Audio: Pitt DC02_domesticcourt121416__cdda__sel_14-03-56_to_16-15-11__001.mp3
Transcript: T1.hearing.20161214.pdf
===============
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF PITT FILE NO. 13-CVD-398
_________________________
] HUNTER GRODNER, ] Plaintiff ]
] T R A N S C R I P T
v. ]
] V O L U M E I O F I
ANDRZEJ GRODNER, ]
Defendant. ]
]
The above-captioned case coming on for hearing on December
14, 2016, in the Civil District Court of Pitt County,
Greenville, North Carolina, before the Honorable G. Galen
Braddy, Judge Presiding, the following proceedings were had, to wit:
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Plaintiff: Jeffrey L. Miller
Miller & Audino, LLP
2510 East 10th Street
Greenville, NC 27858
(252)493-6138
Defendant: Andrzej Grodner (Pro Se)
P.O. Box 3571
Greenville, NC 27836 Phone: 252-558-3040
agrodnercase@gmail.com
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BY: Ruffin Consulting, Inc. Litigation Support Services 1815 Forest Hills Road West
Wilson, NC 27893 (252) 243-9000
www.RuffinConsulting.com
DATE REQUESTED: 2/14/16 DATE DELIVERED: 3/10/17
Table of Contents
AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE.................................. 3
MR. GRODNER’S SHOWING FOR RECONSIDERATION.................. 14
AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION......................... 20
MR. MILLER RESPONDS TO MR. GRODNER:........................ 41 JUDGE RULES ON MOTION...................................... 82
2:04:08 P.M. – DECEMBER 14, 2016 MR. GRODNER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THE HONORABLE G. GALEN BRADDY, JUDGE PRESIDING CLERK: CONNIE BLAND
THE COURT: (clears throat) Thank you, Sheriff. Um, uh, good afternoon, folks. My name’s Galen Braddy. I’ll be the judge assigned (inaudible), uh, Court this afternoon. It looks like we have one matter on, um, Grodner versus
Grodner. Uh, this is Mr. Grodner’s motion, uh, for reconsideration and relief. If you want to come up, sir. The way I’ve calculated, both sides will get, uh, a(n) hour and 20 minutes, and that includes your opening and closing, any examination you have, and any witnesses. Being this is a motion that’s not really any evidence required, but, um, any evidence that will be, uh, provided, would be counted against the parties’ times. Uh, Mr. Grodner, do you, uh, wish to make any opening statement?
MR. GRODNER: Um, I (inaudible), uh, Your Honor, uh, my understanding was that, uh, I filed notice of hearing for, um, amended, uh, motion to continue. I (inaudible) --- THE COURT: And I already indicated I won’t, uh,
I won’t continue the case.
AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE
MR. GRODNER: Right. But, uh, it was my
understanding it was properly scheduled, and, um, I-I suppose
that, um, we should have the right to, uh, at least I’d like the motion to be heard.
THE COURT: What motion?
MR. GRODNER: Uh, amended motion to continue. THE COURT: Uh, I’ve already said – I mean, you can either proceed today or dismiss your claim – your – your motion. But I’m not continuing the case.
MR. GRODNER: This – s-, ---
THE COURT: It’s been going on since June, and so it won’t be continued. Uh, I just – I don’t continue cases that long.
MR. GRODNER: Uh, Y-Your Honor, it’s not so much about continuance. I’m trying to understand. There’s a motion that I filed. Is this motion dismissed, the ---
THE COURT: No, no. I’m, uh, uh, any motion to continue is being denied. As I’ve al-, already indicated, I’m not, uh, it was provided to my office. Uh, Mr., uh – and
I read the reasons why you’re stating you’re asking for continuance, and I’ve stated that that was not sufficient under the law or the rules of procedure, due to the amount of time that’s already been had. So we’ll be proceeding today. How did you want to proceed on your motion to, uh ---
MR. GRODNER: Uh, well, I --- THE COURT: --- reconsider?
MR. GRODNER: Uh, can I have, um, well, um ---
THE COURT: Even in – even in your, uh, the
grounds that you stated for your motion would – to continue, they are not sufficient. And so, um ---
MR. GRODNER: And I ---
THE COURT: Even – even if everything was true in there, I still wouldn’t continue the case.
MR. GRODNER: And, um, which motion are we talking about right now?
THE COURT: Your motion to continue. MR. GRODNER: Oh, so Your Honor’s not talking about the amended request for continuance.
THE COURT: Oh, I – I-I – I’m talking about both of them.
MR. GRODNER: Oh, so, um, e-, e-, I cited that, um, if my e-, uh, if this hearing is not continued, that I don’t have access to all the evidence in the file, my consi-,
---
THE COURT: But we’ve had – you’ve had since June, Mr. Grodner. I’m not – I would not continue it for Mr. Miller today either – if he asked to continue.
MR. GRODNER: What – s-so I just want to have it for on the record that, um, violation of my constitutional rights of equally [sic] access to the courts is not sufficient to continue the case?
THE COURT: Uh, that’s not ---
MR. GRODNER: Is that the position of this Court? THE COURT: --- a constitutional issue. It’s
just a motion to continue based on time, and I denied it. So
---
MR. GRODNER: No, no, no. But – but, uh, just about this issue: Is the, um, violation of my constitutional rights of equal access to the courts not sufficient ---
THE COURT: I don’t see where there’s been any denial of access to the court.
MR. GRODNER: There is evidence in the file that
Mr. Miller had access to. I received from, I understand, Judge Brad-, from – from Honorable Judge Braddy, a letter saying that I cannot have access to those records. And --- THE COURT: I have reviewed those files, sir,
and they still had the original seal that was sealed when the cases were brought up before, and we had to hear them before. They were requested. They were never unsealed. Mr. Miller, there’s no way he could s-, uh, unseal it and look at it because I didn’t sign a(n) order doing the same.
MR. GRODNER: Uh, Your Honor, with all due respect, uh, those records, when they arrived, uh, as I understand, Your Honor was not, uh, part of the case. And I – as I understand, I do have a transcript from the hearing.
The, um, it was um (clears throat), uh, closing arguments.
Your Honor, um, actually said that you have the records, um, you would like both parties to review them if they like. Mr. Miller said that he did review those records. He doesn’t think that there’s anything useful. But there were no restrictions. They were not ever referred as sealed. Um, there’s no order in the file ---
MR. MILLER: Uh, uh, you want the records brought up here?
THE COURT: I’m going to have them brought up here right now so I can review those --- MR. GRODNER: Uh, can I ---
THE COURT: --- and make sure for myself. But I had the clerk, though, review those, and she said they were still under seal. The Court had never authorized them being opened.
MR. GRODNER: Uh-uh-uh, where’s (inaudible)? I’d like to ask the Court, because I haven’t seen in the file any document and court order sealing those records.
THE COURT: They’re automatically sealed, sir.
The HIPAA rights of the parties are there. You can’t get those records unless it’s admitted in court.
MR. GRODNER: So what is the statute that, um --- THE COURT: Just trust me. I don’t have to tell you the statute, sir. I don’t give legal advice. I’m just telling you that’s the rule.
MR. GRODNER: No, no, no. I-I’m sorry, Your
Honor. I am not asking for any legal advice. I’m just asking for legal information. And ---
THE COURT: Right. And I can’t give it to you.
I’m not, um, I’m a lawyer, but I’m only entitled to be a lawyer for this job. I can’t give legal advice.
MR. GRODNER: I-I’m sorry, Your Honor. I want to ask you, with all due respect, so what kind of rules this Court is following? ‘Cause I basically ---
THE COURT: Your motion to continue is denied, Mr. Grodner. I’m not going to sit here and – and – and stepto-step with you. Um, I’ve denied that motion. You’re certainly welcome to take that up on appeal if you feel it’s appropriate. I’ve denied it because of the amount of time. You’ve had plenty of time to get prepared for this case. I’m not going to continue it. I don’t want to see you waste all your time arguing about this motion to continue because then, you’re not even going to get to the merits of your issue
you’re here for. That’s a reconsideration. So ---
MR. GRODNER: But ---
THE COURT: --- instead of wasting your time on this motion to continue, which I’ve flatly denied, I think you should go ahead and proceed with your motion for reconsideration. And if you don’t want to proceed today, you’re certainly free to dismiss it and try to file it some other time.
MR. GRODNER: Uh ---
THE COURT: And that is your two options. MR. GRODNER: So, um, uh, I – is it – (inaudible) understand that, uh, Your Honor will write another order to deny my amended motion to continue because ---
THE COURT: I just did it on the record.
MR. GRODNER: But as far as I understand, uh,
North Carolina statute says that a(n) order to be, you know, um, any – enforced has to be written and signed. And – and I like to, um, uh, just like when I filed my first motion to continue, Your Honor actually filed an order and signed it. Uh, actually, it was – (inaudible) it. So it’s on the record. And after that, I filed a motion for amended motion to continue. So I understand that that’s a procedure that there has to be an order, um, denying, uh, that motion because it was filed after the initial ---
MS. BLAND: (inaudible) --- THE COURT: (inaudible)? MS. BLAND: (inaudible) records --- THE COURT: Your records?
MS. BLAND: --- (inaudible).
THE COURT: No one is in your office?
MS. BLAND: I can go (inaudible).
(pause)
(background)
THE COURT: (inaudible) get the recorder
(inaudible). I’m getting ready to do your order right now ---
MR. GRODNER: Okay.
THE COURT: ---- on that motion to continue.
She’s going to get my recorder so I can have it transcribed and I can sign it.
MR. MILLER: Judge, as – uh, if I (inaudible)
there’s an additional basis, uh, for the order denying the request to continue. I – I think he’s talking about his amended request.
THE COURT: I’m looking right at it.
MR. MILLER: Okay. And, um, the amended request has to do with s-some type of sealed records, uh, (phone rings) and if you look at ---
THE COURT: (on phone) I was just trying to get somebody to bring my recorder and take – I think Connie’s going down there now. All right. Bye.
MR. MILLER: I think if you look at the motions that were filed, um, Teresa Bryant filed a motion in January of 2015, I think January 30th, 2015. Then she was allowed to withdraw. And then Mr. Grodner filed his amended motion for reconsideration and relief. And the documents that Mr. Grodner seeks have – has nothing to do with any of the issues in his amended motion, uh, for reconsideration. Uh, so I-I – I don’t know what the pertinence or the relevance of that is.
Um, a-and I understand Your Honor has denied it. But I – I just think, as an additional basis, there’s absolutely no relevance with his motion to continue with anything to be heard by the Court. Secondly, his motion, his amended motion has been pending since December of 2015, almost a full year now. It was set previously for hearing. He asked to have it continued at that time, uh, because I think he had a conflict with work, he said. Um, and so it was continued that time. Um, and, uh, so i-it’s been pending a long time. And at the last minute, I think his amended request for continuance was filed December the 8th, 2016, where he tries to assert some new additional (inaudible) I-I think after conversations with other people. But, uh, um, u-u-uh, even – even all of that has no relevance to why we’re here on his motion for reconsideration, uh, a-and, uh, as a basis for continuance. So with the extraordinary delay, all the time that he’s had to raise whatever issues he wanted to raise, and at the last minute doing it, um, a-and the fact that, uh, it do-, it’s not relevant to the matter that’s before the Court.
THE COURT: This matter is, uh, File Number 13
CVD 398. Uh, this matter comes on on the, uh, plaintiff’s motion – I’m sorry, Defendant’s motion, uh, for continuance based upon, uh, Defendant’s original motion for reconsideration and relief filed on January 30th, 2015, as well as an amended motion for reconsideration and relief filed on December 22nd, 2015. Um, the, uh, amended request for continuance was filed on December 8th, 2016, uh, setting forth a number of requests. Uh, based upon the, uh, defendant’s opportunity to prepare, the Court (inaudible) indicate its inclination not to, um, allow the motion to continua-, continue, and require that any sealed records which was being sought by the defendant, uh, to prepare for the case must be sought by pro-, appropriate motion before the Court. Based upon the time that has passed since the motion has been filed, and no, uh, subsequent request being made, that motion to continue is hereby denied. This, the blank day of December, 2015. (Switches recorder off) And that’s all for this tape. All right. There’s my findings, uh, on the record, and that will be transcribed as soon as I can get ahold of Ms., uh, Brown. Uh, now, are you ready to put on your showing about the motion to reconsider?
MR. GRODNER: I-I-I just want to ask something because my understanding is Your Honor just issued an order, and I, um, do have, um, um, evidence that I would like to introduce, uh, in relation to that motion to continue, amended motion to continue. And I’d like to ask if I still have the right – if I have the right to – to make a showing, um, just co-, ---
THE COURT: On your motion to reconsider?
MR. GRODNER: For my amended motion to continue. THE COURT: That motion’s denied, sir. Let’s move on. I-I – I ---
MR. GRODNER: A-and I just want to ask, for the record, that this is denied with me having any right to present any evidence and make any argument. Is that correct? THE COURT: Uh, because of the way I’ve ruled, that’s correct. Yeah, I mean, you can certainly say – you can submit your exhibits, um, but, I mean, I – I – the motion to continue is denied. I don’t think there’s any showing required. I mean, you can say on a consideration if you want to take it to the Court of Appeals that I didn’t consider some of these things, that’s fine. But I’m just simply denying the motion to continue because you’ve had since December of last year to prepare for this, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Right. So I’m trying to understand. So Your Honor have not seen any argument that I’ve made, and you haven’t seen the evidence that I’m trying to present and without ---
THE COURT: Don’t have to.
MR. GRODNER: Uh --- THE COURT: Don’t have to.
MR. GRODNER: But – but Your Honor said that, uh, um, i-is there still a way for me to introduce any evidence? THE COURT: Um, I’m going to only hear evidence from you on your motion for reconsideration and relief.
MR. GRODNER: Oh – oh ---
THE COURT: And I’m going to instruct you to – one more time to pursue that, or if not, uh, I’m going to deny it summarily, if you’re not ge-, prepared to go ahead and make your showing about that.
2:18:28 – MR. GRODNER’S SHOWING FOR RECONSIDERATION
MR. GRODNER: Okay. Um, so (clears throat), um, um, what I, uh, would like to do, then (clears throat) as this hearing has been originally, um, scheduled, uh, in 2015 for, uh, as amended – it was a motion for reconsideration filed initially by Teresa Bryant, I think in January, 2015. And then, um, I filed a notice of appeal, defendant, and, uh, filed a defendant motion to reconsider this December, 2015, about a year ago. I understand that we have, um, continued – we have continued the case first because of the, uh, Mr.
Miller’s request.
THE COURT: C-can I look at something, Mr.
Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: Yes.
THE COURT: Uh, uh, I want to make sure that these records were not, uh, um ---
MR. GRODNER: Um ---
THE COURT: --- because I’m showing they are, you know, I don’t see where (inaudible).
MS. BLAND: There – there – there were some that
---
THE COURT: I don’t see any that are still under seal.
MS. BLAND: They’re, uh, these are (inaudible). THE COURT: I’ve got it. Here’s the records
that have not been introduced. They are confidential records sent to (inaudible). Uh, they – they have not been sealed to the point I can’t even tell who they’re from. They’re still taped up. Now, those records right there are under seal, but the ones that are not under seal ---
MS. BLAND: And I think those were offered to
(inaudible).
THE COURT: Yeah. Is there Agape Marriage & Family Therapy records? Have you seen those, Mr. Grodner? You can have a seat, sir. You can have a seat.
MR. GRODNER: Um, well ---
THE COURT: The Agape Marriage & Family Therapy records. Have you se-, have you had access to those?
MR. GRODNER: Um, no.
THE COURT: Because you would be entitled to have access to those without filing another motion.
MR. GRODNER: Uh, so ---
THE COURT: Um, we had those released.
MR. GRODNER: Can I ask for clarification that --- THE COURT: Um, yes, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Thank you. Um, um, so I was --- THE COURT: You don’t have to stand.
MR. GRODNER: Okay. Uh, I did receive a letter from Your Honor on the 5th of December.
THE COURT: Right. I – I know about that.
MR. GRODNER: Um, and ---
THE COURT: These are – these are the – I said you could not rec-, re-, look at any sealed records unless you filed an appropriate motion to review those.
MR. GRODNER: Right. So --- THE COURT: And ---
MR. GRODNER: --- so the records that Your Honor has right now in front of oneself, is it – are these the records that Your Honor referring the letter? Or these are different letters – di-, different ---
THE COURT: No, these are the records I’m referring to in my letter. Um ---
MR. GRODNER: And does yo-, ---
THE COURT: --- I can’t tell what these are.
ECU Family Therapy Clinic is one of them. Uh, it’s sealed.
It looks like hand delivery of confidential records for judge review. I’ve never reviewed them because they were not admitted or introduced into evidence. But you should have had access to all the other ones that were admitted. Uh, the Serenity Journal ---
MS. BLAND: That’s – that’s one of the things in (inaudible).
THE COURT: Right. That was admitted in a prior – yeah, you should have access to all those. Um, do you have a listing of all the confidential records that was brought forth? Okay. (pause) This is, uh, personnel file records from your file at ECU, Mr. Grodner. That was not admitted. And I’m just putting this on the record to show what records were not unsealed and that Mr. Miller would not have had an opportunity to review. Payroll information (inaudible). And they all are making a, uh, under General Statute 126-22, asking that the records be sealed unless a judge opens it upon appropriate motion. Uh, these are 401k retirement plans for Mr. Grodner that are still remaining under seal. And Mr. Miller was never entitled to have access to that because they were not, uh, released by the judge and not admitted. They were just under subpoena. And I want you to reseal these (inaudible). And these were not opened prior to today’s date with the Court’s opening. (pause) Payroll information (inaudible) deductions for Mr. Andrzej Grodner, from East
Carolina University. And that was sent on August 23rd, 2013; was never submitted into evidence, nor never unsealed by court order. ECU Family Therapy Clinic, um, these were sent July 19th, 2013. Um, appear to be the records of Hunter
Grodner and Andrzej Grodner’s joint intake appointment for marriage counseling. Um, and they are still under seal. Finally (pause), ECU Family Therapy Clinic, um, joint intake records, uh, for marriage counseling on or about February 8th, 2013. So that’s all the records that have not been viewed by either party. And that’s the ones that remained under seal and without appropriate motion filed by either side, um, which, if, you know, you – at this point in time, both parties are in Court. If either party would like to make a motion to look at those, I don’t know what they’re going to help on a motion to reconsider. But I mean, I’m certainly open to requests to look at it.
MR. MILLER: Judge, I – none of those records have anything to do with why we’re here. That’s why the motion to continue has absolutely no merit, uh ---
THE COURT: I’ve denied the motion to continue. MR. MILLER: --- on – on the – on the hearing
that we have today. So I mean, I, uh – his lawyer looked at records before the trial. Records were introduced at the trial. Some records were produced in other means, you know, the pay records and employment, uh, uh, information. But, uh, uh, I-I – I – I don’t have any need to look at them for purposes of this hearing. I – I – I think as we move forward in other matters, maybe either I or Mr. Grodner might file a motion. But I – I just simply need to get going on this instead of wasting time.
THE COURT: All right. Um, I’ve got your motion for reconsideration and relief in front of me. Um, Mr. Grodner, if you want to go ahead and, um, you can either testify, or you can tell me what you think is the legal basis for, uh, reconsideration of your, um, the decision that was entered on, like, Februarys [sic] 27th, 2015. No --- MR. GRODNER: Can I speak?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Yeah. So first, um, I wonder if I can – I’d like to, um, introduced as evidence my, um, affidavit. Um, um ---
THE COURT: All right. You have to show
anything you intend to introduce to Mr. Miller first, so see if he has any objection.
MR. GRODNER: And, um, this affidavit, uh --- MR. MILLER: Well, Judge, this – this has to do with what you’ve already denied, which is regards to medical and mental health records. The same thing that he said in his motion that he filed is this – this affidavit. He – he’s wasting the Court’s time. He’s wasting my client’s time and money, uh, in this continued process. And I would ask you to direct him to move to the matter that we’re here for.
AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THE COURT: Um, what I’m talking about is you filed an 11-page amended motion for reconsideration and relief. Um, um, and does that Exhibit 1 address that? You put some exhibit numbers in your amended motion for relief, Exhibit 1. Um, “The oral ruling was announced in open court by Honorable
Judge Braddy in regards to the hearing, August 25th through 26th, 2015.” Exhibit 1 – I guess that was a decision. “Defendant was not informed about September 22nd, 2015, ruling prior to that date, and was not present. However, appearing for Plaintiff, Mr. Miller was present and Ms. Bryant was present.” Um, and you indicate that I, um ---
MR. MILLER:
do --- Judge, this exhibit has nothing to
THE COURT: (inaudible) – I – I mean ---
MR. MILLER:
hand up --- --- I-I mean, what he’s trying to
THE COURT: --- let me – let me look at the
exhibits you think are relevant to the motion you filed. Um, that stuff about the medical records – I mean, I’ve already findings on fact indicating what was still under seal and not been reve-, reviewed by either side. So I – I’m trying to encourage you and move you toward getting toward your motion, sir. And – and we’re kind of not getting there. And I want you to be able to be heard and make a record so everybody will have it, depending on what I do with the – this motion to reconsider, so both sides can have an adequate record to bear from.
MR. GRODNER: Um, well, I haven’t yet made my point about how am I going to use that evidence. So --- THE COURT: Uh, what is – what is that you’re proposing to submit to me? Tell me what that ---
MR. GRODNER: This is an affidavit, uh, indicating that, to the best of my knowledge, there are records that were not sealed that I didn’t have access to. And, um, I couldn’t see them before preparing for this hearing.
THE COURT: I – I – I’ve already went through
those, and the ones that are sealed that nobody has seen, you had complete access to it because you were advised to go file your motion to have those unsealed, but you’ve got to file that in court.
MR. GRODNER: S-, right.
THE COURT: So, um --- MR. GRODNER: S-, ---
THE COURT: --- that’s – that’s – y-y-y-you were out ---
MR. GRODNER: (clears throat)
THE COURT: --- you were not without knowledge of what was required. So ---
MR. GRODNER: Okay. Um, so for the record, I-I want to state that right now, at this very moment during this hearing, I have learned something that I have never learned, I’ve never heard before. It’s not on the record. Um, there’s no order; there’s no affidavit to the fact that I was told there are some records that are in the file that Mr. Miller have [sic] not had access to. As a result, um, um, it’s this new evidence that was not available during the, uh, child custody trial. And under the, um, Rule 60-B-2 for the existence of new, um, evidence, I’d like to actually am-, if I can, sir, amend, in real time, my amended motion to reconsider because there’s a new reason, uh, to actually have the court order reconsidered because, um, what happened was if, indeed, there are some records that were s-, never viewed by anybody, um, and I was not aware of them, um, then I had no chance to, um, file a motion under Rule 59, um, for a new trial. (clears throat) And now, so I could not even know that those records exist. Now I have learned, then, and under the Rule 60-B-2, this is the, um, relief that you get if you cannot get a relief after – under Rule 59. Um, so, um, a-at least, yes, I-I sort of asked for sort of immediate relief under the Rule s-, 60-B-2 because right now – and – and in order to – I’d like to introduce now as evidence – can I introduce something else?
THE COURT: Regarding?
MR. GRODNER: I-I’d like to introduce, uh, a piece of evidence. Could I?
THE COURT: Go ahead and show it to Mr. Miller. MR. GRODNER: Yes. Uh, this is, uh, a transcript of the, uh, hearing on, um, August 2013 – August 26, 2013. Um, and, um, this is a part, um, uh, actually it’s an extract from, uh, the portion of the closing argument. Um, first, the, um, um ---
MR. MILLER: Can I have a chance to look at this,
Judge, before he ---
THE COURT: All right. Just give him a second to review that.
MR. GRODNER: Uh, sure. Sure.
(pause)
(background)
THE COURT: Don’t – don’t seal the ones that were already admitted exhibits.
MS. BLAND: Okay. (inaudible).
THE COURT: But – but don’t – don’t reseal the ones that are already admitted in a prior hearing, just the ones that were never admitted will remain under seal. MR. MILLER: Judge, this is still about the
records, which has nothing to do with, uh, the motion for reconsideration that’s been filed. It – it has absolutely nothing to do with any – any issue in the case, and if he wanted to appeal anything, you know, he – he’d have the right to appeal.
THE COURT: Let – let me just look at it.
MR. MILLER: And we’re still litigating a, uh, the motion to continue, apparently, because he wants to look at records that he’s had a year ---
THE COURT: No. My ---
MR. MILLER: --- that he’s had a year and a half to ---
THE COURT: --- it – that’s – I’ve already
demonstrated on the record that nobody’s had access, and, um, but you knew there were these records. I know that for a fact because I know you were advised about that, Mr. Grodner. You just failed to file your motion to have those open. So it’s not something that’s just newly discovered. What it is is just – at this point in time, you never took the step – the additional step to file that motion to have them unsealed. That’s the issue. Uh, but I am going to read this, um, transcript, and just for the record, um ---
MR. GRODNER: I’m sorry, Your Honor. It’s just Your Honor is reading, and Mr. Miller read it.
THE COURT: I – I-I’m reading this transcript that you submitted.
MR. GRODNER: Is it possible, then, to – for me to introduce it as evidence?
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
MR. GRODNER: Is it possible for me to introduce it as evidence, then?
THE COURT: (inaudible) I’m reading it, and I
will decide whether it should be admitted or not. (pause) So, uh, for the record, on that transcript from August 26th, 2016 ---
MR. MILLER: I don’t think it’s 2016, Judge.
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
MR. MILLER: I don’t – I don’t think the
transcript is of anything that occurred August of 2016. MR. GRODNER: Uh, 2014 (inaudible).
THE COURT: When would this have occurred?
MR. MILLER: Um, I think that was right at the time of the trial after – after all the evidence had closed it before we had a, uh, uh, our closing arguments, I believe.
But, um ---
THE COURT: All right. “They’ve been here for a year, I” – Mr. Miller: “They’ve been here for a year, I think, um, or longer, um, and, uh, Mr. Jackson and I thought you, too, because I think you were in the case at the time.” Ms. Bryant: “No, I just came over. It’s been less than – it was last week. That was the first time. I’m not sure.” Mr. Miller says, “What I mean ---” Ms. Bryant says, “What you’re shaking your head about? That was the first time I ---” Mr.
Miller said, “I don’t know.” Ms. Bryant: “I saw them inaudible them.” Mr. Miller: “But I – you need ---” And then The Court said, “I never saw them, but if y’all look – would like to take a look at them, I’ll let y’all take a look at them. And if there’s something you feel I should at, I’ll do it.” Ms. Bryant: “I have looked at them, did look at them last week.” The Court: “Uh, and you?” Mr. Miller: “I looked at them a year ago.” The Court: “I mean, do y’all want to review them again, Mr. Miller, before I consider them, or do you want to – or you want me, just let me look at them and determine the weight to give them?” Mr. Miller: “So you’re going to receive that into evidence? It’s not been introduced.” The Court: “I haven’t received anything yet. I mean, the evidence is close, but I’m, uh, I mean, I don’t mind reviewing it just like you got to review all the texts and all the e-mails and all this other evidence. I don’t mind reviewing another foot of it. I mean, you know, it’s documentary evidence. I mean, some of the treatments have been referred to, but I’ve never – I hadn’t had time to look at everything that’s come in, as it is marked – is – is not marked exhibit yet.” Mr. Miller: “Judge, I guess the problem that I’ve always had with that is that you – you – you’ve got to have a(n) expert to interpret their own note taking or things of that nature. I don’t think there’s really anything damning in the records, frankly, from my recollection of them. Um, so I don’t – I’m not saying that because I know you’ll think, if I say, ‘Don’t look at the records,’ oh, Miller’s trying to hide something in the records and no-, doesn’t need to look at them. You know, tilt your head – tilt you over that way, so I’m calling that predicament. Uh, but you know, without having an expert to actually testify and they – they have set this trial; they had subpoena power. They could have had anybody come and say anything they wanted to say. He chose to say what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it. She said what she said, and there’s been no proof otherwise, and there’s been no evidence introduced otherwise.” The Court: “I ---” Mr. Miller: “If you feel ---” The Court: “I agree with you.”
Ms. Bryant: “Well ---” Mr. Miller: “If you feel the need to look at those records, I know, I, you know, obviously, I can’t be here as an obstacle to that.” The Court: “I – I – and what I’ll say is I agree with that in general, but if it was told I was going to review these records in camera before this trial, I’ve not heard anything about ---” Mr. Miller: “Judge ---” The Court: “--- that.” Mr. Miller: “Judge, that’s not what was on. I’ll tell you exactly what was on. Um, and, uh, there was a (inaudible) issue for the records, and the records were brought here.” And I believe it was Judge Huber (phonetic) that we had the hearing in front of.
And Judge Huber (phonetic) said, “Mr. Jackson, you and Mr.
Miller could go look at the records and review the records, and you could tell me whatever it is you want introduced, if anything, in the case.” The Court: “So I like I ju-, sort of like I just did.” Mr. Miller: “With an expert. Yes, yes, sir. I mean, it, uh, uh, and I reviewed them, um, I believe Mr. Jackson reviewed them, and they were, uh, there this whole time. I thought Ms. Bryant reviewed them before just recently, but I, in fact, I – I thought when she got in the case there was some issue about that. And they were kept with inaudible. But I don’t remember. There was never any in camera that the Court was going to do. We had a hearing about it and the way we’re going to manage it, and that’s how it was managed. And I don’t – I don’t know if an order was done or if anything else – or if it was just something Mr. Jackson and I did at the time.” Ms. Bryant: “I don’t know.
I will tell the Court that, um, in light of (inaudible) the case that, by my standards, I believe there is something that we would need to agree upon in order for you to do so. Otherwise, I would not think it proper for you to do so. I will tell you that. I do feel that to be the case. And let me just say to the Court that, um, there I could have (inaudible) over any, but I did not. Um, I contacted, um, I believe it was Ms. Brown, and she said that she had to – she wanted to check with you about whether or not you reviewed them yet or if I could review them after you reviewed them. So please do not take that question to mean – I took it to mean that you had reviewed them or when I – she told me I could come over with that, it could be reviewed. They have not been – I mean, the fact remains that Mr. Miller is correct. And, uh, like I said, by my standards, I believe that what needs to happen right now, if we don’t both agree that you review them, that they should not be reviewed.” The Court: “Do you agree? I’m easy, and I’m (inaudible), too.
So –” “I am, too” – Ms. Bryant. Mr. Miller: “Okay. Well -
--” The Court: “I didn’t – I – the first time I have seen the name Grodner was when they stepped down these chairs.” Mr. Miller: “Yes, sir.” The Court: “Just Monday morning – that’s the first I’ve known about this case. So ---” Mr. Miller: “Yes, sir. And I ---” The Court: “And I want to get to your closing argument. I mean, we can get ---” Ms. Bryant: “Yeah, that’s ---” The Court: “---caught up on this and hang ---” Mr. Miller: “My problem is that I don’t have a way – I haven’t read it in a year.” The Court: “Uh --” Mr. Miller: “I don’t have a way of incorporating that in anything, ever.” The Court: “Agree or disagree?” Mr. Miller: “I just don’t think they’re part of the case.” The
Court: “All right. I won’t view them.” Mr. Miller: “I just like – I don’t think all ---” The Court: “Now you’re closing – closing arguments.” So I have read that to the record. I don’t know (inaudible) that come into the records.
Um, now, what – I-I heard that – so what are you – what is your point about that, Mr. Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: So I just want a clarification.
Your Honor read it on the record, but it’s not allowed in the record?
THE COURT: I just, uh, handed it to the clerk.
I put it in.
MR. GRODNER: So it is into the evidence?
THE COURT: Yeah. I did put that in.
MR. GRODNER: Can I talk about this, then?
THE COURT: I – I put that in.
MR. GRODNER: I see. (clears throat) Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MILLER: Judge, may I ask what the purpose of it is? Uh – well, I-I’m objecting to the relevance of it. I don’t know what it has to do with why we’re here and what we’re doing here today.
THE COURT: As he set forth in his motion for
reconsideration, um, I think he’s talking about the way the order was prepared or how it come about. And he’s also raised the fact that he did not get access to these records that were under seal. I think what he’s trying to say is that you did have access to the ECU records, or clinical records, based upon that – statements that were made a year before the hearing.
MR. MILLER: Uh, Judge, that’s not what he said in his motion. But I – I want to address whatever it is that, uh, he’s trying to say, that you think he said, or that he actually said ---
THE COURT: I’m just talking about what the transcript said.
MR. MILLER: Right. Yes, sir. That – that issue came up in the trial right at we closed the evidence; we were getting ready to make closing arguments, and Ms. Bryant, um, raised some issue, I believe. And – and he’s just excised a portion of the transcript that he wanted transcribed. But we were done with the evidence at that point in the trial of the case before you. We were ready to start closing arguments. There was not evidence introduced in the case. There was not a motion to reopen the case to introduce more evidence. It was simply, “Oh, here’s this record,” or something along that line. It’s been a long time since we all did that, but I’m satisfied, from what I just read, that my memory of it is correct now. And then we moved on with the case. There was no tender of it into evidence; there was no effort to make it into evidence. But Mr. Grodner, through his attorneys – first Matt Jackson, for one full year, was aware of that record, and for at least a week before the trial, his lawyer, Ms. Teresa Bryant, was aware of that record from --- THE COURT: It says she reviewed them.
MR. MILLER: That’s right. And she looked at it.
So it’s not new evidence. It has nothing to do with any evidence that would be pertinent to the motion that’s before the Court, which, if you read his motion, nothing that he’s talking about now goes to the merits of his motion in the first bit. He’s still trying to argue his continuance and his access to records that’s a separate issue from what we’re here about, which is to determine the finality, I guess, of his amended motion. He files a motion in 2015, January; he’s mentioned Rule 59; it’s not timely of the Rule 59. You got 10 days for Rule 59. The order was entered on the 9th, I believe, of January. Ms. Bryant filed her motion on the 30th of January. She doesn’t mention Rule 59. Um, I-I didn’t know what the motion really was about. In one last paragraph, she said, “Rule 60.” He files his amended motion almost a year later after that, on his own, citing only Rule 60. So there is no Rule 59 issue before the Court or that the Court can hear, and he needs to stop that business. And what we’re here about is – is this single motion there, which is the amended motion that he personally authored and filed. And none of the information – that affidavit that he wanted you to consider and the transcript that he wanted you to consider – has a thing to do with the issues he’s alleged in his amended motion for reconsideration and relief. Not the first thing. It’s not pertinent at all to any of the issues.
The issues that he’s raised, Judge, are that there was a clerical error about final decision-making authority, surrendering his passports, the attorneys’ fees issue, the amount of child support, and then various findings of fact that he itemized. And none of that information has to do with anything alleged on those issues.
THE COURT: All right. Uh, let me get, um, on on Page 4, uh, actually Page 3. We start that for – claim for relief, joint legal custody. Um, like I said, I’ve, uh, made the ruling on a continuance motion, um, and I’ve put that evidence into the record, uh, to allow if you have a(n) issue about that that you want to be heard on, Mr. Grodner, down the road. I’ve put that in the record, so you’ll have what you submitted to me in there in case you want to appeal my ruling on your motion to continue. Um, now the first claim for relief is you say that joint legal custody, first claim for relief, Paragraph 1, “The greater portion of the January 9th, 2015, order where the parties were granted joint legal custody, with final decision-making authority given to Plaintiff in the event of parties’ disagreement. September
22nd, 2014, the Court ruled on the record the following: I’m going to order the parties be given, um, joint legal custody with primary placement, uh, with the plaintiff, uh, the defendant to have, uh, liberal visitation. Uh, Exhibit 1, Lines 24-25, Page 7, and Lines 2-3, Page 8, note that the
(inaudible) statement is followed by the specifics of Defendant’s visitation in the primary place – placement exclusively ref-, refers to primary physical custody. There are no other specifics provided regarding legal custody. (inaudible) information (inaudible) 20 – September 22, 2015, and January 9th, 2014. This Court did not issue any new rulings or (inaudible) that Plaintiff did not file any motions or introduce any new evidence in regards to the claim of legal custody of the minor child. Appellate Court to find a clerical error as (inaudible) in writing or copied (inaudible) the record, not from judicial reason or determination. Application – this interpretation can be found, uh, case (inaudible) with discrepancy between the oral ruling and written order resulting in correction to the written order. Under attending circumstances and pursuant to Rule 68 regarding clerical mistakes, the se-, defendant’s entitled to relief from (inaudible) Paragraph 1, where the plaintiff was provided with final decision-making authority regarding the child’s welfare because it was not ordered by this Court on September 22nd, 2014.” If you want to tell me about that motion - that particular part of your Rule 60 - was there anything you want to add to that?
MR. GRODNER: Your Honor, I sort of got lost because Mr. Miller was making an argument, um, and I made a – I was in the middle of making an argument on – on, um, you know, a motion for reconsideration, Rule 60-B-2. So does that mean that I have lost my right to continue that discussion? I’d like to respond to what Mr. Miller said before.
THE COURT: That’s – that’s – you mentioned Rule
60 right here, and that’s what I’m on, is at Page 3 of your motion, the bottom of Page 3 and – and start of Page 4. Um --
MR. GRODNER: Eh, uh, but I just have a question:
Do I have a right to respond to what Mr. Miller said?
THE COURT: Uh, certainly.
MR. GRODNER: So – so first of all, it’s my understanding that Mr. Miller made a s-, but – statement, but it’s – it’s not in evidence, right? Mr. Miller has not admitted any affidavit. The only evidence that we’re talking about is the, um, record from the closing arguments on August 26th, 2014. Um, and in that transcript, Mr. Miller said –
Your Honor read it. At some point, Mr. Miller said that, “I don’t think there’s anything damning in the records, frankly, from my recollection of them.” And Mr. Miller, at any point in that hearing, mentioned any sealed records. Um, so, um, I’d like to, um, um, say that what I have just learned. Your
Honor have told me that apparently, they are in front of Your
Honor. They are records that are sealed that Mr. Miller never see [sic]. Um, in that – during that hearing, there was, at the end of, um, the, um, trial, Mr. Miller have [sic] not mentioned any records that have been sealed. So what I’m submitting to the Court is that, uh, from what I have just seen in this Courtroom, there are records that are part of the case. They have never been viewed because they are sealed. And this is, um, exactly the case (clears throat) under the Rule 60-B-2, which says, “Newly-discovered evidence by which due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59-B.” And that’s precisely the application of that rule right here because we just learned that there is in evidence newly-discovered evidence that Your Honor just announced to us, uh, that nobody knew. And, uh, this is the, uh, under Rule 60-B-2, is the relief you get when 10 days pass. Mr. Miller was absolutely correct that – that Rule 59 works only on it for 10 days. But, um, this is where, um, that absolutely applies because, by due diligence, the defendant, uh, could not have known about this evidence, could not have reviewed this evidence because it was never revealed to the defendant until today, this moment, that that evidence exists. Uh, at no point, uh, Mr. Miller said there were any sealed records that he didn’t have access to. So – and Your Honor just have in front of him, right in front of yourself. Um, so I sort of – learning what I heard, I sort of said that I’d like to amend, sort of again, my amended motion for reconsideration, uh, based on the newly-discovered evidence that does exist. And this is precisely application under Rule 60-B-2.
MR. MILLER: Judge, the evidence is not newly
discovered. His lawyer looked at it a year before the trial, Matthew Jackson. His lawyer looked at it a week before the trial, Teresa Bryant. It was all there. And-and-and, eh, it’s not newly discovered evidence. That’s evid-, ---
THE COURT: It’s – it’s not newly discovered.
So that addresses that issue. That part of your motion is denied, Mr. Grodner, because it’s not newly-discovered evidence. It’s been in that file, uh, since Ms. Tere-, Ms. Bryant was in there. So I’ll have to deny that based upon it’s not newly-discovered information. Um, now, moving on to your, uh, other part of your motion ---
MR. GRODNER: Can I respond to Mr. Miller? THE COURT: I-I just ruled it’s not newly discovered. I mean, I – I (inaudible) ---
MR. GRODNER: B-but ---
THE COURT: --- made that assertation myself.
MR. GRODNER: Mr. Miller only made a comment, and Your Honor only ruled on the records that Mr. Miller just stated were reviewed by Mr. Jacksons [sic], which means that these are records that are unsealed that can be viewed, which means that the ruling is not in relation to my motion and so the records that I’m talking about. It’s ---
THE COURT: Yeah. All – all – all these records were submitted back when Ms. Bryant was still your attorney of record. She knew and had access to it, which means you would have had access to it. Under legal theory, it says it’s not newly discovered. So that’s why I’m ruling the way I did.
MR. GRODNER: Uh ---
THE COURT: That issue is resolved. So ---
MR. GRODNER: S-, ---
THE COURT: --- please move on to your next issue.
MR. GRODNER: I guess I just want to put it on the record that ---
THE COURT: You’ve got it on the record already. Move on to your next issue, sir.
2:58:08 –
MR. GRODNER: Um, okay. Um (pause), all right.
Your Honor, um (clears throat), let me see (whispers). Um --
THE COURT: I believe it was that, um, the Court made a clerical error ---
MR. GRODNER: Um --- THE COURT: --- on Page ---
MR. GRODNER: --- (clears throat) well, first of all, I guess, I hope that I preserve my – my – my issue of – of, you know, uh, at least I raised a point of – of – of, uh, adding, uh, the reason for reconsideration under Rule 60, um, B-2, and I understand it was denied. So (clears throat) now I’ll proceed to, um, uh, the motion. And, um, um, I want to submit to the Court that (clears throat) my understanding of Rules of Civil Procedure is that the, uh, parties do have the right to input (clears throat), um, at least they have the right to, um, give this Court input into the writing of the order. In fact, um, on September 22nd, as I understand, y-, Your Honor explicitly requested from both parties to, um, um, discuss the order, and I think Mr. Miller was, um, um, supposed to write the order, and the defendant was supposed to, um, um, give the response. (clears throat) And what, in his motion (inaudible) the, um, um, incidences or – or communication I have with Ms. – Ms. Bryant, what it boils down to is that, um, at the time when the defendant, myself, learned about this order, um, and Ms. Bryant trying to do – do what Your Honor asked both parties to do, which is give input into the order, um, she, at some point, just responded, “If I do this” – and this is on December 10, 2014, at 9:36; she sent an e-mail that, “If you want to be directly involved with the drafting of the order, I will need to withdraw (clears throat), which, I mean, she – she basically threatened me for following Your Honor’s orders. And I want to actually make a statement that the whole motion for reconsideration and relief is motivated by that fact that the defendant, based on the facts presented, um, was denied the right which is given to him by the statute of local rules; also was given by the, uh, oral statement from – from the Court, uh, to give input into the, uh, drafting of the order.
So, um, that means the order is, um, that’s my contention is it’s deficient and it has to be, uh, changed. And that’s a general motivation for, um, reconsideration. And this is, um, um, let’s see. Uh, this is, uh, basically excusable neglect of – of one party. I was not – since I was, uh, basically threatened by (inaudible) Ms. Bryant, my attorney – well, uh, my attorney at the time, um, I could not have, um, possibly, uh, submitted those, uh, comments. And, um, um, that the issues, um (clears throat), are – are the following: The first one is, um (clears throat), Your Honor, on
September 22nd, 2014, explicitly said, “I’m going to order that these parties be given joint legal custody with primary placement with the plaintiff. The defendant have [sic] liberal visitation.” It was the only reference to joint legal, uh, custody. Um, um, uh, Mr. Miller, in a proposed order, as – as I understand it – I think it’s in the evidence – um, changed that into – the language changed into the, um, um, joint legal custody with a final say by the, um, uh, by the plaintiff. (clears throat) And – and for the record, the, um, Ms. Bryant, uh, submitted a letter to – to Your Honor, um, where she – she said that, uh (clears throat), she submitted comments, but they are not really representing her client. So she did it on her own. But, in her professional opinion, that’s how I was cited because it was not opinion from the defendant. She barred me from, uh, expressing my opinion on – on – on my behalf. She expressed her own personal opinion. She actually opposed that language in Mr. Miller’s proposed order. Um, and, uh, this is a(n) error because there is something stated on the – on the – in the record, what Your Honor said, and there is something else written in the child custody order. So that’s Issue No. 1. A-and – and there’s a, um, there’s precedent for that. And, uh, um, uh, based on, uh, uh, excusable neglect about here, uh, i-i-it’s really, uh, I guess the error that happens when somebody transcribes the order because Mr. Miller was supposed to act as a clerk to transcribe what was spoken, and he had not done it correctly. So that is a sort of, uh, you know, clerk mistake that needs to be corrected.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: You want to take them issue by issue, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes.
3:04:44 – MR. MILLER RESPONDS TO MR. GRODNER:
MR. MILLER: Um, Judge, Mr. Grodner has a
misunderstanding of the application of the law and of what went on at the time of - of his statement makes it sound like he has a stage independent from his lawyers, his representative, in the process, and that because he personally didn’t participate in the process, that therefore, there is some-, something wrong with the process. I think Ms. Bryant tried to explain to him that if he wanted to do it personally, that she would withdraw. We had a hearing, uh, at which, uh, Ms. Bryant attempted to withdraw, and Mr. Grodner extolled her brilliance in the case and what a good lawyer she was, and how she represented him so well in the case, after this order was entered. Uh, that hearing was in front of Judge DeSoto, and Judge DeSoto entered an order that told Mr. Grodner that he had to listen to his attorney and not get into those arguments with his attorney if he wanted her to stay in the case representing him, or he could represent himself. And so today, he takes a position inconsistent with positions that he’s taken before. Um, and the position that he takes is inconsistent with the legal principles. His lawyer represented him. They communicated with one another. His lawyer communicated the issues. There was not an order entered at any of those points in time for there to be relief from. However, Your Honor may recall the order was delivered to Ms. Bryant in November. It wasn’t entered until January of the next year. Um, Ms. Bryant and I went back and forth in letters, e-mails about the terms of this order, and she put forth numerous things, uh, with regard to this order. And if-if-if Your Honor recalls that, I think at some point in time, you didn’t want to hear from us anymore. You were going to make the decision yourself about the matter, and you have the iterations from the parties, through their representative lawyers, uh, and you made the decision. And your decision was e-, entirely consistent with your oral rendition. I want to talk about that because I don’t think Mr. Grodner understands the law on that. The court, typically, at the conclusion of a trial – unless the court prepares its own order – makes a brief summary statement about the ultimate decree in the case, and maybe some of the ultimate findings to go into the order, but not all of the findings; and then directs that the order be prepared. The order is then prepared and submitted to other counsel. There’s then a discussion about what’s contained in it, and the court makes the final decision about its order. And our Court of Appeals has repeatedly recognized that the oral rendition is not the final order of the court. The final order of the court is the one that the court signs, the one the court accepts as its order. It’s not a party’s order; it’s not Miller’s order; it’s not Bryant’s order; it’s not Mr. Grodner’s personal decision about what should be contained in it. He had his input through his representative, and the court entered its order. And it is that written order that’s signed and filed that controls, even to the extent of things that are not said orally in court. Um, in June of 2016, in the matter of ODS, the Court of Appeals made that clear, that – that the state-, --- THE COURT: I’m familiar with it.
MR. MILLER: --- okay. That – that oral
rendition is not the controlling, uh, uh, item. So his position has absolutely no basis in law, fact, or even logic. It is the – it – it – it is – it’s – it’s appalling to me that a man of – of his education is making arguments of this nature about these matters with the exception that he does not know ---
MR. GRODNER: Objection. I – I ---
MR. MILLER: --- that he does not know the law. THE COURT: E-, he can make – that’s his argument right now, so it’s not really objectionable.
MR. MILLER: That there – there’s – there’s –
there’s – there’s no logic to it; there’s no rationale to it. The court made specific findings, and there was a reason you made a – you – you made a decision that the plaintiff, the primary caretaker, the parent that you found to have been the one responsible for this child from birth on, with very little help from him, would have the final say-so. You may recall some of the evidence you heard about this child that needed ear surgery. And he held it up and wouldn’t let it go forward because he wouldn’t give the consent. He wouldn’t agree with her about the child’s need for the ear surgery, and the child would have been deaf without that surgery. He would go around her place of work and try and change things. He engaged in conduct that did nothing except – conduct similar to what he’s done with his own attorney, itemized in her statements on the record; that he’s done with this lady, or he’s done with me, to try to reshape matters that simply are incorrect, that are – are not grounded in the true facts of the matter. You – you made a specific finding as to why this lady should have the final decision-making authority, uh, in this case. It didn’t say that she didn’t have to cooperate. You know, the Deal (phonetic) case said you need to spell out what – what you mean by that, and that’s what you did. It didn’t mean that she didn’t have to communicate. But if the two of them couldn’t agree, we weren’t going to have the proverbial stand-off because no one can agree with him. Somebody has to make that final decision, and you gave that final decision-making authority, based on evidence that you heard and facts that you found, to this lady. And that was the order that you entered after both sides argued the point in principle, that he wants to raise again that was previously argued by Ms. Bryant in her letter to you. So there simply is not basis for that claim about that matter. And your written order is your written order. And the rule is that – that Rule 60 is not for collateral attack; it’s not an appeal. It – it – in fact, uh, the case law is clear that Rule 60 can’t be used, um, for an appeal of something a party doesn’t like in an entered order. There’s no clerical mistake here, which is one of his allegations. There’s no excusable neglect here. His lawyer was actively involved. There is no basis for any relief with regard to that part of Your Honor’s order.
THE COURT: Anything further before I make a decision on this particular aspect of your motion, Mr.
Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: Can I – well, um, can I respond to
Mr. Miller (inaudible) ---
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GRODNER: --- leave the case?
THE COURT: But let me tell you, Mr. Miller, you have a(n) hour and five minutes left and 43 seconds. Mr. Grodner, you have 27 minutes and 53 seconds.
MR. GRODNER: Okay. So, um, first of all, I want to put on the record that, uh, Mr. Miller made, uh, personal attacks prejudicial to this Court. And it’s my understanding that this Court acts like a jury. And Mr. Miller’s made multiple statements, um, that are, um, his opinion of the defendant, uh, in order to sway the jury here at the Court, um, towards, um, the decision that he favors. Um, this Court have [sic] not allowed the defendant to, uh, object to those prejudi-dicial statements, uh, which means that any decision, um, I submit to this Court, uh, may be tainted by the prejudice that has been just, um, um, occurred because of statement by Mr. Miller. Uh, number two, all these statements, um, are just statements by Mr. Miller. They are, so far, not supported by any evidence. Uh, uh, Mr. Miller did not provide any evidence whatsoever. He did not testify. If Mr. Miller wants to testify, I – I would be happy if he s, swears himself and – and testified to those statements. But anything that he has said, I want to put on record, is not evidence; it’s a prejudicial statement against the defendant. And Mr. Miller so far has presented absolutely no evidence for any s-, facts or evidence that he’s – well, and the fact that he – he – he mentioned. Um, such as, you know, one uh-, Mr. Miller just said no one can agree with him, and – and I – and I submit to the Court that this is a highly prejudicial statement against the defendant, suggesting that, um, no matter what the defendant says, um, he’s not to be, um, heard, or nobody can agree with him. So, um, um, and this is really um, um, related to the – to the constitutional issue of – of, uh, you know, 14th amendment. Uh, every citizen has the right for a fair trial. And, uh, what I’d like to submit to the Court that I’m not having a fair trial right now, uh, because my rights are being violated, um, uh, because of the prejudice that’s being allowed, um, by the statements from Mr. Miller. And, um, and it, um, as far as I understand, 14th amendment protects individuals for equal sort of treatment under the court, and this Court, uh, is, um, supposed to be, um, impartial. And I want to submit that what just occurred, um, is not impartial. Um, allowing such statements is – is, uh, creating, um, giving advantage to the other side. Um, and it’s not proper, uh, what I think, uh, um, in a courtroom. And, um, the second thing I want to address: Mr. Miller said that Ms. Bryant, who i-, was an attorney at the time, filed a letter to Mr. Miller, and that it was a letter on behalf of the defendant. I want to say that, just like any statement that Mr. Miller made, um, is not based on any fact or any evidence. However, what is submitted to the Court is, indeed, a motion. Indeed, there is a statement, uh, there is a letter that Mr. Miller read you, um, that, indeed, Ms. Bryant submitted. And, um, she was explicit, um, by saying, “My response does not reflect any agreement or consent by my client to all terms of your ruling,” which means she has done it on her own. It was not opinion of the defendant. So I’d like to submit that what Mr. Miller said wasn’t correct. It was a misrepresentation of what is each – even in the motion. There is no evidence of – of what mil-, Mr. Miller is saying. And, um, what it really boils down to, it’s not, uh-uh-uh, it’s just a fact that this Court never heard, never got comments from the – the defendant. Um, okay. So let me move on, if I can.
THE COURT: Uh, I need to rule on that issue. MR. GRODNER: Okay. All right.
THE COURT: Uh, I want to try to address this like you would, uh, uh, a law school issue. Um, the issue is, um, under Rule 60-B-2, had there been something that was a clerical error based upon a drafting of an order, and that Mr. Grodner did not get an opportunity to participate in reviewing the proposed orders and such. Um, the law is clear that, uh, nothing is enforceable in a court order, uh, until a judge has reviewed the order, any proposed order, and a judge certainly has authority to require already submit a proposed order. The judge has reviewed that order to his satisfaction, and entered an order based upon what he thinks the appropriate (inaudible) is. The law actually says I can say in open court, “I am going to rule that Plaintiff gets custody.” Before I sign it, I can absolutely change that around and change it to defendant’s going to get it, and that is absolutely permitted because it’s not a(n) order until it’s signed, dated, and filed. So because of that, whether there’s a(n) issue between you and Ms. Bryant, Mr. Grodner, about whether she relayed what she wanted to, I still put the order in place I thought was appropriate, and that’s what the law designates. And so that part of your motion is denied.
All right.
MR. GRODNER: Can I say something else? THE COURT: I’ve ruled, so let’s go on to the next one. You’ve only got ---
MR. GRODNER: And ---
THE COURT: --- 22 minutes left, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Okay. So can I state for the record that Mr. Miller, in the previous already-ruled-upon motion, has presented some case law that he has not presented to me. I didn’t have time to review it. We have no citations. Um, and, um, to this moment, I have no way to verify what Mr. Miller has just said.
THE COURT: Uh, I-I said what the law is. I didn’t use what Mr. Miller said. I said what the law is.
MR. GRODNER: Yeah. So – but the law, in a sense, is based also on case law, and Mr. Miller cited the case law, and I ---
THE COURT: A-and I – the law I’m quoting is from case law.
MR. GRODNER: So is Your Honor ignoring the case law that Mr. Miller cites?
THE COURT: I – I listened to what he said, but
I was already familiar with that case and several others in that lineage of cases that discuss that particular issue. And it’s clear law.
MR. GRODNER: So I want to submit that I am not familiar with this case. Um, it was even not cited. I have no time to review it, and again, under the 14th amendment, my rights are being violated.
THE COURT: Uh, it’s nothing to do with the 14th amendment, sir. I mean ---
MR. GRODNER: But I ---
THE COURT: --- I’m not trying to cut you off,
but I mean, you’re going down a path that’s not going to have any relevance in a(n) appeal, and I’m trying to let you make the most showing you can on the record in case you choose to appeal something like I’ve just denied. But, you know, that’s – that’s the law, and you know, and I’ve said it. I don’t want to keep ruling stuff and you just want to continuously pander with me and badger with me and joust with me about what I just ruled on. All you’re doing is using up your time, and you’re not making a record. You’re going to run out of time, and there’s going to be, uh, things that you filed your motion that you’re going to be vacating because your time’s up. I don’t want to see that happen to you. I’m trying to tell you that.
MR. GRODNER: Can I make a request?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Is it all right for me to, at least, know what is the case that Mr. Miller, uh, was (inaudible)? THE COURT: Do you mind stating the name of the case, Mr. Miller, and the cite?
MR. MILLER: In the matter of ODS.
THE COURT: Do you have the site for that?
MR. MILLER: Um, it’s Court of Appeals 15-1148. It was issued and is on the, uh, court’s web site, Judge, um, for June the 7th, 2016.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GRODNER: Okay. So the second issue I want to raise is the court order issued on January 9th, 2014, uh, has a provision to, um, request the defendant to have his passport in custody of the, uh, courts. And the argument here is that, under Rule 60, um (pause), 60-B-4, this is where it’s applicable, um, that, “Local court does not have a jurisdiction over any passports. The local court can request” – um, it’s a – a-agency that issues a passport to take away, but it doesn’t have the right to actually hold it. And that’s what has happened, which means that the court did not have jurisdiction to do this. So the relief sought here is to stricken [sic] it from the rec-, from the order because it’s an error in jurisdiction. Um, the j-, local court did not have jurisdiction to rule upon not only American passport, which is the property – it’s a federal, uh, document, uh, which is, uh, governed by the, um, um, State Department, and Polish passport, which is actually property of Poland; and both of them have been requested at
(inaudible) um, in the, um, in the Courthouse.
THE COURT: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Um, Judge, as you recall, um, uh,
Mr. Grodner is, uh, from Poland. Uh, his mother, at the time, was here on some type of visa for a limited period of time from Poland, where she, uh, resided. Um, and Mr. Grodner had both a Polish passport and a U.S. passport, uh, at the time. Um, and there were concerns about the travel outside of the country that, in fact, were – the – the issue was raised because it had been discussed, uh, I believe by Ms. Bryant who brought up the issue for consideration in your order. The Court has authority under the state law that the federal courts recognize that the, uh, uh, State Department recognizes, to place limits on parents with regards to travel with their children. You did not limit Mr. Grodner in the use of his passport if he wanted to travel. Your order was to protect his child from being abducted and taken by Mr. Grodner to Poland or other places, so that he couldn’t get the child’s passport and so that he couldn’t, himself, leave the country with the child without making an application. And you ordered that his passport simply be deposited and held until, if he wanted to travel, he made some application for the use of his passport. Um, I don’t believe he’s complied with the order yet. I don’t believe he’s turned his passports in yet.
THE COURT: I – I think we have the passports.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
THE COURT: (inaudible).
MR. MILLER: I – I was not given any notice of that, didn’t know anything about it. Um, but in any event, those limitations, uh, I-I know that I’ve had one case on appeal with a gentleman from, um, Romania, um, a-a-and, uh, another college professor involved in that case – I believe she was from Bulgaria – in which Judge Blick entered an order that restricted the travel and the use of passports in that case. And it was appealed, the Court of Appeals upheld the restriction, uh, placed on the passports. Mr. Grodner has – has given to the Court, uh, regulations from the State Department that indicate it’s appropriate for the Court to do that. Uh, you haven’t tried to seize them as property. You haven’t tried to restrain or take them away in any way. You tried, in your order, to prevent him from using the passports to travel with the child. And if he wanted to travel, uh, he wasn’t restricted from that travel, but he had to make a(n) application to the Court to get his passport. Now, I-I’m – I have no doubt you don’t remember all of the evidence in this case. Um, a-and there’s – there’s a lot – there was a lot of evidence in this case about the kind of individual Mr. Grodner was. Um, and there is evidence, I think, that is, based on his demeanor and his statements in the Courtroom, um, that explain the cause for concern a-about him following and being agreeable about matters. Um, i-in – in any event, these limits that you imposed, um, were appropriate, lawful limits. Uh, you entered the order. And if Mr. Grodner had a problem with that, Judge, if he thought that was an error of law, he was required to appeal it. The case, um, uh,
Chicopee Incorporated v. Sims Metal Works 98 NC App. 423, decided back in 1990, says, “Rule 60 cannot be used for purposes of appeal. It’s not a substitute for appellate review.” And – and that’s what Mr. Grodner is trying to do in this motion, is to say, “You made an error of law, and I’m entitled to appellate review of that error.” That’s it, plain and simple, and he wants to do it with Rule 60, and he’s not allowed to do that. Second, the – the limit that you impose is entirely consistent with the law. You – you are not issuing a passport. You are not, in any way, assuming the role of a sovereign nation or, uh, the United States or the State Department by anything you do with regard to the limitations on travel with the child. And that’s what this is directed at – the protection of, uh, this child from abduction and conduct by Mr. Grodner. Um, and so, uh, for those reasons, because if he wanted to argue about it, he had to appeal if he (inaudible) Rule 60 (inaudible). And even if he wants to argue about it, there’s no basis in law for the argument with regard to the reasonable, rational limits the Court imposed, uh, in the matter.
THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that --- MR. GRODNER: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: --- any further, Mr. Grodner? MR. GRODNER: First, I have a question. Um, do I have any right to object to anything that Mr. Miller is saying under s-, ---
THE COURT: I mean, he’s just making an
argument. It’s not ---
MR. GRODNER: But no, I’m ask-, ---
THE COURT: --- questions or findings of fact.
I mean, and as far as personal attacks, I don’t let that affect me at all because it’s a – co-, courts are co-, you know, confrontational by nature. And sometimes people may say things a little bit, uh, in the heat of battle, but the – I don’t take that into consideration. I just listen to the facts I think apply to the mechanism that’s being argued about here, and that’s it.
MR. GRODNER: But – but – but for the record --- THE COURT: I made my ruling a while ago on the law, and that’s what I make all my rulings on.
MR. GRODNER: But if I understand correctly, Your
Honor allows personal attacks. Is that ---
THE COURT: No. I-I – I didn’t – I think he may state an opinion. Uh, I don’t think that’s a re-, that’s his opinion. It’s, uh, not necessarily the Court’s shared opinion. So ---
MR. GRODNER: S-s-s-so my question is do I have
any right to object to anything that Mr. ---
THE COURT: You certainly could object, and I –
I wanted to explain that I didn’t intervene because, uh, trust me, I’ve heard a lot worse.
MR. GRODNER: And, uh, and this is the argument, that is allowed for Mil-, Mr. Miller to say prejudicial things about me because Your Honor (inaudible) ---
THE COURT: That – hi-his comments or statements have nothing to do with the way I ruled. So I just ruled because the law’s against you.
MR. MILLER: Could – could – could I get him to state what the prejudicial argument or statement was that was personal to him? I mean, I – I’m not clear on that. I’m going to be glad to put on evidence that supports everything I’ve said. You’ve got orders in the Court that support what
I said, Judge. I-I-I haven’t said anything other than he was illog-, ---
THE COURT: You – you’ve got 17 minutes left,
Mr. Grodner, and you know, I – I want to hear what you’ve got to say in response to this thing about the passports.
MR. GRODNER: So I guess I just want to say that, uh, Mr. Miller have [sic] not, in his entire argument, have [sic] not cited any findings of fact in the court order, and not find – he – not cited anything that Your Honor said, as a finding of fact related to that issue, uh, during the, uh, statement on the, September 22nd; have not cited anything (inaudible) trial. Uh, everything that was (inaudible) Mr.
Miller. And, um, I’m saying – what I’d like to say is that, uh, b-, by virtue of – of basic, uh, procedure of writing the court order, there has to be evidence presented at trial. From that evidence, the court, um, uh, uh, writes findings of facts. From findings of facts, their conclusions or a-, law in their rulings. In this case, there was not a single findings of facts in the court order related to this, uh, individual passport. (clears throat) Even there was no, um, single findings of fact related to the child’s passport. And here, I’m submitting to the Court that the Court doesn’t have a jurisdiction over individual passport, only child’s passport because with the child custody hearing, it was not hearing about any, uh, the defendant. So, by this virtue, there was no jurisdiction that – that the Court could rule upon this. And, of course, there was no findings of fact because there’s never e-, evidence, um, of, uh, related anything to – to this issue. So that’s why I’m saying it was an error. (inaudible) the ruling was basically baseless, um, uh, overall.
THE COURT: Anything further on that?
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Judge, um, you – you made findings that indicated his deception, that he was untruthful, um, that he engaged in secret conduct with his mother from Poland, that he said he was taking his mother so she could return to Poland, and he was gone about five days. But in truth, he didn’t do that, and his mother didn’t go back to Poland at that time, but she stayed around here. Um, you found that he told, uh, his – the mother of his child that he was using the services of a babysitter, uh, who was Polish, when, in fact, he was using his mother during that period of time. You found that he – he made a – abnormal demands of his wife, um, and engaged in questionable behaviors, blocking phone calls, throwing the child’s stroller down in a fit of rage, um, installing interior locks and locking himself in bedrooms, renting apartments for himself and his mother in a clandestine manner, being untruthful about his activities, using digital recorders and video equipment, all of the kinds of conduct and things that raise concern about a parent’s, uh, behavior towards the other parent of their child, and their conduct with regard, uh, to their child, and the things that we worry about with people who have foreign citizenship in countries where it is difficult, um, to get children back. You were protecting this child and protecting this mother properly in your order, and you made findings that supported everything that you did in that regard.
THE COURT: Anything further on that issue, sir? MR. GRODNER: Just one thing. When Mr. Miller first talked, he used the word kidnapping. Uh, as he, uh, just presented to Your Honor some facts from the order, there was never word used, kidnapping, and there was nothing related to that. And it was the only motivation, uh, for taking away the passport. Thank you. (pause) How much time to I have, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Uh, you have 15:05, so stop it. Uh,
I don’t want to use anybody’s time while I’m looking at the order. All right. I – I’ve gone back to review the order. I do believe Paragraph 30 addresses, uh, part of the basis why, um, I felt that order, um, regarding the passports was appropriate. Um, uh, I – I feel and am confident that the provisions I put in there were warranted under existing law. Um, and so I am going to continue to allow Mr. Grodner access to use his passports personally, uh, as long as it’s, uh, through the application and made, uh, for his personal travel, just so it does not apply to the child traveling with him.
MR. GRODNER: Can I make a request? THE COURT: I’m sorry, sir?
MR. GRODNER: Can I make a request?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. GRODNER: Just for the record, Mr. Miller could speak on the record the case that he’s been citing? I think he’s been citing, uh ---
THE COURT: I think he cited it already. MR. GRODNER: Uh, can I ask just to repeat it real quick if I (inaudible) ---
THE COURT: Oh, you’re talking about the case that you were involved in?
MR. GRODNER: There’s – there’s not a case law in so-, ---
THE COURT: The Romania case?
MR. MILLER: Uh ---
MR. GRODNER: No. Mr. Miller cited that there’s some law supported by law, and I’d like to have it on the record what law and what statutes, what cases on appeals, uh, you know, Court of Appeals Mr. Miller is citing as ---
THE COURT: Well ---
MR. GRODNER: --- the legal authority. THE COURT: --- if he has, uh, if the case goes to appeal, he’ll have to cite authority. He could just say he believes, I mean, as an officer of the court, as an attorney, he’s required to make statements, uh, in good faith that there is currently a law. I mean, if he was to misrepresent that law to the court, he could face, uh, Bar investigation and actually a grievance with the Bar if there’s no law to support it. But as an officer of the court, that’s all he’s required to do. He’s not required to show you that case. He could just say, “There is law out there.” It’s done all the time. If you watch trials of this Courthouse, you’ll see it done all the time. You know, the only one he’s got to provide law to at this point in time would be me, but I feel like the way he cited that current, uh, state law, I believe it’s accurate.
MR. GRODNER: Uh, s-s-so there is no way for me to even verify it, read it, get some (inaudible)?
THE COURT: You could certainly do it if you
appeal it. You can say that he had no law to base that upon.
MR. GRODNER: Okay. (pause)
THE COURT: I think the next one was, um,
attorneys’ fees. And you have 13 minutes and 55 seconds. MR. GRODNER: Yeah. So the, um, attorney fees actually, uh (clears throat), were not discussed, as I understand, in the, uh, entire trial. Um, the, um, they were raised by both Plaintiff and the defendant in their pleadings. Um, and then, after the end of the trial on September 22nd, Your Honor ruled orally, gave guidelines on the order. There was no mention of attorney fees at any point. Um, Mr. Miller had a right to raise it. He didn’t. So this meant that he basically, um, waived that right. And, um, in the proposed order, wrote that he’s entitled to – to attorney fees. Um, later on, the final order actually had a (clears throat) provision about – but it’s – he did not put, uh, language that Mr. Miller proposed. And there was a hearing scheduled for January 5th, two thousand – or January I believe 5th, 2015. However, the order was filed on the
9th, so I’m also saying that it’s an error because, um, um, that, uh, issue was mute [sic]. It was, uh, (inaudible) said – I mean, the – the court order cannot be, um, um, enforced backwards when it was filed on the 9th, and the hearing was set for the – the 5th.
THE COURT: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Um, Judge, uh, I-I – again, I know you probably don’t remember, but in fact, the issue of attorneys’ fees was raised at the conclusion of the trial. And Ms. Bryant said it had not been noticed for hearing at the trial. And I believe she even wrote a letter when we were doing the order, because the original proposed order that I had, uh, had findings with regard to my time and services, and the $14,000-some that my client had incurred in, uh, the custody and support case that we tried, and a blank that was left for you to fill in. And as w-, this order was going back and forth – and I think Mr. Grodner even recites some of those facts – was going back and forth. Um, Ms. Bryant objected to that, saying that it wasn’t noticed for hearing. Um, and there was then some discussion of it needs to be heard at a later time. And so it was put in this order that was sent over that was not signed for a s-, a significant period of time, um, that it would be on the 5th. Well, the order didn’t get filed, um, and we didn’t have a hearing. And Ms. Bryant indicated she was going to withdraw from the case. Uh, and in fact, she did, I think in that very month, we had a hearing, uh, in front of Judge DeSoto for her attempt to withdraw. Uh, Judge DeSoto’s orders should be in the file somewhere. Um, but i-in – in any event, that issue is still pending and has not been decided. Uh, in fact, I think it was set on another occasion, in maybe
March. Um, but Ms. Bryant had withdrawn from the case, and we didn’t – we – we didn’t have any hearings, uh, at that time in – in the Grodner case. So the – the issue is still out there, has not been decided. It’s not moot. I-I – as I gather Mr. Grodner’s argument, he’s trying to claim it’s moot because the order set it for hearing on a certain date before the order was actually entered. Um, that again has no logic that I can discern. Um, so I-I there – there simply is no basis for whatever he’s trying to say now. I go back to if he doesn’t like something that was in the order, his remedy was to have appealed the order. It doesn’t get to have an appeal in Rule 60, which is all he’s done today.
THE COURT: All right. Uh, do you wish to respond to that?
MR. GRODNER: Uh, real quick. (clears throat) For the record, the, uh, initial, um, motion for reconsideration was filed on the 30th – I believe 30th of January, which was within 30 days of appeal. So, um, before I guess appealing the order, uh, the defendant preserved the – the issue to change – change this. So, um, and the claims are not about changing the or-, order overall. It’s about correcting mistakes. So...
MR. MILLER: Judge, ru-, Rule 60 doesn’t suspend the time for appeal. Ru- Rule 60 is not a – a that – that type of process. You – you can file a Rule 60 motion a year later, um, and still be heard. Um, Rule 59 suspends the times for appeal if you file that within 10 days. Um, so, uh, the – that – that doesn’t – that’s not logical and doesn’t make sense, um, either, under the law and has no merit. Um, I – I-I just – I don’t even know what to make of this – this argument about the attorneys’ fees. The issue is pending and hasn’t been decided yet. Um, it’s still there. Um, as soon as we get this over with, we’ll move on to the next phase of – of this case. Um, but it’s – it’s – it’s been held up through Mr. Grodner’s conduct in the problems we had with his attorneys and in efforts to get the case, um, finalized.
THE COURT: All right. The previous order, the order that’s being asked to be reconsidered, was filed on January 9th, 2015, when it became effective. Uh, uh, uh, and current with the filing of a, uh, complaint, um, there’s also a request for attorneys’ fees under Chapter 50. Um, there was a paragraph in that order that found the plaintiff, as employed as a teacher at a Wilson County public school, she earns a gross income of $36,300 per year or $3,025 per month. Defendant is associate professor at East Carolina. He earns a gross income of $87,255.12, or a gross monthly income of $7,271.26. Minor child is currently enrolled in daycare at a cost of $90 per week for 42 weeks (inaudible) year, and a reservation fee for the daycare is $75 during the 10 weeks of summer months. When the plaintiff’s public school is not in session, she’s not required to work; the child will not be attending daycare on a regular work-related basis, and the plaintiff will be home with child. The annualized (phonetic) cost of child’s daycare is $321 per month. Minor child is covered as a dependent for medical, dental, and vision health insurance through the benefit plan provided by the employer of Plaintiff’s husband, at a cost of $751 per year. So long as this health plan benefit remains reasonably available for the minor child, the plaintiff shall ensure that remains in force and is paid. The plain-, monthly allocated costs of the plaintiff is $63 a month. Application of the child support, uh – I’m – I’m looking at – I’m jumping ahead, I think. Um, “The Issue No. 39: Issue of Plaintiff’s entitlement to reimbursement payment by Defendant for attorneys’ fees was not noticed or calendared for determination of this term of court. Issue shall be heard and determined on 5 January 2015 at 9 o’clock a.m. in DC02 of the Pitt County Courthouse.” And then the decretal, uh, conclusion in law said the “plaintiff’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees is continued for later determination by this Court.” And the decretal portion of the order – the last thing says, “Issue of Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees shall be set for hearing determination by this Court on 5 January 2015 at 9 o’clock a.m. in DC02, the Pitt County
Courthouse, signed this 2nd day, January 2015,” which was striking out December 2014, and I initialed that. Um, procedurally, what that means is I don’t see an order saying that it was actually considered or continued. So it’s still a pending order. Uh, there’s no authority for me to dismiss that order at this time for, uh, it being overripe or moot. So, um, the motion to dismiss the claim for attorneys’ fees is not – I would suggest that that be calendared as soon as possible so we can get resolution on that. Um, all right. Now, the, uh, I think the next ---
MR. MILLER: Judge, just – just so we can be
clear: Your Honor said motion to dismiss, and I know that he insists on literal, uh, statements in the transcripts. Uh, but actually, it’s his Rule 60 motion for reconsideration or for some determination about the attorneys’ fees, and --- THE COURT: It’s nothing to reconsider because there’s not been a hearing on it yet.
MR. MILLER: Yeah, right. So I-I-I-I would – I-I just – there was not a motion to dismiss. It – it was a Rule 60 motion that you’re denying.
THE COURT: Well, that – that part of the Rule
60 motion is denied because there’s nothing to reconsider because the order has not been entered.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Uh, findings of fact were made about incomes, but that’s not really what’s necessary, uh, in making, uh, uh, any order about attorneys’ fees. Um, the next portion of your, uh, Rule 60 motion, uh, Mr. Grodner, deals with child support payment. And you wrote your full (phonetic) claim for relief is in regards to Paragraph 6 in the decretal portion of January 9th, 2015, order, which provided that the monthly child support obligation should be 1,005. And you state further, “According to North Carolina guidelines, the child support payment should be 1,031.47,” and that was assessed on the child support, um, guideline on the home page of Department of Health and Human Services. What is your position about that?
MR. GRODNER: Uh, first of all, how much time do I have?
THE COURT: You have 11 minutes and 41 seconds. MR. GRODNER: And when Your Honor read it, was it
taken away from my time? Or ---
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
MR. GRODNER: When Your Honor just read and – and talked about ---
THE COURT: No, it don’t count on your time.
MR. GRODNER: Okay.
THE COURT: I stop it when I start doing something.
MR. GRODNER: So it’s a simply clerical error. I believe that, uh, there was a(n) error in calculation. And instead of 1,005, um, it should be 1,031 and 47 cents.
THE COURT: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Uh, Judge, as I understand, he wants to increase his child support from 1,005 to 1,031. Uh, and --
THE COURT: Is that what you’re saying, Mr.
Miller? I mean, Mr. Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: This motion is, uh, uh, based on Rule 60. Um, these are errors. Um, that money goes toward that – this money goes towards my child, right? So, um, I think it makes sense that I do not really think if it’s – if it’s a f-, statement from the Court, it should be fair. State Court said that it should use the calculator. The calculator, in my opinion, gave a different number. Um, I have no objections to that, and I just wanted to point to out the error.
MR. MILLER: Uh, Judge, there was a worksheet
that was attached to your order that’s – the – the – using the numbers that are in the order. Um, i-it came up with 1,007. And I think you rounded it down to 1,005 to make it – to get rid of the $2. Um, a-as I understand, that’s an insubstantial issue. It’s supported by your findings. It’s supported by a worksheet. And it appears to me that two years later, uh, in his application of, uh, uh, uh, a worksheet that’s he’s done, uh, he – he came up with a different number. Um, of course, his remedy, if you wanted to say he wasn’t paying enough, is either just go ahead and pay the other amount of money if that – you want your child to have it, but the court order says you pay $1,005. Or he could have appealed and said that there was an error, uh, in the Court’s application of the guidelines. Uh, the worksheets there, uh, he didn’t appeal it. Rule 60 is not, uh, a – a collateral attack rule. Uh, and that’s all he’s trying to do, uh, i-in this matter. Uh, this is to the prejudice of my client. Um, but the law is the law, and uh, no one appealed this issue, even if he is right. A-and I have no explanation why one guideline has 1,007 and the other has, uh, this number, unless it’s two separate, uh, guidelines, uh, that were used, which would have been an error of law. (pause) I note that the form here is the 2011 form, and I – I thought was a – I don’t remember the – the year that the guidelines changed, uh, for the next four-year term.
THE COURT: I think that’s 2013.
MR. MILLER: I – I’m just – I don’t remember. So
I mean, that – that could have been ---
THE COURT: I mean, it’s ’15, I think.
MR. MILLER: If – if it was 2015, then we applied the right guidelines for a trial that was held, um, earlier, uh, when – when this was done. Uh, I – I note that this is a 2011 AOC, uh, worksheet aid calculation. Um, he’s reciting what I believe to be a current – something he did recently, um, in 2015, December 2015.
THE COURT: Uh, do you want to say anything else on that issue of child support?
MR. GRODNER: Um, yes. Mr. Miller said there are two numbers. Uh, one is 1,005, the other 1,007, which is at the end of the order. It is attached, which right there tells that there’s an error. We cannot have two numbers. Um, and what I decided to do, I decided to do the calculation again, and, um, that’s really where it came from. There are two different numbers, um, and apparently, the third number is the correct one. Also, when Mr. Miller said it’s not substantial, I want to submit to the Court that this is a difference of $26 and 47 cents, and, uh, since the order was entered, multiplied it for about 24 months, which is, uh, would be, uh, you know, January, uh, next month, uh, it’s about $635 28 cents. So (clears throat) I don’t agree it’s unsubstantial. Uh, but I just want to submit it to the Court.
THE COURT: I – I – I put something different from the guidelines. I calculated time when we were reviewing that order. Uh, I’m not stalling on a motion to review, base of substantial change of circumstances. It’s not, uh, a motion to modify based on a substantial change of circumstances. At the time, my calculation said $1,007, so I’m going to modify that to $1,007 from 1,005. Um, uh, I was just trying to make it a – a lower number, uh, rounded off, and that’s exactly what I did. So, um, fifth claim, um, deals with findings of fact, which, uh, Defendant contends are admitted but were specifically requested in September 22nd, 2015, ruling. Um, information was admitted about several multiple marriages by the plaintiff, and residing with his mother, a Polish citizen who is currently in this country with uncertain immigration status. Not only was it never mentioned during the ruling, but it’s factually incorrect. Uh, mentioned the arrival of Defendant’s mother on October 11th is a major reason for the parties’ marshal (phonetic) (inaudible) marital difficulties, I’m assuming.
Um, the ruling provides for date for the incident between
Plaintiff and Defendant’s mother as October 31st. It’s not supported by any evidence. Both Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the incident occurred on April 19th, 2012, in support of a file of documents, testimony evidence, (inaudible) time were in error. Um, it says the defendant is going to live in a two-bedroom duplex. However, because the address does not exist, his incorrect (inaudible) by way of being impossible, or if you send to (inaudible) executed another memorandum of order, incorrect interpretation of that order because (inaudible) party. Well, anyway, it’s several things. I’ll just hear from you, Mr. Grodner. You have nine minutes and 55 seconds.
MR. GRODNER: Really quick, Your Honor. This is just a list of examples, uh, for errors that I believe are clerical errors, clear clerical errors. And the clearest one, I believe, is at point-35 of my motion that – it says the address of Defendant’s 411-A Bridge Court Street. That address does not exist. It’s not substantial error, changing the, uh, rights of, uh, any party, but it’s wrong. The Court has the jurisdiction over this order. Uh, the, uh, motion – I mean Rule 60 is designed for correcting this type of error, so I bring it to the Court’s attention and would like to have both counsels, uh, opportunity to go through the order and sort of, um, clear it from ---
THE COURT: Well, let me – let me start with A, uh, deals with, uh ---
MR. GRODNER: A-, ---
THE COURT: --- that deals with admitted
information about multiple marriages by the plaintiff. Um, what do you say about that, Mr. Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: Um, uh, the, um, since these are just examples what I – the relief that I seek, um, is the, uh, recognition that there are multiple errors. And, uh, the relief I seek is, uh, Your Honor, um, asks, uh, parties to, uh, discuss what errors should – first of all, recognition there are errors, and then, uh, sending the parties to discuss which errors should be corrected; and then come back to Your Honor, to – to this Court and submit, um, the errors that we want to have corrected.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to go through each one, Mr. Miller, just a s-, ---
MR. MILLER: Judge, I don’t – I don’t have any interest in trying to have any kind of meeting with Mr. Grodner to reach agreements with (inaudible).
THE COURT: That’s what we’re doing now.
MR. MILLER: Uh, oh, okay.
THE COURT: Uh, I don’t know about agreements.
I ---
MR. MILLER: Well, I thought he was saying he wanted you to send us somewhere to come back to you ---
THE COURT: No, no.
MR. MILLER: --- with our agreements about, uh --
THE COURT: I’m not doing this – doing this in Court.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Um, Judge, I’m going to go back to an-, another point that I keep saying. Um, first, your obligation as a trier of fact is to make ultimate findings of fact, not to find every potential fact in the case, not to find all the facts that one party wants you to find or not find, but to determine the ultimate fact findings that support your order, your conclusions of law. You made those ultimate findings to support it. There – there is plenty of case law that Mr. Grodner can go and locate if he looks that recites that as black letter law for purposes of court orders. What he’s trying to do is re-litigate the case, re-litigate the order, and/or appeal the order in some way through a collateral attack under Rule 60. The law does not permit that, and Your Honor shouldn’t condone that at all. And that ends this part of this. Now, I-I – I – again, I-I – you know, uh, but for his lack of – of perhaps legal experience and training, it is simply appalling that someone would take up the time of the Court over this kind of thing.
If a lawyer tried to do this, it wouldn’t be countenanced. A-and – and he’s had two good lawyers, and he’s been, um, aand I’m sure been getting advice elsewhere. Um, but with regard to him wanting to add an issue about multiple marriages, for what purpose? Why is that a necessary finding? What is the excusable neglect, the mistake, the whatever it is that he thinks requires that – the Court to reconsider, reopen its order and add something to its order? Um, you don’t have to do that, nor is it required, nor is it relevant in any way to the validity and the effectiveness of this order. It is simply something that he wants to do for his own personal purposes. With regard to the second issue, um, y-you – you may remember that the – his mother was in the country, that there was evidence about he’s taking her back to Poland because her visa has expired; she’s got to go back. My client testified about the fact that she could only be here for a limited period of time, and that she was overstaying her time. And the evidence, I think, was that she was on appeal of the status of her visa at the time to try and stay in the country. That was the evidence that the Court got. And so Your Honor, in the finding about the fact that his mother was a Polish citizen who was in this country on an uncertain immigration status, was the exact, precise finding of where we were at that time. Nobody knew whether she was going to be to stay or get kicked out of the country or have to leave the country. That was the evidence before you. That finding is based upon the evidence that was before the Court. There’s nothing to redo there. And he doesn’t get to recast the case at this stage, two years later. Um, with regard to the – the defendant’s mother as the difficulties, you, as the trier of fact, determined the credibility of the witnesses in the case. My client testified at length about difficulties with his mother when she came here. You may recall that he – she even called him in Texas about an assault that his mother perpetrated on her. She even took a polygraph examination to satisfy him that she was telling the truth about what her – his mother did to her. There – there was a lot of evidence about those difficulties that arose as a result of his mother’s involvement in their life, so much so that he took – he – he told this lady, “I’m taking her back to Poland. I’m taking her to the airport in New Jersey,” and he goes around and secretly rents an apartment to put his mother in to leave his child at when he says his, uh, the child’s going to be with a Polish babysitter. Now, why would you do that if there weren’t problems that – that the mother of the child was having with his mother? You determined the credibility there and made an accurate finding of fact. With re-, and – and he doesn’t get to re-litigate that, Judge, at this stage under Rule 60.
THE COURT: And you are talking about C?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, what about the date? Um, Mr.
Grodner’s allegation is that Rule 60, saying that the date, as a conflict, or date of the issue between, uh, Mom, Mr. Grodner’s mom and your client, um, said it was incorrectly put as October 31st. Everybody agreed that the date was April 19th, 2012.
MR. MILLER: That – that – that maybe the ca-, I
don’t – frankly don’t remember right now. I ---
THE COURT: Do you remember ---
MR. MILLER: --- I was going to the substance. THE COURT: Do you disagree with that April, um, 19th, 2012?
MS. SUMMERLIN: There were incidents on both of
those dates. So there was a ---
MR. GRODNER: Objection to your witness. I mean --
THE COURT: I – I looked at her. I was asking her if she disagreed with that date --- MR. GRODNER: But she’s not ---
THE COURT: --- that you were suggesting --- MR. GRODNER: --- sworn in. She is represented by a – an attorney, and how does – she’s given the right to speak?
THE COURT: I asked her directly. You were looking down. I looked right at her. I said, “Do you disagree with that date?”
MR. GRODNER: So I guess I object because
prejudicial. I mean ---
THE COURT: It’s not prejudicial, sir. It’s
nothing prejudicial. I asked her did she agree to see if I can get an agreement on this modification.
MR. GRODNER: R-right. But this is not about her testimony or what she’s saying. It’s about a court order. This is under Rule 60, and this is about what has been written in the order and, uh, findings of fact. So yeah, I just want to raise ---
THE COURT: All right. Go on to D.
MR. MILLER: Uh, I-I’m not sure what – I-I guess Bridge Court is – he says is not a correct address statement or whatever. Um, there’s no question that – that the evidence – he was living in a two-bedroom duplex unit in Winterville, North Carolina. Um, that other item is – I-I mean, so what? It doesn’t make a bit of difference. It’s not critical to your order. There’s no reason to contest it one way or the other. He doesn’t tell you what the correct address should have been. He just makes a blanket statement, “No such address exists.” That’s insufficient for this Court to do anything, clerical error or otherwise. I-I guess he wants you to make some investigation about the address. The ultimate finding was about where he was living, that – that he didn’t know who his neighbors were, or he – you know, he – he was a loner, and he didn’t – he didn’t have any friends. He put his mother in a two-bedroom duplex secretly, um, in Winterville. Um, E, I-I-I – I don’t even know what – what that’s about, Judge. But it – but in terms of the memorandum and order, um, i-it says whatever it said. It did whatever it did. You then entered a final order in the case, and that’s not a necessary substantial critical relevant, um, finding except in a procedural context that – that there was a (inaudible) memorandum that limited these folks, both of them, from removing the child. Um, a-and I guess that he – he wants this Court, uh, to now do something new and different for what purpose? What – why are we here about that? Um, you know, i-if he wanted to say there was a factual error, that there was no evidence that supported it, that’s what an appeal is for. That’s not what this rule is for. Um, finding of fact, Paragraph 2 says during the marriage at the title change, this had to do with a townhouse that my client owned before the marriage. You – you may remember there were documents that were introduced. There was evidence from my client. She didn’t know any lawyer in Gastonia. The refinancing was at his instance (phonetic).
The retitling was at his instance (phonetic). Um, and it was all done at his request and at his demand. Um, and that accurately states what occurred. (pause) The – you’ve already discussed G. So I – I – I mean, the evidence was there on all the ultimate relevant facts, um, for – to support the Court’s order. No-, none of these other issues have any merit or substance, uh, that – that require, uh, relief. If there was relief, it should have been by appeal. It wasn’t appealed. That’s the situation.
THE COURT: Do you want to respond, Mr. Gr-, uh, Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: Uh, it’s, uh (clears throat), it’s (inaudible) on time and I can’t go through everything Mr.
Miller said. But he said at some point that Mr. Grodner is, uh (clears throat), asking for change of the address and he didn’t provide the correct address. But it says, under 35-B of my motion, it’s 4118 Bridge Court, Winterville. So I’m just submitting to the Court that this statement has been, uh, inaccurate, what Mr. Miller described. He – there’s a lot of prejudicial statements towards me. And I submit to this Court that, uh, because of those incorrect statements, it has been prevailing throughout the whole proceedings, um, I don’t think that I have a fair hearing. Um, but, um, and the fact that I cannot object to anything that Mr. Miller is saying, um, uh, and having the part of the, um, you know, uh, (inaudible), uh, sort of stop Mr. Miller from saying things that are prejudicial and false or sub-, doesn’t give me, um, you know, a fair trial. So thank you.
THE COURT: Do you want to be heard any further ---
MR. MILLER: No, sir.
4:06:37 – JUDGE RULES ON MOTION
THE COURT: --- Mr. Miller? All right. Um, the
Court had made ultimate findings of fact and made a determination that the order was appropriate. At a time that signing and filing of the order, I am going to grant the motion in D and strike out 411-A Bridge Court Street. Um, and I’ve already addressed $1,007 in G. Otherwise, the remaining, uh, allegations as, uh, grounds under Rule 60, uh, to, uh, modify the existing order that was entered on January 9th are denied. And what I’m going to do is instruct Mr.
Miller to draft an order with those, uh, conclusions on all the allegations, uh, and a motion for reconsideration and relief, um, and to make the modifications as required that I alluded to earlier. Uh, I’m going to ask that you submit that proposed order in seven business days.
MR. MILLER: Uh, can I have a little bit longer than that, Judge? I ---
THE COURT: Fourteen business days?
MR. MILLER: I-I’ll – I’ll do my best to get it done by then.
THE COURT: All right. Um, and then, uh, Mr.
Grodner, any objections you have to the proposed, uh, order on the 60-B, uh, motion that you filed, uh, you’ll need to submit that, uh, in writing to Ms. Brown. After I’ve reviewed any objections you might have, then I’ll review the order, make a final determination of what I think’s appropriate, and I’ll sign and file that order, and y’all can take whatever actions you feel appropriate from that point forward.
MR. MILLER: Judge, just so I can be clear: 411-
A Bridge Court Street is being stricken ---
THE COURT: Right.
MR. MILLER: --- just that portion of that --- THE COURT: That’s right.
MR. MILLER: --- that finding. Um, and, uh, I would assume that that’s based not on B, which, uh, but on A, which is the clerical error ---
THE COURT: Clerical. MR. MILLER: --- section --- THE COURT: Clerical.
MR. MILLER: --- of the statute. And the 1,007 is also the clerical ---
THE COURT: Clerical.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
THE COURT: Anything further as to the order?
MR. MILLER: No, no, sir.
THE COURT: Anything further as to the order, Mr. Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: Um, I just have a question about the process. Uh, what do I have the rights to? Do I have any rights to give any comments to the proposed order by Mr. Miller’s (inaudible)?
THE COURT: Y-, uh, I just went through and explained that. He’s got 14 days to submit the proposed order to you.
MR. GRODNER: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And then, once you get the proposed order, I’m going to give you, um, 14 days ---
MR. GRODNER: Mm.
THE COURT: --- to submit any objections you have to the language of that order or anything written in that order? Submit that in writing to Ms. Brown and Mr. Miller. I’ll then review the proposed order, your proposed objections. I’ll make a final determination of what – what I think I said and what I believe is a(n) appropriate ruling in the case. And then I’ll sign the final order, and then any rights you may have at that point in time, you can certainly review that and consider any further relief.
MR. GRODNER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right?
MR. GRODNER: Is there ---
MR. MILLER: Um, Judge, I’m gonna – I’m gonna, uh, send the order to Mr. Grodner as a PDF attachment to an e-mail. Um, under a prior order, his only communication will be as – be by e-mail. Um, and so, uh, I-I – that’s – that’s the way I propose to send the order to him.
THE COURT:
just, uh --- Uh, yeah, that’s fine. I mean,
MR. MILLER:
that because --- Well, I – I just wanted him to know
THE COURT: to him and Ms. Brown. If you’ll send it – your e-mail both
MR. MILLER: Yes, yes, sir. I will.
THE COURT: All right. I just don’t want to
have individual contact with either one of you because I’m not allowed to do that. All right. Anything else, Mr.
Grodner?
MR. GRODNER: Uh, just in relation to what Your Honor said about, uh, me communicating with Ms. Brown. I’m sort of confused. Um, in light of the letter that I received from this Court, um, it says that contact with Ms. Brown at my office regarding the case is considered to be ex parte contact with the Court, which is strictly prohibited by the state’s bar rules of professional conduct, as well as judicial ethics of North Carolina. (clears throat) And I was just told that I need to communicate with Ms. Brown about this order. Uh, later on, actually, in this letter it says that, um, I’m supposed to just communicate with her, actually, uh, in terms of scheduling hearings. So I feel like what has been just told that I’m supposed to do, I’m supposed to be in violation of the letter that this Court --- THE COURT: No, I-I’m not trying to set you up. I’m giving you specific permission aside from that order.
Oh, normally, uh, that letter complies. Aside from that, I’m giving you, in this instant, the permission to send your email directly to her about what you disagree with about the proposed order. Okay? If you’d rather send it to Lisa Fornes in our office, we’ll get, uh, that e-mail address, and you can send it directly to her, and she’ll provide it to me, if you don’t want to – and – and I understand if you’re cautious about Ms. Brown. That’s fine. We’ll get another option for you.
MR. GRODNER: Okay. I just wanted Your Honor, uh, mentioned this as an order and never corrected itself. Am I supposed to understand that this letter has been sent to me is an order?
THE COURT: It’s just making you aware of
certain things that’s being observed. I mean, if you violate it, those remedies that I discussed could definitely be applied because ---
MR. GRODNER: But ---
THE COURT: --- you’re making ex parte
communications with court – the judge’s staff, which is just like contacting the judge, and you can’t do that.
MR. GRODNER: And ---
THE COURT: If you want to file a motion to
address that in open court, that’s permitted. But just like trying to go through Ms. Brown or trying to get information about those records, that’s not the course of action you’re permitted to take. And I was just making sure you’re aware of that because you continued to contact Ms. Brown when she had told you she couldn’t do anything.
MR. GRODNER: And in this letter, Your Honor says about some contact and doesn’t provide any examples. And I am, um, unaware of any such contact that Your Honor just cited. So I have a problem interpreting this letter ---
THE COURT: Well, that letter speaks for itself.
I can’t say it no plainer than what I did in that letter. I mean, it’s plain as I could possibly put it. I can’t break it down any further. It speaks for itself.
MR. GRODNER: And what instances of the communication Your Honor referred to?
THE COURT: It’s in that letter. Everything I want to get across to you is in that letter.
MR. GRODNER: Can I ask Your Honor to take the letter and read out the instances of communication?
THE COURT: No. That letter is exactly what I meant to get across to you and is plain as day.
MR. GRODNER: Um ---
THE COURT: I’m going to write you down – let me get Ms., um, Forne’s contact information. (pause) Hey. Um, because the information I provided Mr. Grodner about contact, future contact with Ms. Brown, he’s going to submit potentially a, uh, letter about a proposal that Mr. Miller is going to do. Uh, and I wanted to e-mail it to your address so you could provide it to me so he wouldn’t potentially – he feels like he may potentially be in, uh, violation of that letter. So let me get your e-mail address. Uh-huh. Little L? Okay. Okay. Okay. (pause) All right. All right. Thank you. All right. Any questions about the timeframes? Fourteen day – business days, and then 14 business days to respond. And here’s the e-mail address that you can respond to.
MR. MILLER: Judge, the – I-I’m not sure I have her e-mail address. Do you want me just to send mine to Ms. Brown and she give it to ---
THE COURT: You can send yours to Ms. Brown if you like. The point is she’ll hold it, and then when Mr. Grodner gets his, Lisa Fornes will provide that to me, so he does not have to go through Kay Brown, who has expressed her concern and desire for him to stop contacting her about matters that she’s not permitted to talk about.
MR. MILLER: So I-I’ll – I’ll tell Ms. Brown that she should let Ms. Fornes know that I’ve delivered, or Ms. Brown will let you know that I’ve delivered it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MILLER: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Thank y’all for your time.
4:15:09 P.M. - END OF HEARING [END OF TRANSCRIPT]
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF PITT FILE NO. 13-CVD-398 _________________________
] HUNTER GRODNER, ] Plaintiff ]
] v. ] ] ANDRZEJ GRODNER, ]
Defendant. ]
]
CERTIFICATE
I, Bonnie T. Ruffin, do hereby certify that said
hearing, pages 1 through 90, inclusive, is a true, correct and verbatim transcript of said proceeding.
I further certify that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was heard; and further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto, and am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
______________________
Bonnie T. Ruffin, NCCP
Ruffin Consulting, Inc.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF PITT FILE NO. 13-CVD-398 _________________________
] HUNTER GRODNER, ] Plaintiff ]
] v. ] ] ANDRZEJ GRODNER, ]
Defendant. ]
]
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I, Bonnie T. Ruffin, NCCP, do hereby certify that the
above-entitled case was delivered and/or mailed to the requestor as indicated below on the 10th day of March, 2017. This Certificate covers the hearing held on December 14, 2016, which transcript is 91 pages in total.
______________________ Bonnie T. Ruffin, NCCP
Ruffin Consulting, Inc.
Delivered/Mailed To: Andrzej Grodner (Pro Se) P.O. Box 3571
Greenville, NC 27836 Phone: 252-558-3040 agrodnercase@gmail.com
Jeffrey L. Miller, attorney for Plaintiff (COD only)
Miller & Audino, LLP
2510 East 10th Street
Greenville, NC 27858 (252) 493-6138
jeff@millerandaudino.com
NC Court of Appeals, PO Box 2779, Raleigh, NC 27602
