John Walsh files housing lawsuit against Meghan Walsh

Watch the archived recording

Automatically generated transcript of the archived recording.

29:30 Thank you.

30:00 Thank you.

48:00 I called a series of people to confirm my understanding of what is a reasonable rate in the community. All of the series of people to confirm my understanding of what is a reasonable rate in the community. And were you given sufficient time to review the documents and to have the change in the world? Yes. Are you familiar with the local rates and time customarily expended in the 19th Judicial

48:37 Circuit for partition matters? Yes. And do you believe the fees in this case were required to achieve success in this case? It certainly appears that way, yes. And are they within the realm that you have found to be customarily awarded in litigation of this kind? Within that, the range would consider reasonable for the locale, the geographic area of Indian River County and the 19th Circuit, yes. Now I'd like to turn to the Roe factors, the Roe v. Forta Patients Compensation Fund factors.

49:13 Did you review the invoices to review the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the skill requisites? Yes. Yes. And did you review the likelihood of parent of the client that the acceptance of the particular employment would conclude me from other employment? Yes, I did. Did you review the fee customarily charged in the locality? Yes, I did that by contacting other folks throughout the 19th Circuit.

49:44 And the amount involved in the results obtained factor? Yes, I did as well. Correct. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances? I wasn't aware of any, but I did review that factor. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client? Yes, I did that as well. The experience, reputation, and ability of a lawyer and lawyers performing the services? That as well, yes, correct. And then the, whether the fee is fixed or contingent?

50:15 Repeat that, I'm sorry? whether the fee is fixed or contingent or the type of fee scale. I reviewed that issue as well. Did you also review the factors laid out in the quarter rule of professional responsibility for dash 1.5? Yes, I did. And did you look at any sort of discounts given on the bills, waiving of certain things, you know, discounting the overall bill, discounting hourly rates?

50:47 Yes, I did and I applied several miles and I can explain further if you'd like. Did you find the hourly rates to be too high, too low, or did you find that they were where they should be? They were within the range for Indian River County, yes. Were you able to ascertain from the billing records whether discovery was made more difficult by an opposing party, by the respondent in this case? It appeared that way, yes. where most was a motion to compel had to be filed.

51:19 That's my recollection. Did you find that there was any extraordinary opposition by the respondent in this case? Well, let me explain that. The answer to that is yes. And let me explain that in my experience, partition cases, especially family members, it's it's always difficult. It's in some ways it's it's a family divorce. And so it gets to be a bit emotional. And that was to be expected before I came into the case. And I found that to be the case here as well.

51:50 Did you find that the litigation in this case was extraordinary in any sense? Unusual, I guess is the best way to describe it. There were very bluntly some treatment issues that apparently had to probably impacted the response of the parties and there seemed to be some stop and start and stop and start,

52:22 both of which increased the costs of this particular case probably a bit more than it would in the normal garden variety type of case. In your opinion, and considering the role factors and the affordable professional responsibility for dash 1.5, how many hours do you think would be reasonable for litigating this case? I told about the hours that were

52:53 billed by your firm, Mr. Hyden. I noted that your firm was very straightforward in cutting back its own time and offering credits to the client. I additionally looked at two additional entries that I thought would not be appropriate to fee shift, totaling 2.5 hours. The total hours were 140.2 by my math and it took away the 2.5 hours that left us at 137.7. I

53:31 slightly adjusted the rate as you know Mr. Hyden you're based in Palm Beach County and it's it's a characteristic that that the rates in southeast Florida are seem to be higher much higher further south you go meaning Miami is very high Broward is a little bit lower but higher Palm Beach drops a bit more Palm Beach County drops a bit more the 19th Circuit drops a

54:03 bit more i attribute that not to the competence and the skill expertise of the lawyers but because of the local legal environment so i i paid the applicable rate at 400 per hour which is a touch below and i believe you build mr walsh at 415. um i mean uh you're worth more than 415 but local locality $400 an hour I think is appropriate. Considering all the factors you testified to what is the reasonable fee that would be to be awarded to the movement in this case.

54:41 Going back to the number that I came up with 137.7 times $400 an hour. I came up with a total of $55,080. $80 that's my reasonable fee. I noticed that they some labor beat me to it and cut back its own fees because it only built $55,196.50. So it just happened to be that we came on

55:11 in the same neighborhood. And how does this the amount compared to other firms in the geographic area? I think that's reasonable under the circumstances. I think it's in line. with the skilled expertise of Mason Yeager and yourself, Mr. Hyden, for this type of case, the 19th Circuit, and especially in Indian River County. Have you charged anything for preparing and or testifying today? Yes, I have built my time. And so far, before this morning, I had, before testifying, I had $5,271.50

55:50 I'll repeat that again for the benefit of the court reporter. $5,271.50. That's my early rate. Plus, I started again at 1 o'clock. So I don't know what time it is. It's 2 o'clock? It's 2 o'clock. 2 o'clock. And in reviewing the invoices and your review of the docket and the pleadings, do you see justification in this case for the repayment of those fees off the top of the net proceeds as opposed to a reimbursement of half of that?

56:32 Yes, I saw no reason to contest. We partitioned this particular case. This appears that it should have been a very straightforward situation where the property was partitioned. uh and then both parties appeared before the court and asked for the splitting of the proceeds of the partition uh due to the perhaps the family nature i i can never get

57:08 into the minds of the participants the delinquents themselves but this got a little bit complicated it got a little out of control. So I realized that the partition statute is perhaps not a model of clarity, but I think in this particular case, the court has discretion to depart from the traditional 50 50 uh split as two fees and i think that the costs um should come off the top

57:46 um and then the proceeds um of the partition should be weighted heavily in favor of mr walsh but that's that's a legal determination for the court that's just it's my reaction from looking at this and having done these cases before Thank you. I got things further, Your Honor. All right. Cross-examination. Yes, Your Honor. Sir, have you worked with Mr. Hyden in his firm prior to this case? I have worked with Mason Air, yes, prior to this case.

58:17 That's correct. Okay. And when is the last partition case that you did, personally? I was a special magistrate in a case, 15th Judicial Circuit case, because I was a special 15th judicial circuit case before judge the name of the case was po attorney p-o-u-t let me ask let me ask you a different because let me ask you a different question when is the last time that you represented a party not as a special magistrate but a party in a partition case it's it's several

58:51 years now it's more than five and how much did you charge when you were in your last partition case I can't recall. Was it 55,000? I'm guessing I can't even recall the last one that I did. It's been more than five years. Okay. And you basically determined by calling other attorneys in the area what was an appropriate rate, sir? Yes and no. And I can answer that in greater detail if you'd like. Okay. May I? Yes, please. There is a, I have my own opinion as to what is

59:33 an appropriate rate in a partition case depending on how actively it's litigated. I call the other attorneys to determine what is the prevailing rates in Indian River County in the 19th circuit. So that's two answers to that question. What attorneys did you call on the 19th circuit? I mean, look at my notes real quick. Yes, or I can try to get from memory of it. If you like

1:00:05 looking at my notes, well, let me see if I can do it from memory. I called Mr. Owen Schultz. I called Mr. Louis Fussell is known locally as Buc Fussell. I called Randy Brennan. I call. I'll have to look at my notes. That's okay. Would you like me to continue? No, we can move on. Okay. Do attorney's fees make a difference if the house is the gift? Ma'am,

1:00:46 I can't think of a reason why it would make a difference either way. Okay. So if, if the parties are tenants in common and one person believes it's the gift and they argue that is that vexatious litigation, objection speculation and outside of scope he's an expert overall it would depend on the nature and the scope of the litigation have you ever spoken to

1:01:19 miss walsh no have you overspoken to any of her attorneys no okay you're going on the storyline that mr heiden provided for you correct yes and no i did speak to mr heiden he provided a narrative but then i did my own analysis and reviewed the objective records but okay okay if it is in fact a gift do you think that

1:01:50 miss walsh should still be responsible for your fees and mr heiden's fees you're asking me to to presume it is a gift yes okay presuming it's a gift um the the way the uh and i made reference to this the way the the uh artisan statute is written um the historical way is that even if it is a gift um that the fleas these are split 50 50. um no matter well i should

1:02:24 say more precisely the fees are split evenly amongst the co-owners subject to the discretion of the trial court or special circumstances so to answer your question in one short sentence yes even if it is a gift these should be 50 50 as an opening analysis so should all of miss walsh's fees also should they also be split at the beginning I'm sorry I'm sorry I heard somebody say something oh I'm sorry what I was asking was so all of Ms.

1:02:58 Walsh's attorneys are they also entitled to their money right off the top as well again in the discretion of the trial court right so no one's actually entitled it's up to the judge after she hears the specific facts in this case. If you're I'm speaking entitled under the statute, you're speaking entitled under the facts of the case. Under the statute, yes, party is entitled and the facts of this particular case.

1:03:28 Your question is correct. No, neither party is entitled until the judge says they're entitled to correct. So it's really up to the judge at this point. Your Heidens bills. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? It's really up to the judge's determination how Mr. Heidens, myself or any other lawyers that were on this case, how the bills will be paid. The partition statute does give the trial court a great deal of discretion.

1:03:58 Correct. And 110 hours, is that normal on a partition case? Unfortunately, yes. At least the partitions that I've been involved with, the 630 that I've been involved with, because they have all been emotional affairs and what should be somewhat straightforward for various reasons does not become straightforward.

1:04:29 So it's not unusual. In fact, when I was first called about this retention, I expected to see the fees a touch higher. Did you go, now you went through each individual one and you said that there were 2.5 hours that shouldn't be charged. Which hours were those and why? Yes, can I refer to my notes, ma'am? Yes, you may. Well, I don't have one. I'm going to look at the time entries themselves.

1:05:03 um on uh february 1st 2021 uh mr hart heiden charged 1.4 hours um to uh research the applicable aos in the 19th traditional circuit. I didn't say anything. I think someone, I apologize. I don't know.

1:05:43 It's quite right. I just heard somebody. I did too, but it wasn't me. I apologize. So I'll read again the entire entry. The entire entry reads research applicable AOs in the 19th the initial circuit i presume that's administrative orders draft email a client received calls from mr bragg 1.4 hours i didn't think that was moving the case forward at least from the information i

1:06:13 had so i did not feel comfortable um saying that was permissible in this particular case and then on 8 31 2022 mr heiden um wrote to contact manning and other witnesses regarding date availability draft emails and reply point four again i thought that was uh not moving the case forward i'm not questioning whether the time was spent i suspected it was but i i approach

1:06:45 i approach my analysis from a very restrictive analysis perspective i guess uh in the light that this is few shifting as opposed to what was charged to the client which of course two different things of course and do you believe that when Mr. Hyden was taking background information from the Walsh's that it was necessary the amount of time he spent could you repeat that question ma'am my phone was

1:07:15 I'm sorry when when Mr. Hyden has a lot of bills for background from the Walsh's you know times do you think that those are appropriate i do under these circumstances ma'am and i'm happy to explain why please uh as i said before partitions are like a family divorce and for those of us who have done divorces um in the past i know that they're extremely emotional uh and there is a great deal of information that needs to be transmitted

1:07:48 sometimes it's hand-holding and sometimes it's transmission of information sometimes the combination of the two i i did see a great deal of information but under the circumstances of this particular case especially personal difficulties of the other party i i did not think it was unusual. This, this has all the characteristics of a family divorce. Are you aware that Mr.

1:08:18 Hyden has been involved in other cases that have to do with the parties, Mr. Walsh and Megan Walsh? Objection, relevance. If Mr. Hyden were to have personal knowledge from prior cases about this, the parties, Is it necessary to rehear all the information again? Objection, relevance, and speculation. Overruled. If he has the same information, it would not be a fee-shifting permissible time entry to rehash the same information.

1:08:59 Correct. Nothing further, Your Honor. Any redirect? No, Your Honor. All right. May this witness be excused. Yes, Your Honor. All right. Thank you, Mr. Frotch. You're excused. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Your next witness. I'd like to call Jacqueline Bragg, please. If you'll raise your right hand and take your.

1:09:33 There you go. Do you swear or affirm the information you're about to give it's the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. All right. Miss Craig, who are you employed by? John and Revae Walsh. And what is your position there? I am assistant bookkeeper. As part of your job, are you privy to financial discussions or decisions that Mr. Walsh makes? Yes.

1:10:05 Were you privy to the financial discussions or decisions Mr. Walsh had with regard to the purchase of the property at issue in this action? Yes. um based on that knowledge do you know why mr welsh purchased the property it was an investment for him um during your time of employment with mr welsh has he to your knowledge purchased any other properties as investments yes he has purchased many as investments do you know why

1:10:37 mr walsh's name it was on the deed to the property in this case because his intention was that it it was his property. Do you know why Mr. Walsh placed Miss Walsh's name on the deed? He thought at the time it would help her credit and also if she were to secure employment and get a mortgage on it that it would be an easier transition for her to purchase the property outright from him. To your knowledge, did Ms. Walsh ever secure a mortgage to buy the home for Mr. Walsh?

1:11:11 No. Is part of your employment, are you aware if Mr. Walsh incurred additional, I'll call them maintenance expenses related to the property? Yes, I am. And why did he pay those expenses? For the upkeep of the home and the maintenance of the home. Did Ms. Walsh ever offer to pay any of the maintenance expenses on the home?

1:11:48 No. Let me ask you this. To your knowledge, did Mr. Walsh intend for that property to be a gift to Ms. Walsh? No. And what is the basis of your belief of that? We spoke about it several times before the purchase of the property, which is why he has his name on on the deed. And their hope was that Megan would get a mortgage on it, and he would get the return of his investment. Objection

1:12:21 is a speculation and self serving statements. Overall. Was it to your knowledge, Mr. Walsh's intention that the maintenance things that he paid for were intended to be a gift to Miss Walsh? No. And what is the basis of your belief that those were not intended to be a gift? Because again, it was in hopes that Megan would get employment and be able to support herself with the maintenance of the home.

1:12:57 the maintenance of the home, purchase of the home, any upkeep that needed to be done. As part of your job, do you assist Mr. Walsh with the payment of expenses related to that house? Yes. Do you know how much Mr. Walsh paid for the home? $260,000, I believe. Bear with me just a moment.

1:13:27 I'm going to share screen briefly. Ms. Bragg, I know it's a bit hard to see this on Zoom, but do you recognize this bank statement? Yes. And is this statement reflecting the funds Mr. Walsh used to purchase the property?

1:14:01 Yes. And have you seen this statement the original statement itself? Yes. This is listed as Exhibit 2 on our proposed exhibit list. We would like to move it into evidence as petitioners Exhibit 3. Any objection? No, Your Honor. received without objection again follow the clerk's rules for getting admitted exhibits to the clerk's file yes your honor thank you uh to your knowledge did miss walsh contribute anything to the purchase

1:14:34 price of the house no uh did mr walsh pay the annual taxes on the home yes and why did he pay those taxes so his house wouldn't be taken from him going to share screen did you collect the tax bills related to the property in this case yes are these true and

1:15:09 accurate copies of those tax bills yes no objection then we will move that as petitioners exhibit i believe it's four so moved without objection i can just have a quick minute here on make sure i'm not um did miss walsh pay any of the annual insurance premiums on the property no

1:15:41 Were you the one that assisted Mr. Walsh in the payment of those expenses? Yes, I was. I want to make sure I pull that off properly. I'm going to share a screen with you briefly. Are these the insurance premiums for the home, Ms. Walsh?

1:16:16 I'm sorry, Ms. Bragg? Yes. I apologize. You know, I'd like to move these into evidence as a petition as exhibit five. No objection. So received as requested without objection. Uh, did Mr. Walsh have to pay the homeowner association dues on the home? Yes. Did Ms. Walsh contribute to any of those expenses? No. Sure screen.

1:17:02 And is, are these evidence of the payment of the Homero-Association dues? Yes. And did you prepare this document? Yes. I'm asking to send this into evidence as the pictures exhibit six. Any objection? Well, I have no objection to that. And to the bill itself. I have an objection to the handwriting on it. I can certainly inquire. Ms. Bragg,

1:17:38 handwriting is that on this statement? That's my handwriting. Okay and how did you determine that information? Because for for a time we were transferring money to Megan's checking account so she could pay her own bills hoping that it would make make her responsible for paying those bills on her own but they weren't being paid so we ended up changing that procedure and

1:18:11 just paying bills outright again because things were not being paid. I'd like to submit this again into evidence. Any objection? No, Your Honor. So received as requested without objection. Uh, during the owners for the property, Mr. Walsh have to repair or have the garage door repaired? Yes.

1:18:41 Do you recall what occurred to the garage door? I don't remember what was wrong with it. Maybe it was stuck open. Um, I don't, I don't recall exactly what was wrong with it. Yeah. Did you get it to bill for it? Is this a true and correct copy of the bill for the repair of the garage? Yes. And this evidence of the checks are the check Mr. Walsh used to pay for that repair? Yes.

1:19:14 We'd like to submit this new exhibit is our petitions exhibit seven. No objection. So received as requested without objection. Did Ms. Walsh pay any of those expenses? Mrs. Bragg? No. Did Mr. Walsh, was there a time where he had to pay or have tree trimming done at the property? Yes. And was there a specific reason why the tree trimming had to occur?

1:19:46 The trees were overgrowing, branches falling. Do you recognize this bill? Yes. and was this bill for the tree trimming yes and are you the one that gathered this bill yes you know we'd like to submit this into evidence as our petitioners exhibit eight no objection so received as requested without objection and miss bragg to your knowledge did miss walsh pay for any of those expenses no uh did mr walsh ever have a fence installed at the property

1:20:25 Yes. In your experience in bookkeeping, does Mr. Walsh have fences installed with other properties? He has fences and gates on a lot of his properties, all of them actually. Including investment properties? Including investment properties. Do you recognize this invoice? I do. And did you gather this invoice? Yes. And Mr. Walsh, is this reflecting Mr. Walsh's payment of the invoice?

1:21:00 The same statement is attached to it. Yes. I'd like to move this into evidence, your honor, as our district's exhibit nine. No objection, your honor. So received as requested without objection. Did Ms. Walsh pay anything on that invoice? Christmas pride. No. Was there a time where new appliances had to be purchased for the property? Yes. And why did new appliances have to be purchased? We can stipulate to

1:21:32 all of these things, Your Honor, at this time. Sure. If that's, I can just go through and list what they are as our exhibit list. Is that acceptable to your honor? Fine with me, it's y'all's trial. We have a composite documents relating to the payment of Home Depot expenditures.

1:22:06 expenditures, those are the appliances that will become petitioners exhibit 10. We have composite documents related to the payment of Baker air conditioning expenditures that would become petitioners exhibit 11. We have composite documents related to the petitioners payment of complete electric expenditures that would become petitioners exhibit 12. We have composite documents related to handyman expenses that would become petitioners 13.

1:22:43 Composite documents related to that one housekeeping expenditures that would become petitioners 14. Composite documents related to the payment of utilities at the property that would become petitioners 15. documents related to the painter's payment of landscaping expenditures that becomes uh petitioners exhibit 16. composite documents related to the payment of lawn care expenditures that becomes petitioners 17. composite documents related to payment of leaf filter gutters

1:23:20 becomes petitioners exhibit 18. composite documents related to the payment of the slab leak repair expenditures will become petitioners exhibit 19. Composite documents related to petitioners payment of rooted landscape expenditures becomes petitioners exhibit 20. Composite documents related to petitioners payment of sprinkler repair petitioners exhibit

1:23:51 May I continue, Your Honor? Yes. Um, of those, all of those invoices, Ms. Bragg, uh, did Mr. Walsh, um, pay or authorize you and his

1:24:22 behalf to pay all of those expenditures? Yes. Did Ms. Walsh pay on any of those expenditures? No. Were the expenditures incurred in, on this property consistent with how Mr. Walsh, to your knowledge, maintains his other properties, including investment properties? Yes. Was there anything unique that Mr. Walsh did with this property that he would not have done or did not do with other investment properties to your knowledge.

1:24:54 No. I don't think whether your honor. Yes, ma'am, how long have you worked for the Walsh's? About 16, 17 years. And how did you start out under their employment? I started as their housekeeper. Okay. And when did you become their bookkeeper?

1:25:26 Goodness. Maybe eight, nine years ago. years ago. Do you remember testifying August 10th of 2022 and another case that had to do with Miss Walsh? Objection, Your Honor. We were here for this case, not a separate case. Oh, this question. Do you remember that, ma'am? Yes. And do you remember that was three months ago and you testified that you were their PR manager, correct?

1:25:57 I don't believe I said I was a PR manager. You didn't say that you were in charge of all the social media and you were watching everything that Miss Walsh testified to or stated on her blogs. Objection, relevance, Your Honor. Overruled. I said that was part of my job as John's assistant to keep an eye on anything that relates to his family. Okay, and you did not testify at that time that you had anything to do with the bookkeeping, did you? Objection relevance your owner the scope of that trial was very different

1:26:29 the scope of today's trial as was that line of questioning overall. Yeah I don't remember if I said if I was his bookkeeper or not but it falls under assistant to me so. Okay now were you ever present when Mr. Walsh and Megan Walsh had a discussion about this house? Not that I recall that just the two of them no. Right. So you don't know what Miss Walsh believed, whether it was a gift or not, do you?

1:27:01 You don't know what Miss Walsh was thinking. I can't know what she's thinking, no. Right. And let me ask you a question. With all these bills and all this money that was paid by Mr. Walsh, did you send Miss Walsh, Megan Walsh, a bill? Some bills went to her house directly. I'm asking if you after paying them asked for reimbursement over five years. No. Did you ask for any reimbursements for anything over five years while Ms. Walsh lived there?

1:27:37 No. So wouldn't strike that. Did Ms. Walsh ever say to you, I know this is only temporary for me? not that i recall did miss walsh or did mr walsh choose to put the fence in i believe that was mr walsh so did miss walsh ask her dad to do that or he just did it on his own i i don't know the reality is is you don't know what what went on between

1:28:15 Mr. Walsh and his daughter do you? When I wasn't there no. Okay what you do know is that Mr. Walsh paid for everything correct? Yes. And in the past did Mr. Walsh pay for everything for Ms. Walsh? Objection vague I'm not clear what she means. I can rephrase. Did Mr. Walsh purchase a car for Miss Walsh at the same time as he purchased the house.

1:28:46 I don't know about timing, but he did purchase a car for her. And has he purchased other properties for Miss Walsh? Objectional. Overall. He didn't purchase property in North Carolina at one point. He purchased a property that was sorry. I didn't hear the objection. Leading. Overall. And he purchased a property in North Carolina for her to live in. Okay. And what happened with that property? Mr. Walsh sold it. Okay. Let me ask you about this. Was her name on that property as well? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. But it is on this property. Yes. And now.

1:29:40 Did he also pay for an apartment in New York City for Miss Walsh? I believe so, yes. And did he ever ask for any monies back? I don't know. And in 2021, at some point, did Mr. Walsh get angry with his daughter and did they have a falling out? Rejection relevance. Sustain. Do you know if Ms. Walsh had a job in 2016?

1:30:12 I don't know. Relevance. Since you are claiming now that you were in charge of bills today, did you send out bills at any time from 2016 until present asking for the money's back whether it be for the tree trimming or for the answer overruled

1:30:44 i'm sorry ask the question again i want to know if there was any bills anything you ever sent Ms. Walsh asking her to contribute to anything regarding the property? No. And to your knowledge, whether or not you know this, did Mr. Walsh ever directly ask her? And you may not know. I don't know. Okay. One moment, Your Honor.

1:31:17 Nothing further, Your Honor. Any redirect? Yes, Your Honor. uh miss bragg you were asked questions about a property in north carolina was that a property that mr walsh uh when he sold retained the sale proceeds to yes uh did he consider that his investment property yes um were any of the bills that had now been entered in evidence sent to miss walsh's house directly from the providers not that i know of there may have been

1:31:48 a few that were sent directly to her that she gave to me. Did she ever pay any of the bills that have been entered into evidence with regard to the house? No. Okay. Did you, did Mr. Walsh ever tell you that the house was intended to be a gift to him? I'm going to give to Ms. Walsh. Sorry, everything was frozen for a minute. I don't know what I missed.

1:32:19 Did Mr. Walsh ever tell you that the home and or any of these expenses were intended to be a gift to Miss Walsh? And I'm going to object based on its self-serving hearsay. Overruled. You can ask the question, Ms. Craig. No. Did Mr. Walsh ever tell you if he did not intend for these to be a gift to Ms. Walsh? Did he ever say he did not intend for it? Yes. Yes. He did tell me he did not intend for it to be a gift, which is why he put his name on it.

1:32:55 Nothing further, Your Honor. All right. May this witness be excused. Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry. I didn't hear other counsel. Yes, Your Honor. Okay, thank you. Ma'am, you may be excused. Thank you. Right, your next witness. I'd like to call John Walsh. Raise your right hand. Your Honor, may we take a quick five-minute break so that I can use the restroom. I apologize just before he starts testifying.

1:33:25 All right, we'll be in brief recess. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. [Unclear speech]

1:33:59 Thank you.

1:34:29 Thank you.

1:34:59 Thank you.

1:35:29 Thank you.

1:35:59 Thank you.

1:36:29 Thank you.

1:36:59 Okay.

1:37:29 Okay.

1:37:59 Thank you.

1:38:29 Oh, in the house, baby. Yeah, we just got here. You knew that.

1:38:59 Thank you.

1:39:29 Thank you.

1:39:59 Thank you.

1:40:29 Thank you.

1:40:59 [Unclear speech] [Unclear speech]

1:41:29 All right, are we all ready to go back on the record? Yes, thank you, Your Honor. All right, Mr. Walsh, if you raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the information you're about to give as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Walsh, do you recall executing an affidavit in this case? I'm sorry. What affidavit?

1:42:11 You recognize this affidavit? I do. Okay. I just want to ask you some brief questions. Did you pay approximately $260,000 for the property? I did. And in paragraph three of this affidavit, I'd like you to read that aloud. I had the respondent's name placed on the warranty deed as a tenant in common with myself. I did this for the sole purpose and at the suggestion of my financial planner to assist the respondent in raising her credit score.

1:42:48 That's fine. We can stop there. Is that true and correct? Yes. Did you deem the property to be a gift to Ms. Walsh? No. Did you deem it to be an investment property of yours? Yes. Did you do anything unique to that home that would have been different than what you've done to any other investment properties you've owned? No, I maintain all my properties as best I can.

1:43:19 In your affidavit, you said you spent approximately $134,741.66 in maintenance and other expenses. Is that true and accurate? It is. And you're asking to be reimbursed for approximately 50% of that in that proceeds. Is that correct? I am. And that sum is $67,370.83? That's right. Is that correct? Yes, sir.

1:43:49 I have nothing further, Your Honor. All right, Annie Cross. Yes, Your Honor. Sir, have you ever put your daughter's name on any other properties that you own? No, ma'am. Okay. And one of the things that you're asking for reimbursement is housekeeping, correct? Yes, ma'am. And that's in the amount of $15,340?

1:44:19 That was what that was what took to keep the place clean and sanitary for the three children living there. Did you have an, so you chose to make those payments, correct? My property, I wanted to keep it clean. My daughter was unable to do that. Did you ever ask your daughter to make any of those payments? In the beginning, we had a discussion where I sent her cash so that she could build up her credit card. She failed to pay the bills that came directly to her.

1:44:51 They shut off the power. She was supposed to pay those bills. They shut off the power with three little children in there. So that's when I said. Objection, Your Honor, is to narrative and non-responsive. Overruled. I worried about the safety of the children. So we stopped giving Megan money that she spent on God knows what, but she let the power and the water be shut off with three infant children. Sir, do you have a written agreement that your daughter was supposed to pay for any of the electric or the handyman or the housekeeping or the utilities or the lawn care?

1:45:29 Yes, I said we're going to keep this place saleable. I'm letting you stay in it because you're my daughter. So it's got to be kept up in case I need to sell it. Okay, and where is that in writing? It's not in writing. It's face to face. Okay. And did you ever, and you're asking now for half of the housekeeping bill? The house, she had multiple cats and cat's feces in the garage. It was a toxic waste dump. And I

1:46:03 had to pay for those housekeepers. When did the housekeepers start? When did you start paying for the housekeeper? When she had been in the property a couple of weeks. I don't remember. So in 2016? Probably. Okay, over five over six years ago. I'm not sure. Did you ask for reimbursement regarding the garage that you paid $656 for?

1:46:35 No, I told her I'm getting it fixed. I didn't need her. I didn't need her permission to fix the house. I bought the house. Right. But she owns half the house, correct? that calls for a legal conclusion sustain but she's listed as a tenant in common and she correct yep okay for one specific purpose okay but you didn't put that specific purpose in writing did you I just read an affidavit sir you never

1:47:08 put anything in writing with your daughter did you probably not okay so there was no agreement that Miss Walsh was supposed to pay for things in writing correct verbal agreement and verbal agreement she would maintain the property which okay but from six years ago you're asking to be in reimbursed and I'm asking if there was a written agreement question has to ask answer We had a verbal agreement face to face on many of the things.

1:47:47 Okay, I'm going to ask again, is there anything in writing regarding the, the, what you're asking to be reimbursed from six years ago that doesn't have to do directly with the house? For example, housekeeping. Not to my knowledge. And did you ever ask your daughter for money prior to this lawsuit for the house? No. Okay. And in the

1:48:21 one moment, your honor, I apologize. So now you stated in your affidavit that the respondent could move into the property temporarily so long as she maintained a stable and healthy lifestyle for both herself and her children and paid for the applicable expenses that's in your affidavit correct number four yes did Ms. Walsh ever pay for any expenses

1:48:52 I'm not sure I'm not sure the agreement was to try to get a job she had three children by deadbeat dad's no income i said as soon as you can do this i'm going to give you the chance to make get a job start working you've got a nanny there's no reason you don't can't get a job and let's maintain this property okay okay but she didn't correct you paid for everything she didn't because multiple nannies

1:49:25 quit because of the condition of the house. Objection, Your Honor. It's non-responsiveness. Overruled. She didn't take care of the house. One example, I put in a generator. The garage was so… Objection, Your Honor. I didn't ask that. You asked a question. Was she maintaining the house? No. No, I asked if she ever was… Your Honor, I was asking if she ever paid to maintain the house. I didn't ask that's a different question so sir if you can answer that new questions okay give it to

1:49:58 me again I'm really confused did miss Walsh did you ever ask her to pay for any of the expenses objection or ask and answer the same question has been asked four times now the same sir did you choose to put the fence in or did miss walsh ask you to put the fence in both it it ups the value of properties and it also creates such secure property okay prior to

1:50:34 filing this lawsuit did you ever talk to your daughter about selling the house yes yes and did you come to an agreement what was your agreement if you did that she wasn't maintaining the house property people wouldn't work on it because one guy had to buy a hazmat suit to work in the garage I'm gonna sell the house I'll give you plenty of time to get out and how much time did you give her I forget a couple months but she owns the house too

1:51:08 correct? Her name is on the deed. So you really, it's not up to you alone whether or not she has to leave the house. Objection calls for a legal conclusion. Sustained. Did you do you believe that you had the authority to remove her from the house? I think so. And you only did all this after she cut off contact with you and your wife, correct? Objection outside of scope of direct and relevance. I'll allow this one question but I'm we're here on a different whole different

1:51:46 elements of proof than what you're asking about so I'll allow this this question but I'm unclear your path does not seem directed to go to any element of proof. Okay that's that's fair your owner. I can I can ask another one. Yes. Did you pay at the same time you purchased the

1:52:19 house with Miss Walsh? Did you pay for Miss Walsh to have a car? I'm unclear if this is reasonably calculated to lead to any part of my decision making on the cause of action that I'm here for. Where I'm going with this, Your Honor, is that he's always given her gifts and how would she expect this not to? I mean, I'm going, that's where I'm going with this, that he gifts her everything, he

1:52:50 He pays for everything. But do the rules of evidence allow this line of questioning? I believe they do to show what was in my client's mind at the time. And he's testifying as to whether or not he has in fact purchased other things for her. Which rule of evidence are you specifically referring to? I mean, I'm not, it's not hearsay. I'm asking him if he has purchased other things for her. I guess I don't have it.

1:53:31 Mr. Hayden, what was your actual objection? My objection was to relevance because we are here for a partition or the adjudication of net proceeds from a partition of a property. It's sustained. Your Honor, they're claiming though that it was a resulting trust and we're claiming that it was a gift. And so based on Mr. Walsh's actions with other things, I do believe that this is appropriate.

1:54:03 Response. We're not here for a resulting trust on a car. We're here for the adjudication of the net proceeds of this specific property. This case, and I understand because these types of cases can take on almost a dissolution of marriage type mantra, but we are here for a very specific thing under a very specific statute. Going into cars or any other issues, getting well outside of what the court needs to look at, and is obliged to look at, to adjudicate the parties' entitlement to the net proceeds from the sale.

1:54:38 Agreed. The objection is sustained. Nothing further for this. All right. Any further your honor. Any redirect. No, your honor. I do need to say though that we were the only party to file the witness list or an exhibit list. And so we would object to any witnesses being called by the respondent. She did not comply with the pretrial order. She did not file a witness list or an exhibit list to allow her to call witnesses at this time would be a surprise at trial. Are you resting your case?

1:55:09 Yes, Your Honor. All right. And counsel, would you like to respond? Yes, Your Honor. I was under, yes, there was not a witness list filed. I was not the original attorney. However, I'm not calling any witnesses. The only person I'm calling is Ms. Walsh. And that is not a surprise or a prejudice to anyone as they listed the parties in their witness list. And I'm entitled to call anyone on their list. Your Honor, I do not believe we listed Ms. Walsh in our witness list.

1:55:39 When was the witness list filed? Let's see. We filed our original witness list for the original trial date would have been, I believe, on. There was one filed on February 3rd, 2022. and an amendment to a witness list filed July 18, 2022, and then the final amendment on 826, 2022.

1:56:19 I'm looking at the clerk of court record with the filing of 826 and I do not see Miss Walsh listed. Your Honor, she's still a party and there is no prejudice to the other side to not allow her. However, there is a great prejudice to my client if she can't testify. Well, court is not a circus. Is there any reason why you didn't actually file a witness or an exhibit list? Unfortunately, I have to say that this is my own fault. I was under the impression that one had been filed in February of 2021 or 2022. I mean,

1:56:51 Okay, well, when you took over the case, you took over the case with the responsibility as attorney of record. And so you had a responsibility to actually file an exhibit list or a witness list. And by not doing so does result in surprise and final trial, which is what we're here for. Therefore, for failure to follow the rules of the court, your client will not be allowed to testify. All right. Do we have closings? Yes, Your Honor.

1:57:21 I'm ready. May I proceed? Yes. This is an action for partitioning will property at issue is the adjudication of the parties' respective equities and net proceeds. The testimony is clear that this was a cause of resulting trust. Mr. Walsh paid the purchase price of the property and was forced to pay for all the maintenance and upkeep. This is not a situation of just Mr. Walsh's testimony. If you recall, Ms. Walsh had listed her cooperating witnesses as Steve Rinnick, Nicholas Hall, Kathleen Powell. None could testify that this was a gift. The court also heard from Jackie Bragg with all the expenses that were paid. These were customary expenses that Mr. Walsh would have paid for any of his investment properties.

1:58:00 The testimony simply does not support the respondents' contention that the purchase of the property and the subsequent funds were a gift. For the court to take that view, it would have to disregard all the testimony and evidence it has received today. today. But even if the court were disinclined to find that a resulting trust was created, the court should, consistent with the Florida partition statute and case law, require Ms. Walsh out of her part of the net proceeds to reimburse Mr. Walsh 50% of the purchase price of the property and 50% of the expenses he paid on the property. Further, consistent

1:58:34 with the partial settlement agreement, Ms. Walsh is obligated to reimburse Mr. Walsh with up to 10,000 in the movie expenses that he had to pay for her. Finally, and consistent with Florida Statutes after chapter 64 and the testimony of our attorney fee expert, Mr. Walsh is seeking to have his attorneys fees and costs awarded off the top. The testimony record are clear. Miss Walsh's actions necessitated Mr. Walsh's expenditure of his attorneys fees and costs and she took positions and exacerbated the timely movement of this case. Thank you.

1:59:06 Thank you. Your Honor, I'm sorry, are you ready for my closing? Yes, ma'am. Your Honor, based on all of the evidence we've heard today, there is no evidence that this was an investment property. And there was no evidence that the parties had an agreement for a trust. You're talking about a resulting trust. I'm going to case law that states a resulting trust is usually when you put one person's name on something for another person.

1:59:37 That's not what we did here. We had tenants in common. Your Honor, we have no written agreement between the parties, none whatsoever as to who was to get what or pay for what. Yes, under Florida law, it does state that people are to pay the property taxes or be reimbursed. I understand that. However, it does not go into air conditioning or Comcast or a fence, Adam's fence, or cleaning ladies. That is not what this house has to do. And Mr.

2:00:10 Walsh is not entitled to a reimbursement. Rather, it's a gift, which he's done for his daughter his whole entire life. This is nothing more than a gift. He should not be given any special equity or any special amounts out of this money. Rather, the $10,000 they agreed on should go to Mr. Walsh off the top. That is not argumentative. That is a signed agreement by both parties. Other than that, the $10,000, each party should be responsible for their own lawyer's fees,

2:00:41 and each party should also be responsible for what they've paid for in the past and not attribute it as a credit because it was a gift, as Mr. Walsh has done his entire life for his daughter. And just because things are he's unhappy with her doesn't mean that he can change it from a gift to an investment property, which is what they are trying to do today. I'd ask the take the 10,000 off and that you split the rest of the proceeds between the parties.

2:01:12 All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to take the matter under advisement. please send in proposed final orders within seven days anything further we need to put on this record no you gotta thank you for your time today thanks y'all thank you are we just yes thank you thank you

2:01:46 Thank you.

2:02:16 Thank you.