1] thomas A. Morton 023374 THOMAS A, MORTON, PLLC 2] 2916 N. 7 Ave., Ste. 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 (602) 595-6870 tom samortonlaw.com 4] attorney for Petitioner 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 7| In re the ™: of ) ) No. FC2016-009166 JORDAN NEIGHBORS, PETITIONER’ S PRETRIAL 9 Petitioner, STATEMENT 10] and trial set for October 3, 3017 at 1330 ) ) ) ) 11] ALEXANDER NEIGHBORS, ) 12 Respondent. (Assigned Bewa: B Petitioner, through counsel, ma etrial statement 4 for trial set for October 3, 2017 at A -NATURE OF THE ACTION 16 This is a dissolution of a non-covenant age with minor 7 dren. 18 B NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES 19 Petitioner: Jordan Neighbors 20 1040 E. Oak Street 21 Phoenix, AZ 85006 = Respondent: Alexander J. Neighbors 23 1411 W. Megan Street 4 Chandler, AZ 85224 25 || NAMES AND DATES OF BIRTH OF MINOR CHILDREN . Ayvah Neighbors, October 20, 2009 27 Jocelyn Neighbors, September 10, 2012Oliver Neighbors, July 28, 20 LENGTH OF TRIAL The Court set trial for three hours. WITNESSES 1. Petitioner 2. Respondent EXHIBITS 1. Petitioner's Affidavit of Financial Information 2. Respondent's Affidavit of Financial Information 3. Photographs 4. Petitioner's Discovery Reque: 5. Police Reports 6. Text messages between the parties 7, Text message from former Respondent’s Facebook Text messages between Petitioner and Guy Neighbors criminal court information re: ding Guy Neighbors 11. Civil court information regarding Guy Neighbors 12. Correspondence between c ounsel and Respondent 13. Child Support Worksheet STIPULATIONS OR AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES None UNCONTESTED FACTS 1. The parties were married on February 21 in Chandler, Arizona. 2. The parties are the natural parents of Ayvah Neighbors, born October 20, 20097 Joc: Neighbors, born 2aoe September 10, 2012; and Oliver Neighbors, born July 28, 2015. 3, Neither party seeks spousal maintenance. I CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW eaal_Deci king and Parent. me Petitioner should have sole legal decision making and the parties should have equal parenting time pursuant to the schedule iat Judge Suzanne Cohen ordered on December 20, 2016'. Respondent has demonstrated that he cannot or will not co-parent with Petitioner. He has used this proceeding to harass Petitioner, embarrass her, and needlessly increase her attorney’s fees. Furthermore, he has repeatedly proven that he refuses to follow rules or respect boundaries. He has filed repeated frivolous documents with the Court and has refused to follow the Court's orders. The Court has entered sanctions against him several times, yet he continues to file his ridiculous pleadings and still refuses to follow the Court’s orders. Aside from his conduct in this proceeding, he has selectively followed court orders regarding parenting time, insisting on following the Court’s orders when it is inconvenient for Petitioner, yet violating court orders whenever he pleases. ‘Mother shall have parenting time with the minor children each week on Monday and Tuesday. In on, Mother shall have parenting time on the 2 weekends each month she is off of work. The weekends are defined as Friday after school until the next exchange. Mother shall provide Father with her known weekends Sff as soon as possible. Father shall have parenting time with fhe minor children each week on Wednesday and Thursday. In Sddition, Father shall have parenting time 2 weekends each month. The weekends are the weekends not designated to Mother and aze defined as Friday after school until return to school on Nonday. The parties shall allow family members [to] transport the minor children where available to do so.” 3i we nas traded parenting time with Petitioner, only to accept the time he requested but withhold the time he promised Petitioner 3] iater. He unreasonably withheld the children from Petitioner 4] when she filed for divorce, sta’ ng that Petitioner must face the consequences of filing for divorce and not see her childre: He refuses to cooperate regarding things as simple and necessary as 6 7) doctor appointments and medical treatment for the children. He 8 schedules activities for the children during Petitioner’s o| parenting time. He withholds the children from Petitioner during 10| ner parenting time for 24 hours if she cannot pick them up on 1] time because of her work schedule rather than st turning the 12] children over when Petitioner leaves wo! Petitioner lodged 13] many text messages as evidence illustrating all of this behavior. 14] petitioner also lodged messages from the p: ties’ former nanny illustrating how difficult Respondent likes to make life for 16| people around him. Respondent even attempted to prevent 17] Petitioner to making a long-planned trip to Idaho to visit her 18| elderly grandparents for Christmas. Petitioner was forced to 19] successfully seek a court order to make the trip. Respondent’s 20| reason for attempting to block the trip? Petitioner must face a1] the consequences of filing for divorce’. As Respondent has 22) clearly demonstrated in this proceeding, it is impossible to work 23 24 | ——_———_ . Respondent made this statement in writing, and Petitioner 25) nas lodged it as an exhibit. 26 Spespondent also violated the preliminary injunction by jai cancelling Petitioner’s automotive and medical insurance 25 271 “consequence” of filing for divorce. As the Court can see, Respondent is a very controlling person who will never cooperate 28} with Petitioner.with him. Father has not acted in the children’s best interest. Petitioner and the children have a wonderful relationship. They have thrived with Petitioner back in their lives after Respondent withheld the children from her until the Court's temporary orders hearing®. She has always been a big part of their lives, even while she completes her residency for her specialty (0B/GYN). Although she has an arduous work schedule now, she believes that this sacrifice will be well worth it for the children in the very near future. Petitioner loves the children and the children love her. In addition to Petitioner, the children have a very close relationship to Petitioner’s parents, their maternal grandparents. Petitioner’s parents have frequently helped di Petitioner with the children through th cult divorce and have always helped both parties with the children even before this divorce. Respondent now claims that Petitioner’s mother is some sort of menace (although he offers very little in the way of specifics), but he had no problem with her providing the children’s care before he received service of process in this matter. The children love their grandparents and their *Respondent has also refused to release the children to Petitioner's parents, in spite of Judge Suzanne Cohen's order that he do so. Judge Cohen specifically ordered on the record that Respondent shail not interfere with Petitioner's parents during Petitioner’s parenting time because, as Judge Cohen said, “It takes a village to raise a child.” Of course, Respodnent has disregarded this and continually interferes with Petitioner’s parents. tudge Cohen even commented at the temporary orders hearing that she did not like that both parties frequently testified on the subject of when Respondent would “allow” Petitioner to see the children.6 7 8 grandparents love them. To deprive the children of their grandparents, as Respondent will undoubtedly do should he get the chance, is not in their best interests. Petitioner is in good mental and physical health Petitioner worries about Respondent's mental health (see, ©-9-, most of his court filings, and his persistence in violating court orders}, but believes that the children are physically safe with him. However, Petitioner is deeply concerned regarding the mental health of Respondent's father. She has lodged as exhibits several text messages of Respondent’s father threatening her and cursing her out, as well as documents regarding his federal criminal matter. He was charged with t cking in stolen property and spent many months or years in a federal mental institution because he could not stand ¢ . After several years, he was released due to the delay. He then proceeded to file a federal civil action against Petitioner, her mother, Petitioner's counsel, and Petitioner’s former counsel because they mentioned his criminal charges in a pre-hearing statement. He eventually filed a notice of claim against the US District Court for dismissing the suit. Petitioner lodged as exhibits some of his pleadings and motions in federal court. They are rambling, incoherent tirades that give rise to concern for his mental health. The reason this is relevant is because Respondent's father frequently provides care for the children during Respondent's parenting time. Respondent will claim that his father does not live in Arizona, but as the Court can see from the exhibits, he spends much time in A ona, often giving Respondent's address as his own address. Petitioner does not 6want the children left alone with Respondent's father due to his apparent mental health problems and obvious hostility to Petitioner. Obviously, Petitioner is the parent more likely to allow frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent. Petitioner has never withheld the children from Respondent, but Respondent completely withheld the children from Petitioner in an pparent attempt to teach her a lesson regarding the consequences of filing for divorce from He even continues to withhold the children from Petitioner sometimes, for example when he reneges on agreements to swap parenting time and when he withholds the children for 24 hours wi en Petitioner's work schedule prevents her from picking up the children (even when petitioner’s parents attempt to pick up the children). Respondent has clearly attempted to mislead the Court “to cause an unnecessary delay, to increase the cost of litigation or to persuade the court to give a legal de! on-making or a parenting time preference to that parent.” Examples include his numerous attempts to mislead the Court regarding when Petitioner called the police to report that Respondent assaulted her when she attempted to see the parties’ children. Respondent frequently claims that the officer said and did certain things that are clearly contrary to the contents of the police report, which Petitioner lodged as an exhibit. Further examples include is frequent filings that he makes in violation of the Court’s orders that he seek leave before filing, and that are obviously dishonest and calculated to increase the cost of litigation.woke oe 4 8 Therefore, Petitioner asks the Cou + to grant her sole legal decision making authority over the children with equal parenting time as described in Footnote 1. chi. ort. Father earns $10,167.50 per month. Mother earns $4,508.00 per month. The parties have three children under the age of 12 years and neither party has additional children. Respondent pays nd vision insurance. The $40.94 per month for medical, dental, parties have equal parenting time. Therefore, the Court should order Respondent to pay child support in the amount of $447.30 order Respondent to pay for 69% of uninsured medical per mont! costs; and order Respondent to claim two children every year on his tax returns and Petitioner to claim one child every year on her tax returns. Community P. rt Respondent has alternately refused and promised to respond to discovery, but has never done so. Petitioner filed a motion to compel on August 24, 2017 to which Respondent never filed a response and on which the Court has not ruled. Therefore, the property portion of this statement is difficult. Respondent has a 401(k) through his employment and has dedu ions from his earnings for “ESP2,” which may be a savings account or retirement account. He also has earned p nts toward a pension with the artment of Defense and participates in a Roth IRA and the Thrift Savings Plan through his service in the National Guard. The Court should evenly divide these assets. Furthermore, Respondent owns a sole and separate home, which 8ine purchased during the marriage and for which the marital 2|| community has made 100% of the down payment and payments. The 3] mar ital community has a lien on Respondent’s sole and separate 4| real estate pursuant to Drahos v. Rens and Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell= Kilbourn. However, Respondent refused to answer discovery 6|| regarding the home and the debt secured by the home. Therefore, 7] eetitioner asks the Court to order Respondent to acquire an at his own expense (parties to agree on identity of prais 9|| appraiser), disclose the purchase contr and all mortgage 10| statements, and pay Petitioner her half of the community interest 11] pursuant to a subsequent Drahos calculation. ne Petitioner asks the Court to order thet each party will keep 13] the personal property currently in his or her possession, 14] including vehicles. 15 Debt 16 7 Petitioner has the following debts: USAA credit card ig) (924/838.93)7 USDOE PHEAA student loam (575,772); and DSLCPYMNTS jo | student loan ($19,518). The credit card is a community debt and gp | Most of the student loans are sole and separate. 21 Respondent disclosed the following additional debts: Navy 32|| Federal home loan ($152,000); USAA home loan ($65,500); AES 23|] student loan ($6,000); and ED Financial student loan ($2,300). 24] These are all sole and separate debts. 25 Petitioner asks the Court to order Respondent to pay the 26] USAA credit card and that she pay the comm y portion of her 27] student loans.Discovery Respondent has failed to pro answers to discovery, le in spite of his occasional promises to do so. He has not responded to the motion to compel filed August 24, 2017 and has therefore admitted the allegations therein. Because he has dled in bad faith to provide his answers to discovery, the Court should make every negative inference against Respondent on every disputed issue. The Court should find that Respondent was tempting to hide information damaging to his positions in this matter. Contempt The Court should find Respondent in contempt of Court for his willful and repeated violations of the Court’s order that he seek leave before filing additional motions, pleadings, notices, etc. On September 13, 2017, the Cou: t st ted in its Minute Entry of that date: “LET THE RECORD REFLECT that Respondent is advised that the Court will not tolerate his abuse of process and his repeated willful violations of the Court’s Orders as set out above. The Court will consider using its crim: nal contempt powers to impose criminal monetary sanctions and incarceration if Respondent continues to willfully violate the Court’s Orders.” Just one week later, on September 20, 2017, Respondent again thumbed his nose at the Court when he led his Legal Notice of Marital Dissolution without first seeking the Court’s leave. This filing is not only in violation of the Court’s orders (again), but is yet another obvious attempt to harass and embarrass Petitioner. Because Respondent obviously does not care 10BR 2 21 28 to follow court orders, even in the face of the Court’s numerous monetary sanctions against him, Petitioner asks t! e Court to impose every available contempt sanction that the Court deems appropriate. Respondent will obviously continue to do whatever he wants no matter what the Court orders until the Court imposes @ severe enough sanction on Respondent Attorney's Fees and Respondent should pay for all of Petition! r/s attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner will spa: Court a listing of every unreasonable filing and every filing made in violation of the Court’s orders, but the Court s already struck several of Respondent's filings and imposed sanctions several times‘, yet Respondent persists. Additionally, Judge Cohen found Respondent to be a vexatious litigant after he filed nearly 30 motions and notices in the span of approximately one month. One of his motions was a motion for temporary orders without notice based largely on the fact that he did not like that Petitioner had left nim. He has also unreasonably failed to respond to discovery and has taken unreasonable positions on the issues in this matter, such as that Petitioner’s act of moving out of the marital residence “gave Final Authoritative Decision making to the children’s father” (see Page 4, Paragraph o, Respondent’s pre- hearing statement filed December 16, 2016) and that he should dictate when and if Petitioner has parenting time. Finally, *Respondent’s deadline to pay the anctions has not yet expired. ivawe Respondent has made several outlandish claims about Petitioner and her parents, but has provided no evidence to support his claims. He also has a far greater ability to pay attorney’s fees and costs, as he earns approximately $10,000 per month while Petitioner earns about $4,500 per month. J _ DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURE Petitioner has met her disclosure and a: covery requizements. Respondent has failed to answer discovery or make disclosure. K SETTLEMENT The parties have not discussed settlement in good faith. Petitioner made a settlement offer (lodged as an exhibit) to which Respondent never responded, opting instead to make threats of criminal prosecution. L- VERBATIM RECORD For the Record will make a verbatim record of trial. A celts RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4 day September, 2017. THOMAS A. MORTON, PLLC Morton Attorney for Petitioner wa 12copy mailed this G7 day of September, Alexander J. Neighbors 1411 W. Megan Street Chandler, AZ 85224 Respondent in pro per By “A Dw aleiler's Information Firm Information Case Number Case Summary Filing Details Receipt ID: 4736750 Authorized Date: 9/27/2017 11:17:17 PM ‘Thomas Andrew Morton Email: tom@thomasamortonlaw.com Thomas A. Morton, Attorney 2916N. 7th Ave., Ste. 100 Phoenix, AZ 85013 Phone: 602-595-6870 FC2016-009166 Neighbors Vs. Neighbors / Fox, Dewain Attorney Information Bar No.: 023374 - State: AZ - Email: Filing Fee 80 Documents Attached to Filing Document Title Document Type Petitioner's Pretrial Statement Statement Ifyou have any questions about your filing, please contact us: Clerk of Court Address Filing Support Phone 201 West Jefferson (602) 37; LERK Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Clerk of Court Web Site hutp://elerkofcourt.maricopa.gov