Opinion ID: 1940471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Second Formal Hearing

Text: The second hearing on the merits was scheduled for April 11, 2002. Respondent appeared at that time, along with his counsel. Respondent testified on his own behalf and called his wife, attorney Kathryn Hill, to testify before the committee. Though the ODC had secured Ms. Seidman's presence at the second hearing, in order that she would be available to be cross-examined by respondent, respondent chose not to call her to testify. In his testimony concerning the debt owed to Ms. Seidman, respondent admitted that the written evidence reflected that as of October 1994, the principal balance on the note was $14,132. Nevertheless, respondent asserted that the actual balance due Ms. Seidman at that time was somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to $12,000. Respondent conceded that he had no receipts or other documentation to establish that he had repaid the principal balance down to that amount, but he testified that regardless of that fact, Ms. Seidman told him both before and after he bailed her out of jail that the balance due on the note would be forgiven: A. . . . [S]he said you don't have to pay me, you don't have to pay me at all, I said, well, Denise, thank you very much, but I need you to get the note and mark it paid or cancelled and return it to me and my wife. Q. What was the reason for her willingness to forgive the debt? A. I don't know. I expect because of friendship and our past relationship, but she did it unilaterally. She said, you don't have to pay me back, forget about it completely.