- 7 - spect to each of the issues that are separately set forth in such party’s statement of issues required by (2) above. * * * * * * * ORDERED that the statement of issues required to be included in each party’s further trial memorandum, as ordered above, shall govern the admissibility of evidence at the further trial in this case in that evidence offered at such further trial by a party shall be deemed irrelevant unless it pertains to one or more of the issues set forth in such party’s statement of issues. It is further ORDERED that neither party shall be allowed to advance a position or theory underlying that position with respect to any of the issues required to be in- cluded in the statement of issues, as ordered above, which is different from the position and theory as to each such issue required to be included in the state- ment of positions and theories, as ordered above. * * * The Court held the further trial in this case on August 21 through 23, 2000. FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been stipulated and are so found except as stated herein. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in San Rafael, California. Petitioner, who was born in Russia, immigrated to the United States in June 1979. During the years at issue, petitioner and Ms. Brodsky were married. They divorced sometime after 1993.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011