Ex-Wife Demands Half of Husband's Bitcoin That Doesn't Exist

These parties spent several months attempting reconciliation, which is part of the reason why this case has been on file for as long as it has. Um, this morning, Miss Lock and I discussed scheduling a structured settlement. Um, the parties have exchanged settlement offers. They do not agree on them, obviously, otherwise we'd be here to put a final divorce decree on the record. Um, but they are much closer than they have been. But there were several months where they worked on reconciling which I think it's important for the court to know that they um had attempted to to not proceed and and that failed. Um but that caused quite a significant pause in the case as well. And then I do want to put on the court's radar that there is a procedural issue that I need to raise if we're going to proceed on this contempt. We are going to proceed on this contempt. Miss Levit, what is the procedural issue that you raise? Your honor, for when a contempt is filed, it is required by statute KSA204A subsection B that the order to appear and show cause shall be served upon the party allegedly in contempt by the sheriff or some other person appointed by the court for such purpose. In this case, this contempt was not served on my client by the sheriff or a process server. The return of service shows that it was mailed to my client using certified mail, which is not allowed for under the statute. So although my client is here and present um it's due to the other motion that was filed the service is not correct on the contempt and the statute is clear. It says shall be served by a sheriff or process server. What other motion are you referring to? Uh your honor, Miss Lock had filed a motion um as to some discovery issues. There was a motion to compel and um a request for inspection. So your appearance of your and your client's appearance on the contempt is a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction. Yes, your honor. The statute is very clear as to how service has to be done and it was not complied with. Miss Luck, I believe that that is a requirement in this case. Why wasn't this served by the sheriff? Your honor, if it was not served by served by the sheriff, that is an error on my part. Uh my understanding is that it was sent for sheriff's service, but if it was not, uh that I agree is an is an issue. It's an issue that precludes the court from going forward with a the contempt citation at this time. Court finds that there was improper service in this case. Uh that the court does not have authority to to go forward on the contempt citation at this time. With that said, there are some serious issues raised by this contempt citation, and I would sure hope that the parties in this case would recognize the privacy rights of the other. Nevertheless, the court will make no contempt finding at this time, and we'll move on to what appears to be the other motion before the court and that uh apparently deals with discovery issues. Miss Lock, you may proceed further in regards to that. Thank you, your honor. We have, as I stated to the court earlier, and um just for a little bit of clarification on Miss Levit's position, my client disagrees with the idea that the parties were attempting to reconcile. Um she has not been interested in reconciling um and and has not been and has made that very clear to the petitioner in this case throughout the case. Um, however, we issued discovery uh we've issued discovery twice in this case as well as a request for inspection. I cited in my motion that we didn't have uh the petitioner's tax returns. That issue has been resolved. I also had concerns about cryptocurrency. That issue has not been resolved. There was a statement to us that the cryptocurrency has since been sold. Um however we have no affirmative documents related to the cryptocurrency. M the petitioner has been um played some slight of hand with the cryptocurrency. Says he has documents but doesn't have documents. Says we could get them but he can't get them. Um so we have challenges with that. He is very techsavvy. We would like the documents related to the cryptocurrency to value them as a marital asset. Additionally, the parties have some pretty significant toy collections, an RC car collection, which I believe has been agreed upon, but also a Lego collection. Uh, we asked and submitted a request for inspection related to the Lego collection. Um, there was no response ever provided related to our request for inspection. Um, and so that is part of our uh motion to compel here today to allow us to get the LEGO collection inspected and valued as a marital asset. All right, Miss Levit. Thank you, Judge. Your response? Yes, judge. And I know that this is not the issue, but I I just do want to tell the court on the reconciliation. These parties went to marriage counseling for weeks. So, that wasn't for reconciliation, then that's I guess that is what it is. But that's why my client believed they were working on reconciliation. Um, as to the discovery issues, the cryptocurrency that my client owned is called Ethereum. It is held through a Robin Hood account. I am looking at an email that was sent with all the discovery responses as digital attachments to Miss Lock in which the Robin Hood account that holds the Ethereum $600 worth of cryptocurrency was sent as part of discovery responses. We have responded in a follow-up letter that Ethereum is cryptocurrency. It is held in the Robin Hood account. That is what Robin Hood is. It's like Erade is for stocks. Robin Hood is for cryptocurrency. And that is all the cryptocurrency that my client is in possession of. The way Robin Hood does their statements judge is you are advised that you can have a statement available for download each month. If you go in and download it, then you have the statement. If you don't download it for that month, you cannot go back to prior months to download it. So, I've advised that Miss Miss Lockach, she she can send a business record subpoena to Robin Hood and see what she can get. My client had statements from when he had opened the Robin Hood accounts and then he had a statement from the month when Discovery was received. Um, that is all the cryptocurrency he owns. They have repeatedly asked about him owning Bitcoin. We have answered that he does not own Bitcoin. He's never owned Bitcoin. Quite frankly, I think that this is an attempt by the respondent to allege that my client is hiding this money that doesn't exist. And they want us to prove something that you can't prove a negative. I can't prove that there is no more cryptocurrency than the Robin Hood account. We have handed over the Robin Hood account. As to the request for inspection, a LEGO list with all of the Lego LEGO um all of their sets they put out, judge have like numbers. They put serial numbers on them. So, a list with all the serial numbers, the name of the Lego set, the value of it off of the lego.com website and off of ebay.com for older sites has been sent to Miss Lockach. I advised that if she had someone who was able to value a toy collection or a collectibles like Legos that that we could make the items available for inspection. But if it's merely the respondent wishing to come into the marital residence and dig through my client's Lego collection, these parties were married for a very long time. She bought many of the items and gifted them to my client over the years for birthdays, Christmas, those things. She has been at the house three times by agreement to pick up property and to go through the party's personal property and divide it. She's been at the house several other times entering the garage without consent to go through personal property and take items. She has had plenty of opportunity to view these items. Besides the fact that she throughout the marriage was one of the people who helped my client receive those items as part of his collection. We do not oppose an inspection, but I'm not sure what the respondent's ability to value that collection is if she sees them themselves versus receiving the list of the items. And I think that if we're calling this a collection, if there is some issue or concern by the respondent that these are collectibles worth more money than what they were purchased for, for example, if you were to talk about somebody who collects like rare baseball cards, then the respondent is not qualified to make an assertion of that value. It would require somebody who runs like a comic book store, somebody who's within that collecting world who as part of their profession values those collectibles to say this is the value of the item. The respondent herself would not have the prerequisite knowledge to do that. And so quite frankly, I don't know what information they're seeking other than to say they say they want to know about the toy collection. Well, they know about the toy collection. They know it's Legos and RC cars. They have an entire list of all the serial numbers if they believe they're valuable collectibles, which they are not. Judge, I do want to be clear on that. My client is a big fan of Star Wars and he likes Legos and so he's purchased a lot of the Lego Star Wars sets. He's been gifted a lot of the Lego Star Wars sets. They average about $29.99 a set. They are not rare collectibles. They're not hard to find. They're all over eBay. um which is why the list was created as to what their value was. But if she believes that they are worth more than what they are sold for online, then she needs someone who is an expert in that world to make that determination, not her. Miss Lock, do you have a uh evaluation expert in mind to inspect these toys and to give a fair estimate regarding their value? Your honor, our request for inspection specifically states that we be allowed to come in to picture the collections so that they can be valued by an expert in the field. Um, so we have not secured an expert and obviously we would be required to do disclosures for that, but the purpose was not for us to come in and my client decide what the values are. The request for inspection specifically asks that we be allowed to photograph the um the the Lego collection so that we can then go and have it be valued. Additionally, your honor, an expert do it purely from photographs without being able to see the items themselves and their current condition. Your honor, I think that that would be at least a good starting point for us. Again, I I just want to give a little bit of backstory here. We issued discovery in 2024. We issued a second set of discovery early in 2025. We had to file a motion to compel to get responses to our second set of discovery. Miss Levit talks about this list that she provided us of all of these Legos. I got that list at 4:00 on Friday. Today's Monday at 10:00 a.m. So, the idea that we've had all of this information and we could have done all of this stuff is just not accurate. I received the docu her document at 4:00 on Friday for this hearing at 10:00 today when dis the request for inspection was in early May. Um and so there was plenty of time to respond and say, "Hey, here's the list. What more information do you need?" But instead, we're getting this information as a result of us having to file a motion, uh which is improper. The the discovery in these items should be forthcoming and it should be Mr. Roberts is not qualified to value a Lego collection in the same way that my client is not qualified to value a Lego collection. So the we thought starting with the easiest most lowcost option would be viable to let us come in again. We specifically requested the opportunity to come to the house rather than just showing up at the house to come in photograph the Lego collection and then try to have it valued. Um, and I think that that request was completely reasonable. Well, if you're going to submit the pictures to a valuation expert presumably to determine value, why can't the valuation expert be on site to actually view the items and make a determination that way? I realize that might be a little bit more costly of an option because it would involve more of the expert's time, but I I I guess I failed to see what value your client taking pictures of these items would have if there is a concession that neither party is in a position to value them. Your honor, we would be happy to coordinate an expert to come in. But again, these are items that could have been resolved between council had a response been filed to our request for inspection. There was never even an objection to our request. They just simply never responded to our request to be allowed to come in. If Miss Levit would have said, "You no, we're you can't come in in the time frame that you presented unless you have an expert." I would have said okay let us get someone on board and we can schedule a time that that individual my client and myself will come to the house to do the inspection but those responses are not forthcoming from the petitioner the petitioner who filed this case and should be the one that is pursuing it. Um and so these are the challenges that we have faced at almost every set of discovery. Well, there may be some considerable value in these toy collectibles and there may not, but I think that it's it's certainly appropriate for the parties in this case to determine that. The court will order that within the next 30 days that uh the respondent in this case be allowed to have an expert on site to actually view the toy collections whether it be Legos or cars or whatever it may be and to uh try to determine value. The respondent herself may be on scene at the same time. Certainly her counsel could be on scene if that's viewed to be necessary and pictures can be taken by either the expert or by the respondent. Uh but again, this needs to move quickly. This case is languishing in the system and the court's not going to tolerate it much longer. Either we're going to get this case to a conclusion or we're just going to make the party start over because obviously this case is not moving in the manner that it should. So within 30 days, you'll need to have that expert identified and scheduled uh with the opposing party through Miss Levit. And I would hope that when there's entry into the home for purposes of this inspection and photographing and valuation that there will not be interference from the petitioner in this process. In fact, I will expect and compel complete cooperation with this process, including uh flexibility on scheduling. The expert and their schedule is going to have to be accommodated here. Your client, my client works from home judge, so he said that once an expert um tells their availability, he'll just make sure work knows that that time frame, he'll need to be offline to allow the expert to do what they need to do. Excellent, Miss Levit. uh regarding the crypto uh currency issue and the documentation. Miss Levit, uh doesn't your client have full access to ordering any and all information uh that would be necessary here? Why are you going to make uh the respondant in this case issue a business record subpoena when your client can simply simply request it himself? Isn't it just readily uh ascertainable and readily available to him? My client has advised that it's not. We would essentially have to do a business record subpoena as well, which if the court wants the petitioner to take the obligation to do that, then we will. But my client has gathered all the information that was available to him and accessible to him through the Robin Hood account and making those requests. So, if either party's going to have to issue a business record subpoena and the respondent is the one who does not believe that the documents handed over fully provide her the information, it would be appropriate for her to spend her attorney's fees to do that. However, if the court prefers that my client do it, we can issue a business record subpoena and be the ones to do so. Miss Lock, what is your concern with the documentation that has been provided? Your honor, the document that we received is from October of 2024. Um, this case was filed a quarter prior to that. Um, and then also there's been a statement that now the cryptocurrency has been sold. Um, and so having the documents that reflect any additional earnings that he had or where that money went after he sold it is significant to the case as well as a date of separation value for the cryptocurrency. I can't answer where the client where the money went from when my client sold it. It went to my trust account to pay his bill with my office. Well, to pay some of it, it it's only valued at 600 approximately $600. All right, Miss Lock, what I'm trying to determine here is is there any uh true material purposed for you having additional information regarding this account if you already have documentation as to what the cryptocurrency was sold for? I don't have that information, your honor. I only have the October 2024 statement. All right. So, I I trust that you've already issued a specific uh request for production, Miss Lock, regarding the cryptocurrency. We did, your honor. Yes. How does it read? Judge Wman's Lock pulls up her thing during the I do want to tell the court it's a 2024 statement but it shows every transaction that my client has engaged in. There's just entire periods where the money is set there and there is no buy or sell. So it shows his actions in getting it or moving it back to when he opened it. That's why it shows like 2021 2022 huge gap for just the 2024 statement. I don't know if that makes sense. Robin Hood is kind of an odd beast in that way. So, I just want to be clear on that. Your honor, the request asks for every non-traditional payment or monetary account you currently have or have had since January 1st of 2021. Provide the type of account, names on the account, persons authorized to draw on the account, the date the account was opened, the account number, the amount of the present balance if any, or the amount that the when the account was closed, and the date the account was closed, the source of all funds deposited into the account, and copies of statements and transaction history since January 1st of 2021. And Miss Levit would suggest that even the most uh recent October 2024 statement would have much of this information. Miss Islam, does it? Your honor, it does not have the date of separation value and it there has been no supplemental discovery related to closing the account and the value when he closed the account. Okay. and what we were provided that shows the transaction history does not actually have a designation from Robin Hood. It looks like some sort of spreadsheet. Um the only thing that has a Robin Hood designation is that October 2024 statement. Certainly the court deemed date of separation value and what the cryptocurrency was actually sold for. The court certainly deems that to be relevant. Miss Lev, I trust that the uh paperwork that's already been turned over does not reflect either one of those. Your honor, because my client did not go in and download a June statement and he had no which is when this case was filed and he had no transactions in June. There is nothing on the statement for that. The closest we have in time is the trans is when he downloaded the October statement to say this is the present value of it. the uh the ones that show 2021 and 2022 or because they were where my client was actually taking actions moving the crypto around. As for selling it and what he's done with that, your honor, this was after discovery was answered and I didn't believe it was appropriate for me. I didn't when my client used that money to pay my funds, it was a payment made to my office. I believe that was attorney client privilege. Now, my client's ability to show that he had money enter into his bank account, that may be possible that he can show that and pull that statement. Um, but I didn't believe because my client didn't only pay me that. He's paid other things and I don't want to break attorney client privilege with him dealing with his bill in my office. Well, Miss Levit, the court will require uh I guess you and your client to provide documentation regarding the uh value of the cryptocurrency account as of date of separation and documentation regarding the amount raised from the sales transaction of that cryptocurrency. And it's going to require a business record subpoena, then you're going to need to issue one. Okay, that was going to be my question. And if the only way I can do it is a business record subpoena, then that's fine. And the court will approve it and get you on your way to obtaining that. Okay? Again, that business record subpoena, if necessary, will need to be submitted to the court within 30 days. All right. Other discovery issues that we need to address, Miss Lock, not from the respondent, your honor. Yeah. And and regarding where the money went, I I'm not really sure why that's necessary to disclose. I do note Ms. Levit's reservations regarding how some of it may have been diverted over to uh her office's account. Uh quite frankly, what the court needs to determine is that there was money that uh needs to be considered as part of the marital estate. How much was it? And we don't make every party painstakingly account for every dollar they spend from time to separation until their divorce is over with. So to address that all right council I also want to uh put this case on a track for resolution. How much more has to be done after these transactions are complete, which I'm kind of contemplating maybe 30 days more to get these things wrapped up before this case is either ready to try or ready to settle. Miss Luck, we received discovery requests from the petitioner this morning. So, we will obviously have a 30-day response window for those requests. Um, and then Miss Levit would need to review them, I believe, before we'd be ready to proceed to final settlement. And as Miss Levit said, we are in agreement to try to mediate to the extent it's feasible to either get to a complete resolution or at least narrow the issues that would need to come back before the court. Have you talked about who would mediate the case? We discussed Judge Powers, retired Judge Powers. Yes, we're certainly comfortable with that choice, but obviously that'll be up to the parties and I would trust that maybe that could take place uh within 45 or 60 days from now. Judge, I can I can speak to that because Judge Powers is mediating another one of my cases. He does have availability throughout the next two months depending on how quickly we want to do it with like say for example the Robin Hood BRS pending. If we want to wait for that to come back, then it might be, you know, a little bit longer after that. But he does have availability throughout the summer. All right. I'm going to ask my assistant to provide uh perhaps a suggested date to review this case in August, perhaps mid August. Mandy, what do we have available to offer? Judge, we have a jury trial starting on the 11th. Um, so following week we could do August 21st. It is open all day. What day of the week is that? That's on a Thursday. All right, we can use that as a possible date. What time are you suggesting, Mandy? We could do 9:00 a.m. 9:00 am on August 21. Council resume status review. My client and I are available. Judge is lock. The respondent's available as well, your honor. Very well. August 21, 9:00 a.m. Is that for Zoom status review? Council, I want to see progress made here. Yes, your honor. It's highly likely that uh we'll we'll try to narrow the issues on that date and probably establish uh a trial date at that time if we don't have the matter settled. August 21 at 9:00 a.m. Again, Zoom status review. Miss Lock, if you would draft uh an order stemming from today's proceedings regarding the rulings that the court has made. Yes, your honor. Miss Le, let me ask you, is there anything further we need to address at this time? No, judge. Right. Uh Miss Lockach, anything further at this time? Your honor, I would like to reserve ruling on attorney's fees related to the motion to compel um to at our next hearing to see if everything was actually produced as required by the court. The court will reserve ruling on that issue. Nothing additional from the respondent. Very well. Then if there's nothing further at this time, Robert's matter will currently be in recess.