh, for all four of those. Those would be the only four that would not be quote unquote for for uh renovation projects or this flip house. So, uh you know, not to oversimplify this, but our position is it's it's the card in itself is uh either marital debt or a debt that's been created through uh the 423 Investments LLC. Uh it and it should get paid off. Now, I I don't think it's that that complicated. the parties can either decide to pay off the balance as an expense for the business. Um because I think the existing balance uh that's that we're dealing with now I would say almost all of it but for those four transactions um was with respect to uh business expenses for 423 investments. So the business should be able to pay this off. um if there was other concerns or complexity with it then the parties can take distri or there can be a distribution made uh to pay it off. So I mean it the money sit in an account uh understanding that there's an LLC uh I would still say it's not that it's not that complicated. It's a marital debt. My client continues to have to pay interest on it. He's paid $3,200 to date uh because he's been making the minimum payments since July of 2025. Um, and so the interest, you know, uh, we continue to pay interest on it and the card balance just needs to be paid off cuz it's going to benefit both of the parties. So, um, anyway, I know that's more than the court wanted to hear, uh, with respect to its question, but we have no problem signing an affidavit. I know one of the concerns Mr. Thompson has noted is that, well, there's a, you know, expense to Menards. Did your client take that that you know use that and then use that the the expense for another you know project or or item on some other project he was doing outside of this business or did he take it back and get a refund and we would be willing to sign any affidavit that uh Mr. Thompson felt comfortable with uh but our position is but for those four transactions for the lakehouse which is is still for the benefit of both the parties for purposes of this case uh that all of the expenses on there uh that are in existence that my client would have would have had would have been either for this flip house which I think are most of them or for purposes of other rental properties. That's just why the parties used the card uh for the most part. >> The four transactions are A, B, C, and D under paragraph 5 of your motion. >> Are those the same four transactions that you're referencing? >> Those are those are expenses that petitioner used um initially um were used for I think she was was this when she was traveling to Hawaii. There's there those are four transactions that the petitioner used the car for on those respective dates that I think would not be legitimate expenses for the LLC. That's why we carve those out. There are four additional uh transactions for the monthly trash payment for the lakehouse in addition to those. >> Okay. >> And your your honor, if I may. Go ahead. >> The argument the argument has a bit of a confusion. We're talking about marital debt. This credit card, what I'm being told is supposed to be the limited liability company debt. Different. Your honor, what I heard an argument is that this credit card that's supposed to be for the 423 Investments LLC had other projects on it. It may have been during the course of the marriage, but those other projects do not relate to the 423 Investments LLC. Some of them predate when this home flip house was purchased for the parties to flip. That's the concern we had. The first batch of credit card receipts that I received from Mr. Olsen, they had $10,6524 that appeared to be related to this home, the 423 Investments LLC home. We can't tell because they're for Lowe's and Mr. Mr. Brazzle has a dry business. That's where the affidavit comes in. Then after our January meeting, Mr. Olsen's office sent me another trench of credit card receipts. Um, the first back was incomplete. They were after the home was sold and there's approximately another $6,000 that appeared to be related to this LLC's project. Then I pointed out that there's still a discrepancy of over $10,000 between what Mr. Brazil was asking for and what the credit card receipts show. I then received a third tranch of credit card statements and a number of these predated when this home was purchased for them to rehab and sell. That's where the concern comes in, your honor, where we're using this LLC's credit card for purchases that do not relate to this LLC. Your honor, that's where a discrepancy comes in. It may be marital debt. I I I don't know if it was his business. I don't know if it was his business debt or not. I haven't received that information from Mr. Brazzle, but it does not appear related to this LLC and the home that was part of this LLC because it predated that home purchase. That's one of the issues we have, your honor. We have absolutely no objection to the LLC money paying for the LLC expenses. None. The problem we have is is when we're taking those LLC dollars and using them for nonLLC expenses. If the LLC is to distribute those dollars to the members, which are the parties, then so be it. They can spend that as they see fit, your honor. Whether it be reimbursing Mr. Brazil for what he claims to be his expenses uh for labor reimbursement sudden for what she claims to be your expenses. So be it. And then we can sort out the marital portion of it at trial. But your honor, what our position is you should limit Well, we have to limit the LLC dollars to LLC expenses until they're distributed. >> And what amount is that, Mr. Thompson? the LLC based on my my reviews it is bear with me your honor I I show it is $16,59730 as the expenses that ought to reimburse subject to Mr. Brazil providing this affidavit. >> All right. Which Mr. Olson is committed to. >> Correct. >> If if I may clarify, your honor, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> The parties have 11 duplexes. This 423 Investments LLC was created by the parties when they got married. This card has been used. I mean, the there there are more. 423 LLC deals with the duplexes and a number of rentals and flip houses. I think the parties had two flip houses at one time. So, it's not just exclusive to the Washington residents. So, other expenses that would have been used from the duplexes, which they were doing some renovation work on, uh, or flip houses, even in addition to the Washington flip house, are all legitimate expenses. So, I I just want to clarify that the the flip house in question is not the only uh legitimate expense for purposes of this LLC. The other thing that I misspoke, and I apologize, is the lakehouse is part of 423 LLC. So arguably even the trash bills that have been paid for the lakehouse would be legitimate expenses as that that lakehouse is part of 423 investments. So above four the four transactions in paragraph 5 and maybe taking some time to go through to verify that there aren't other personal transactions that the petitioner may have used this card for. Although I would say I believe all those predate a time when the balance was paid off during the marriage. I mean those would be the only arguably non-legitimate business expenses. I don't think the parties would have any issue. My client again will sign any affidavit that Mr. Thompson wants to say that the expenses that on his card expenses for this card were for purposes of 423 LLC. And your honor, as for the lakehouse expense, that has come into question because Mr. Brazzle on his domestic relations affidavit indicating indicated he was paying those that expense personally. That was just one thing that cropped up as a red flag. Well, it would seem to make practical sense, council, that if there's if it's undisputed that $16,597.30 is legitimate LLC debt, let's get that paid. Let's reduce the credit card debt to the extent we can at this juncture. And it could be that there are some legitimate disputes regarding the remainder that need to be sorted out. But uh the court would direct an order at this point that 1659730 be taken out of the funds that are being held for the LLC and applied to LLC debt. Now I understand it, Mr. Olsson, that that's going to be supported by a promptly drafted affidavit by you and signed by your client. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Well, upon receipt of that affidavit, the court would direct that Mr. Thompson make the distribution. Your honor, may I make one suggestion? >> You may. >> I have these dollars sitting in my trust account and as the court knows, that's not drawing interest. Well, it's not drawing interest to benefit the parties. It goes to ITA. Um, if we could distribute that one half each of the parties with an admonition that they not liquidate those dollars, that they keep those, at least maybe they'll be earning some interest on it. I we're okay keeping our trust account. You know, um our accounting folks always like for us to clear those things out, but um it may make sense to distribute it with an admonition that or not an admonition, an order that do not spend this money except for the 1659730 of the court order. >> That trust that would be a a distribution off the top. >> Correct, your honor. >> Okay, Mr. Olson, your thoughts in that regard? >> I mean, it makes sense and I appreciate where where Rick is coming from, your honor. I just have concerns. You know, obviously the potential that there's going to be accusations or other problems we're going to have to deal with moving forward. I think that that that could make that ripe for for that to happen. Um, I don't think I mean, as long as we're paying off the 16,000 up top, that's great. If the court's inclined to to put the money or remove the remaining funds from Mr. Thompson's trust account and put it into a joint account that the parties have that neither one of them are allowed to touch, but both can monitor instead of splitting it up to to either of them. I mean, I I probably could be okay with that. Uh, but I don't I I mean, I think when we start splitting it, then there's two accounts that both of them only have access to. I think that could be that's just going to create a a potential other issue that we may have to deal with uh at the time of trial and as we're trying to get this case wrapped up in the next few months. um it it just adds more complexity to it. So, and I understand um I don't know what interest rate I mean if you're going to get a 1% interest rate on a basic, you know, savings account at a bank. I don't you know, I don't know how much, you know, don't think that's going to be that profitable. So, I I mean, it probably would just be easier to keep it in Mr. Thompson's trust account so we can avoid any further uh problems. >> All right, Mr. Thompson, you've heard Mr. Olson's response. >> Yes, your honor. I wanted to make the offer. I just didn't want if the parties think they can make some money on this, great. I wanted to provide that opportunity for council and the court to make that determination. >> And plus, I can tell that I can tell that I brought it up. >> Well, there there does not appear to be a clear-cut agreement in that regard. Therefore, the court will not order it. Um, Mr. Olsson, I was particularly uh intrigued about your client's request for reimbursement of labor costs that he's put in. >> Yes, sir. >> To one particular project. Uh, and apparently no nothing has been dispersed from this LLC money to reimburse him. That's so there's there's a breakdown, your honor, that's under exhibit uh D of it's actually would be based in page 132 in the notebook where it says Washington at the top. This would be an itemization in the ledger of the time uh that my client put in along with two others that have helped him. He has paid uh those would be delineated by Russ and uh is that Nick? Uh which he's already paid Russ and Nick for their time in. Um, so there's, uh, out of all the hours, there has been some, there have been some payments made, um, to my client. Uh, I think there's still roughly $8,000 that he would be owed for his time. I know that's been a dispute um, as to whether or not he should be reimbursed for that. Um, I'm trying to look at the total cost that he'd been paid without just giving the court an estimate. I think he's been paid uh roughly $20,000 for the time and work that he put in, but there's still $8,000 owing. Um if the court is inclined, I know uh he would like to get paid the rest of the the money that he is owed. Um again, I know there's a dispute. He he build at $60 an hour. I would say my client's a pretty skilled and seasoned uh at his work and doing drywall among other among other things. And I believe Matt, please correct me if I'm wrong, during the course of the marriage when you would do the work on the duplexes and any flip houses, that's what you paid yourself. So I I don't think the the amount or the dollar amount per hour that he's asking for is anything different than what he would have been paid uh by the LLC during the course of the marriage. Um so those that that was that is still outstanding uh that he would like to get paid for that. The one thing I would note for purposes of this, your honor, uh when the this Washington property sold, and I think it's under exhibit B, the closing statement, um the petitioner did pay herself a brokerage fee. I think it was 6150 uh that she got paid um out of it. Uh and the other issue that came up uh with respect to this my client getting paid um his time that he still is owed for this Washington property was um we had a number of of communications back and forth between Mr. Thompson and I uh there was at one point the parties took out a $50,000 loan to do some uh renovation work on a number of their 11 duplexes uh rentals uh that they owned. um at at one point in time specifically I'll say your honor um on April 3rd of 2025 so this would have been about 6 weeks after the case was filed the petitioner uh took $10,000 out of the 423 investment account uh and paid that into her uh Caitlyn Sunith reality bank account we've provided that information in exhibit we got F um in Mr. Thompson sent me some correspondence um trying to track I mean there was trying to track that she had that had paid 423 Investments was owed money or Kingland setup realy was owed money uh like $10,000 at one point in time and and that the money was paid or 423 Investments paid in February of 2025 uh and then was Caitlyn Sith realy reimburseed 423 uh investments or or whatnot. I I don't necessarily have that straight and I thought it was pretty confusing. Uh but the reality of it is, your honor, the the $10,000 on April 3rd of 2025 has never been paid back to 423 Investments. So for for purposes of this particular issue, u my client would like to have uh an additional $8,000 out of the proceeds uh sitting in Mr. Thompson's trust account. That would be a legitimate expense for the business. Uh because that's time that is still owing to him. Obviously, that's disputed. Um, but it's we've never gotten to the bottom of why he's not been able to get that paid. And but for the petitioner removing that $10,000 from the the uh business investment account in April, my client would have uh been able to get paid the money he's owed. >> All right, Mr. Thompson, why wouldn't this be a legitimate expense of the LLC at this point? >> There's twofold, your honor. One is we do not believe that the hours that he claims not to be paid, he actually worked or he wasn't paid. He did receive $20,000. He took $20,000 out for his labor cost. Um the additional labor cost is something that Miss Sudith as an equal member in the LLC did not approve of. It wasn't run by her. It is over and above the expectation of what it would have cost to have this house ready, your honor. Plus, when we look at Mr. Brazzle's um past tax returns and other evidences of income, he is not getting $60 an hour on his projects. We believe he is inflating his wage after the divorce was filed um in order to maximize his recovery from the LLC proceeds to which he's a 50% member, your honor. So, we have several different levels of objection to this, your honor. Um, he gave a handwritten spreadsheet. Um, we don't even believe that he was at the home for the hours that he provided on his handwritten spreadsheet, your honor. We also believe the $20,000 was it for his labor expense. Then he came up with another $8,000, your honor. um $20,000 might be high, but Miss Sadith was going to acquies to that as the cost of doing business, but when she was hit with an additional 8,000, that was too much based upon what was put into this home. And we do not believe Mr. Brazzle actually did that, your honor. We think he just handwrote a bunch of these things down and said, "I'm going to get paid from this." Um, but the dollars were in our trust account and he could not, as Mr. Olsson said, grab those out and take them, Robert. reply argument, Mr. Olsson. >> I mean, he the the $60 an hour was paid out with the total at least the $20,000 that were paid to him. Um, again, this is something that he he did the work. Uh, and actually, I would tell the court on this Washington property once the divorce was filed, I don't think petitioner really had much to do with the flip house anymore. My client was the one responsible for getting the the work completed on it uh and getting the house ready to be sold, which the party's made a profit on. So um he took exclusive control over that. Again it was no issue during the time of the marriage that he got paid this this amount per hour. Again he's very skilled uh at what he does and he has other work uh that people hire him to do. So um unfortunately as you know the court's aware uh you know the the the bitterness that comes up in a domestic case you know um unfortunately you know wraths its way into all aspects of it. things that were perfectly fine and normal when two people were married or all of a sudden an issue uh after the fact. I mean, again, uh especially in light of the fact that the the petitioner took $10,000 out of the account that's never been accounted for. Um I think my client should be entitled to at least the $8,000 of labor uh that he has put into it. This would be the only thing that I believe >> Mr. Olson, let me stop you there. Didn't he already build the LLC and get paid for $20,000? Wouldn't there have been at least a reasonable expectation that when he was billing for his labor, he was doing it all at once? >> Would you would you clarify that for me? >> Yeah. So, um, okay. In in my business, you know, I pay the guys on Friday. Eventually, you know, I had to pull draws out. >> So, the other two transactions were not just one, it was twice that that total the 22. I was giving myself a draw to give my business account money to pay the guys and have a little bit of payment myself. So I was paid up till and then at the end I had to finish the clubhouse and then that was one final bill was the 8,000 at the very end. That would be why. Yeah. >> And and I trust that the breakdown of the labor he paid to third parties has been provided to Mr. Thompson. That was part of the 20. >> Your honor, the breakdown of the third parties, I do not recall seeing that. I'm I'll ask Mr. Olsson. I received the spreadsheet >> at my bank. Okay. >> So, we can provide it. We can I I don't know if we provided that to you, Rick. I will absolutely get them. They were bank transfers uh through checks. So, um if not, uh I will track that down. Um but again, my heavy >> he'll sign an affidavit with that respect, too, your honor. He paid out the his employees. So, >> all right, Mr. Olson. Obviously, that's a difference that makes a difference to the court. >> Certainly, >> if if the 20,000 was for the payment of labor to third parties, that certainly would have an impact on what what the value of his personal time is worth and whether it's been adequately compensated for or not. >> So, I don't think the court's in a position to make a ruling today, but I'm not ruling against your your request, Mr. Olsson, but I I don't think that there's been enough information exchanged to clarify that point. So, uh, what I will report reserve that issue. >> I'm sorry. What I will report is I did receive a handwritten spreadsheet and the third party's hours do not equal $20,000, but I just have a handwritten note, your honor, for life. >> That's fine. >> We can give a a more thorough itemization of it, your honor. >> Well, so direct. All right. Uh, Mr. Olson, as far as issues today, what else do we have to deal with? >> I think that's I don't believe there's anything else, your honor. >> What about the global settlement offer that was referred to in your motion? >> Will there be one from either side to the other? >> Well, I think we've got to get I think we've got to get in a position where Mr. Thompson and I have done our due diligence so we can sit down with our clients and tell them what's what. I think that's probably what the holdup is. And the other thing is too obviously, you know, with with when you've got the kiddo involved, that's the the driving force. The parents need to know what, you know, what that's going to be uh with respect to the domestic consiliation recommendation. I know not to disclose anything confidential, and I'm sure Mr. Thompson's had the same conversation with his client, but I've told my client particularly this court's thoughts uh in the local court rule in Butler County with respect to uh recommendations and whatnot. So, um, that those would have to be done first before we would have be in a position to do that. Again, your honor, you know, hope springs eternal, as the expression goes. This is not a long-term marriage. So, uh, I I mean, I think the case would would hopefully be um in a position or ripe for for either a settlement or mediation. U, we've got to get those other other financial things with valuations and stuff done first. >> I think that's a fair explanation, Mr. Olsen. All right. If that resolves the issues at this point, Mr. Olsson, I'm going to task you with drafting a journal entry documenting the court's rulings made here today, including the trial date that the court has established in the case. Uh, >> yes, sir. >> Mr. Thompson, anything further we need to address today? >> No, your honor. Thank you. >> Very well. And if there is nothing further at this time, this matter will currently be in recess and this meeting may