Opinion ID: 2366295
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rebecca's Motion For Order To Show Cause And Ken's Motion For Reconsideration

Text: The deadline passed for Ken to refinance the house and make the cash payment to Rebecca. Rebecca moved for an order to show cause. Ken responded that the findings and conclusions were internally inconsistent because the terms on Ken's spreadsheet varied from the terms recited on the record, and that he would be irreparably harmed if forced to refinance the home to pay an amount that he may not owe. The court held an expedited hearing on the motion for order to show cause. Rebecca's attorney argued that the transcript showed unambiguously that Ken had agreed to pay Rebecca: Ken did not object on the record when this term was recited, he stated that he could refinance within 60 days in order to make the payment, and he affirmed that he understood and agreed to the recited terms. Rebecca's attorney also made an argument related to off-the-record settlement negotiations, but the court admonished that it could not consider such discussions. [4] The court ultimately held in abeyance whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on the motion for order to show cause, but said that based on the transcript . . . it's pretty clear that the parties made an agreement . . . to disagree regarding the values, and instead they distributed the property the way that they chose. . . . [M]ost importantly, [Ken] made this offer [to pay Rebecca]. . . . Ken moved for reconsideration. He argued that if he was truly required to pay Rebecca $47,121.04, it would effect a distribution of 63% to Rebecca and 37% to Ken, yet there was no discussion on the record of this disparity. [5] Further, Ken argued that it was bizarrely coincidental that the exact amount needed to make the distribution equal, a $47,121.04 payment to Ken, is alleged to be the exact amount the parties agreed that Ken would pay to Rebecca. Ken did not submit any affidavits in support of his motion. In opposing Ken's motion, Rebecca again emphasized the clarity of the record with regard to Ken's agreement to pay. In support of her opposition, Rebecca submitted the affidavit of her accountant, Paul Wichorek, who was present during negotiations and who corroborated Rebecca's version of events. The court denied reconsideration, stating that [t]he transcript of the parties' settlement clearly shows that the parties agreed to disagree regarding the valuation of assets and instead agreed to settle on the basis of the terms set forth in the [findings of fact and conclusions of law] and on the record. [6] Ken appeals.