- 30 -
taxes he owes, nor the support he was ordered to pay to
me by the Court. * * * [Reproduced literally.]
In petitioner’s November 1, 2001 letter, petitioner informed
respondent that she was challenging the accuracy of an appraisal
that had been performed on the marital residence in which she
resided. With respect to that issue, petitioner’s November 1,
2001 letter stated in pertinent part:
on September 16, 1999, there was a fire in the marital
home. The home has not been restored from the fire
damage to date. * * *
* * * * * * *
The appraiser we had agreed on in Court, Mr. Donald
Reape, knew that both parties were to be present at the
time the house was appraised * * *. When asked later
why he continued on with the appraisal despite the fact
that I was not present, he said that he had thought
that the woman who was taking care of the house, was
me. * * *
Mr. Reape performed the appraisal of the marital home
as if it had already been restored from the fire, and
allowed a $50,000 allowance for repairs in spite of the
fact that no insurance money had been given. On August
2, 2001, checks were released by the insurance company
totaling more than $124,000. My husband’s law firm
still holds these funds and will not release them.
In February of 2001, I had the home appraised again by
a certified appraiser. His estimate was almost
$300,000 less than the former appraisal done by Mr.
Reape. * * *
There is a $425,000 note on the marital residence. If,
the house were sold in the condition that it is in, for
its full value, that would leave less than $200,000 to
divide between the parties. * * * [Reproduced liter-
ally.]
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011