Alavoor Vasudevan v. Deepa Vasudevan

Case Information

ACCEPTED

14-14-00765-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/1/2015 9:54:11 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK Case No. 14-14-00765-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEETH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN Appellant (Defendants below) vs. DEEPA VASUDEVAN Appellee (Plaintiffs above) BRIEF OF APPELLANT and EXCERPT OF RECORD Appeal from the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered on May 27, 2014 in the Brazoria County 300 th District Court, Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler, Judge Attorneys for Appellant below: Alavoor Vasudevan Pro Se PO Box 710163 Houston TX 77271 Email: alavoor@gmail.com Phone: 832-244-1927 Attorneys for Appellee below: Kelly McClendon (appeals lawyer) Ron Brownstein (trial court lawyer) SBN: 13407200 SBN: 03229800 P O Box 3457 5208 West Broadway, Suite 200 Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 Pearland, TX 77581 Email: kdmcclendon@comcast.net Email: rbrownstein@hotmail.com Telephone: 979-299-0755 Phone: 281-485-2770 Fax: 281-485-4128

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant’s Trial and Counsel Alavoor Vasudevan Pro Se (Appellant)

PO Box 710163 Houston TX 77271 Email: alavoor@gmail.com Phone: 832-244-1927 Annette M. Henry Texas State Bar No. 09478020 The Henry Law Firm 1314 Texas Avenue, Suite 400 Houston TX 77002 (713) 236-1818 Fax: 281-768-2439 Appellee's Counsel Kelly McClendon

Texas State Bar No. 13407200 P O Box 3457 Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 Email: kdmcclendon@comcast.net Telephone: 979.299.0755 Ron Brownstein Texas State Bar No. 03229800 Ron Brownstein

SBN: 03229800

5208 West Broadway, Suite 200 Pearland, TX 77581 Email: rbrownstein@hotmail.com Phone: 281-485-2770 Fax: 281-485-4128 ii Case No. 14-14-00765-CV Table of Contents

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................................5 II. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT....................6 III. ISSUES PRESENTED...................................................................7 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................9 V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS...........................................11 VI. ARGUMENT.................................................................................12 VII. PRAYER.......................................................................................14 VIII. APPENDIX.................................................................................16

Appendix A Trial Courts Judgment 08 Oct 2014.................................16 Appendix B Trial Courts Judgment 27 May 2014................................16 Appendix C Final Decree of Divorce (Trial Court)..............................16 Appendix D Inventory filed by Husband.............................................16 Appendix E Inventory filed by Wife....................................................16 Appendix F Proof filed by Husband for Community Estates...............16 Appendix G Proof filed by Husband for hidden gold bars of wife.......16 Appendix H Court reporters copy filed................................................16 Appendix I The Record Below.............................................................16 Appendix J Texas Family Code 3.003 - Community Estates...............16 Appendix K Texas Penal Code 2.01 - Cruelty by Husband..................17 Appendix L Felony Charge on Wife's Attorney filed by Husband.......17 Appendix M Health Reports of Husband.............................................17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.........................................................18

iii Case No. 14-14-00765-CV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Rules: Chapter 3 Marital Property Rights and Liabilities Sec.3.003. Presumption of community property Sec. 3.003. PRESUMPTION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY. (a) Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property. (b) The degree of proof necessary to establish that property is separate property is clear and convincing evidence. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

Texas Penal Code for Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt Sec. 2.01. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. iv Case No. 14-14-00765-CV

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a divorce case involving the issue of property division. Husband seeks modification of the judgment of dissolution to award him greater than 60% of the community estates. And to classify the properties which were wrongly termed as the separate estates of wife into community estates. Also to modify the terms used in trial court's judgment where in the husband was declared doing “cruelty” even without doing any verification of cruelty and without any proof or witness for cruelty. Wife needs to update the inventory as of 27 May 2014 as her inventory filed is old and used old financial statements and not as of May 2014. Nature of Judgment

After a trial to the court, a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was entered. Such judgment forms the basis for this appeal. Trial court awarded higher percentage (60%) of community estates to wife without considering the real facts of the innocent husband (husband's health, age, earning power, community estates and other factors). Effective Date for Appeal

Since the health conditions of husband was very bad, wife had filed false Protective Order to gain higher divisions in the properties instead of filing divorce first. On June 27, 2011, wife filed for Protective Order in cause number 63935, thereafter temporary orders were issued dated July 22, 2011. On 19 Jan 2012 husband filed for divorce in cause number 66539; wife filed a counter-petition for divorce and these two actions were consolidated under the lower cause number 63935 on 29 Mar 2012. The Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was entered on 27 May, 2014 and trial court awarded 60% to wife even without considering the health conditions of husband, earning capacity of wife and other factors. And thereafter a new trial to reconsider was filed by husband and it was heard on 8 October 2014, but was denied on the basis that “Notice of Appeals” was filed with 5 Case No. 14-14-00765-CV 14 th Court of Appeals and no justice was done to husband. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 14 Sep 2014. Husband denied the charges of cruelty as they were falsely framed by wife without any proof or witness.

II. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant requests oral argument for this Appeals case, so that appellant can answer and clarify any questions, points raised about this case. 6 Case No. 14-14-00765-CV

III. ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Trial court classified the community estates as separate properties of wife, even without clear and convincing evidence. Wife has classified the CitiNRI account, DLR account as separate property but it is a community estate as husband had provided proof ( Appendix F ). As per the Texas Family Law Code, Sec.3.003 PRESUMPTION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY, property bought during the marriage is community estate. And degree of proof necessary to establish that property is separate property is clear and convincing evidence (Ref. Texas Statutes Chap 3 Sec.3.003). All the luxury furniture in possession of wife was declared as separate property even though it is community estate bought during marriage.

2. Wife was hiding, concealing community properties like gold bars, gold coins and trial court did not give chance to husband to exhibit the documents of proof for gold and sustained the objections of wife's attorney ( Appendix G ).

3. Husband was not given fair treatment by trial court. Husband was denied to expose the hiding of gold assets by wife due to objection raised by opposing counsel. Judge was favoring wife's attorney for unknown reasons (may be he is his friend?). I was a stranger to Judge as I had never seen him before. Also opposing attorney Ron Brownstein was stealing husband's postal mails which came to wife's home. A case of felony was filed by husband against the wife's attorney Ron Brownstein charging the attorney for breaking the federal/state laws and the case is pending hearing in near future in Houston District Court ( Appendix L ).

4. Trial court did not consider the health conditions of the husband ( Appendix M ) and age factors and declared husband as being “cruel” even without any verification. The protective orders are generally abused by wives to gain advantage and punish innocent husbands ( Appendix K ). 5. Court is there to do justice and protect the innocent but trial court did not make any attempts to protect the innocent husband and to do justice. 6. Judge denied motion saying that “You have filed in appeals court, hence let the Court of Appeals deal with it from this point and hence I deny the

7 Case No. 14-14-00765-CV hearing...” (Ref: Reporters record vol 3 of 3 Cause 63935 page 11, line 8, Appendix A ) 7. Trial court did not consider:

 Fault In The Failure Of The Marriage: Husband is innocent divorcee because wife rejected/dumped the husband due to bad health ( Appendix M ). Trial court did not consider the “Benefits The Innocent Spouse Would Have Received By Continuation Of The Marriage”: Akin to the assessment of fault approach is the compensation for the losses the innocent spouse will suffer by reason of the divorce. Certain valuable benefits may be lost (and perhaps be irreplaceable) as a result of the divorce.

 Disparity Of Earning Capacities: A gap between the business opportunities available to the spouses, a disparity in incomes, a difference in earning capabilities, and associated facts may affect the division of property.

 Physical Condition, Health: Physical health (or lack thereof) which affects the division of property between the spouses ( Appendix M ).  Difference In Ages: A disparity in the ages of the parties may have a bearing upon ability to work, eligibility of a party for retirement benefits, etc. and, therefore, is a factor in dividing property. Husband is older to wife by 7.5 years.

8 Case No. 14-14-00765-CV

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Summary Date of Marriage : 29 March 1992 Age of the Parties: Husband 52 yrs (DOB 07 July 1962) Wife 44 yrs (DOB 17 Nov 1969) Ages of Children Pallavi Dev 19 yrs (DOB 07 Dec 1995) Support: Husband paid child support until Pallavi graduated from high school. Divorce Dissolution: 27 May 2014 Trial court, Brazoria Second Hearing : 08 Oct 2014 Trial court, Brazoria

General Summary The parties were married in 29 March 1992 when husband was 29 and wife 22. Husband had completed his education at that time, having received Master's degree in 1989 and was working for tech company in California. Wife was still attending medical college and husband supported financially and physically to complete the degree and residency in USA. Baby Pallavi was born and husband was taking care of the baby while wife was doing college residency. Husband, in addition to supplying the great bulk of the income during wife's schooling/residency, also shared in the domestic chores (Ref: Oral, written depositions).

After the parties married, husband was the main source of income for the family until wife started earning in 1998. At the time of hearing, wife was earning $200,000 p.a. and husband was making $90,000 p.a. In the year 2005, husband was having serious health problems due to diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, liver problems and eye problems (glaucoma) and was taking medications (Ref: Health reports of husband Appendix 9 Case No. 14-14-00765-CV M ). Wife did not like the health problems of the husband and was extremely unhappy. The health problems of husband caused rifts in marriage relationships and caused great amounts of agony. The health problems of husband worsened over time. And the health problems of husband are the major cause of the divorce. From 1992 until 2005, the relationship between wife and husband was very good. After 2005, there were no financial problems as wife was earning large amounts for the family and also husband was earning but there were major health issues of husband. Because of the health issues, husband had problems with the employment. The diabetes was causing serious problems and resulted in memory loss and reduced the focus and capability in engineering job. And hence, husband lost several jobs/employment. In June 2011, wife filed for protective order to throw out the husband and husband made lots of efforts to save the marriage but of no use. Wife indirectly forced husband to file divorce in Jan 2012 and wife also counter-petitioned divorce. Wife had concealed substantial community estates in form of cash, gold bars, gold coins, jewelry and did not disclose those in the inventory. Husband tried Motion to Compel discovery but it was denied on March 2013. The divorce hearing was on 27 May 2014 but justice was not done to innocent husband. Husband filed for motion for reconsideration trial and on 8 Oct 2014 trial court heard the hearing but did not do any justice and simply referred to Appeals court application and left the decision for Appeals court to decide (Ref: Court Reporters records). The trial court did not consider the inventory filed by husband. And wife's inventory was having amounts and figures which were very old out-dated and were not as of 27 May 2014 (day on which divorce hearing occurred). 10 Case No. 14-14-00765- CV V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

Wife's classification of CITINRI account ($120,000) and DRL Lands ($52,000) and gold jewelry is without merit because wife had not submitted clear and convincing evidence as per Texas Family code sec3.003.

Wife's filing for protective order is falsified and without merit because there is no proof, witness, medical reports, police reports of any harassment by husband for the past 22 years. Trial court's declaration of husband as cruel is wrong and incorrect because of no verification.

Trial court's award of 60% to wife is without merit because there is solid basis and it is like rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent. Trial court was tilting in favor of wife's attorney because the judge may be close friend of wife's attorney and husband is a stranger. Husband deserves the 60% share of property division.

Wife's submission of inventory is not up to date in figures and amounts and were old and out of date. They were not as of May 2014 and trial court did not consider the inventory submitted by husband.

If Trial court suppresses exhibits/documents from innocent and supports the attorney of guilty then the final judgment will favor only the guilty and the innocent will get punished. But there is chance provided by law so that appeals court can correct it and protect the innocent and punish the guilty. 11 Case No. 14-14-00765-CV

VI. ARGUMENT

Texas laws provides that the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. The trial court's decision must be reversed if it was not legally correct and if the trial court's decision is punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty. The law must protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The appellant's argument is:

THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISIONS TO DECLARE COMMUNITY ESTATES (CITINRI A/C, DLR LAND, GOLD BARS) AS SEPARATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF AS PER TEXAS FAMILY LAW CODE sec 3.003 IS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT. TRIAL COURT ALSO ERRORED IN TAKING THE OLD AND OUTDATED FIGURES IN THE WIFE'S INVENTORY, AND DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LUXURY FURNITURES AS COMMUNITY ESTATES. THE TRIAL COURT DECLARED THE HUSBAND AS CRUEL EVEN WITHOUT VERIFYING THE WITNESS, POLICE RECORDS, MEDICAL REPORTS TO PROVE CRUELTY. HUSBAND WAS LIVING WITH WIFE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND THERE IS NO SINGLE POLICE REPORT, MEDICAL REPORT SUPPORTING CRUELTY, TRIAL COURT WAS BLINDLY TAKING WHATEVER WAS WRITTEN PROTECTIVE WITHOUT CHECKING ITS VALIDITY AND PROOF. ACTUALLY WIFE WAS BATTERING HUSBAND BECAUSE OF HUSBAND'S ILL HEALTH. TRIAL COURT ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SEVERE HEALTH CONDITIONS OF HUSBAND WHILE DIVIDING PROERTY AND EARNING CAPACITY OF WIFE WHO IS MEDICAL DOCTOR AND THE FAULT IN BREAKUP OF

12 Case No. 14-14-00765- CV

MARRIAGE. THE TRIAL COURT ALSO ERRORED BY “TILTING” IN FAVOUR OF THE WIFE'S ATTORNEY, MAY BE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS A STRANGER AND UNKNOWN TO JUDGE BUT JUDGE IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF THE WIFE'S LAWYER.

The Texas family code says that any asset or property bought during the marriage is a community estate unless the party provides the court with clear and convincing evidence to prove that it is a separate estate. 13 Case No. 14-14-00765- CV VII. PRAYER

a) Award the husband greater than 60% of community property division because of poor health conditions of husband, age disparity between wife and husband, and income disparities ( Appendix M ).

b) Classify CITINRI bank a/c and DLR land as community estate, as wife had no proof of them as separate estates. Husband had submitted proofs that they are community estates (Ref: Appendix F ).

c) Order wife to update the financial statements in the inventory as of 27 May 2014. d) Order wife to disclose the 14 gold bars, gold coins and jewelry being hidden by her in the inventory and other hidden assets. e) Remove the term cruelty of husband from judgment, as wife had not submitted any proof of cruelty like - witness, recordings, video, police reports, medical reports of the same and there was no basis for that at all.

f) Appeals court can order wife to pay spousal support to husband for 7 years. g) Pay for the appeals cost. h) Accept the Inventory filed by husband ( Appendix D )

For the above reasons and authorities stated, the Appellant respectfully requests that the judgment of the Brazoria District Court be reversed, and appellant be given the relief requested. Dated: 02 December 2014 Respectfully submitted

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN

________________________

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN

Pro Se PO Box 710163 14 Case No. 14-14-00765-

CV

Houston TX 77271 Email: alavoor@gmail.com Phone: 832-244-1927 Statement as to Typeface: The font used in this Brief is Times New Roman and the type size is 14 point. 15 Case No. 14-14-00765- CV VIII. APPENDIX

Appendix A Trial Courts Judgment 08 Oct 2014 The trial courts judgment is attached in case envelope and also the exhibits Appendix B Trial Courts Judgment 27 May 2014 The trial courts judgment is attached in case envelope and also the exhibits. Appendix C Final Decree of Divorce (Trial Court) The trial courts final decree is attached in case envelope Appendix D Inventory filed by Husband Inventory filed by Husband is attached in case envelope Appendix E Inventory filed by Wife Inventory filed by Wife is attached in case envelope Appendix F Proof filed by Husband for Community Estates Proof filed by Husband is attached in case envelope Appendix G Proof filed by Husband for hidden gold bars of wife Proof filed by Husband is attached in case envelope Appendix H Court reporters copy filed Court reports report is filed directly to 14 th Appeals Court for 27 May 2014 hearing and 08 Oct 2014 hearing. Appendix I The Record Below All the documents filed with the Trial court are attached in the case envelope. Appendix J Texas Family Code 3.003 - Community Estates Texas Family Code for Marital Property Rights http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=FA Code = Family Code Chapter 3 Marital Property Rights and Liabilities 16 Case No. 14-14-00765-

CV

Sec.3.003. Presumption of community property Sec. 3.003. PRESUMPTION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY. (a) Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property. (b) The degree of proof necessary to establish that property is separate property is clear and convincing evidence. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

Appendix K Texas Penal Code 2.01 - Cruelty by Husband Texas Penal Code for Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.2.htm#2.01 Code = Penal Code

CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

Sec. 2.01. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Appendix L Felony Charge on Wife's Attorney filed by Husband Husband filed felony charge on wife's attorney for postal mail thefts is attached in case envelope Appendix M Health Reports of Husband Health reports of Husband is attached in case envelope 17 Case No. 14-14-00765-

CV

Appendix A Trial Courts Judgment 08 Oct 2014 The trial courts judgment is given here (next page) 1 REPORTER'S RECORD 2 VOLUME 3 OF 3 3 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 63935 4 5 DEEPA VASUDEVAN * IN THE DISTRICT COURT 6 VS. * BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 7 ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN * 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 9 ******************************************************** 10 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 11 ******************************************************** 12 On the 8th day of October, 2014, the following 13 proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and 14 numbered cause before the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler, 15 Judge presiding, held in Angleton, Brazoria County, Texas.

Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand. KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S: 2 3 COUNSEL FOR DEEPA VASUDEVAN : 4 Mr. Ronald Brownstein

Attorney at Law 5 TBN: 03229800 5208 Broadway Street, Suite 200 6 Pearland, Texas 77581 (281)485-2770 COUNSEL FOR ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN : Mr. Alavoor Vasudevan Pro Se PO Box 710163 Houston, Texas 77271 (832)244-1927

REPORTED BY:

Kim Keeler, CSR Deputy Court Reporter 300th Judicial District 111 E. Locust, Rm. 401 Angleton, Texas 77515 (281)352-0863

21 22 23 24 25

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 INDEX 2 VOLUME 3 OF 3 3 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

4 OCTOBER 8, 2014

5 Page Vol. 6 Appearances ......................... 2 3 7 Motion for new trial ................ 4 3 8 Court's Ruling ...................... 10 3 9 Adjournment ......................... 14 3 10 Court Reporter's Certificate ........ 15 3

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 2 THE COURT: All right. Let's go on the 3 record in 63935 set on today's docket for hearing. What 4 do we got, reconsideration? Is that one set today? 5 MR. BROWNSTEIN: If I may, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 7 MR. BROWNSTEIN: Mr. Alavoor Vasudevan has 8 filed several post-trial matters with the Court. Some of 9 them are entitled motions. 10 I think all of them collectively are, in 11 essence, new trial motions, motions for rehearings or 12 reconsiderations. 13 He's also given notice of appeal that has -- 14 we received notice from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. 15 So I believe all of these collectively are, 16 in essence, a request for a new trial. I don't know if 17 Mr. Vasudevan will agree with me on that, but I think 18 collectively that's what they would represent. 19 MR. VASUDEVAN: No, it's in regards to the 20 old inventory because there were several items which were 21 not supplemented by my wife. Like she's not provide proof 22 that estates are separated estates. Also, she has not -- 23 she failed to update the inventory figures. 24 And also, in my previous correspondence dated 25 21 June, 2014, I had stated that the wife has failed to

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 submit proof about abuse and physical abuse and murder and 2 financial abuse. 3 Wife has also failed to submit any medical 4 reports or police reports or videos, recording, or 5 witnesses to prove cruelty of the husband. 6 THE COURT: To prove? 7 MR. VASUDEVAN: The cruelty of the husband. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. VASUDEVAN: The final judgment you said 10 that the husband is cruel, so the wife has not provided 11 any proof, so -- the protective order said also abuse. 12 The husband provided -- and even on the 13 inventory, Item No. 1, which is the City Bank -- and I 14 provided the proof that it's not -- it's not separate, but 15 it's a community estate. 16 So there was other items, also. In my 17 correspondence on -- dated 12 June, I said that there was 18 no abuse or cruelty; and I provided proof of my health 19 conditions, like diabetes and blindness, kidney problems, 20 and liver disease. 21 THE COURT: Let me take care of one of those 22 for you real quick. All right? 23 MR. VASUDEVAN: Uh-huh. 24 THE COURT: In your correspondence you 25 complain that there was no rape or sexual abuse.

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. 2 THE COURT: All right. There's not anything 3 in the record that says there was. What you are reading 4 is a docket entry that says: "Record, dash, R. Rape, 5 evidence presented." 6 My court reporter's name -- 7 MR. VASUDEVAN: No, in her statement she was 8 saying, "I was abused sexually." That's what she said. 9 THE COURT: But in your correspondence you 10 say there was no evidence of rape. That's not what that 11 statement says. That's just -- my court reporter's last 12 name is Rape. 13 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I know that. Yes. 14 THE COURT: So let me take care of that. 15 That's not what that docket entry says. 16 MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. 17 THE COURT: Okay? 18 MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. 19 THE COURT: So any complaint about that, 20 that's not what that is saying. 21 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, that's fine. 22 But in her statement when she was talking, 23 she was saying, "I was abused sexually and financially" 24 and all that. She was saying that. 25 THE COURT: Okay.

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 MR. VASUDEVAN: So what I'm saying is there's 2 no such thing like sexual abuse or rape or anything like 3 that and no physical injury or anything like that. 4 What it just says in the protective order, 5 it's simply written and nothing of such thing happened. 6 And I provided a copy of that protective order, also. 7 There she has simply written on there but 8 there is nothing of such thing happened and there is no 9 proof. She has not provided any proof. And there is no 10 911 calls or police reports or any of such thing. 11 She -- they simply write this protective 12 order just to get the protective order and just to throw 13 the husband out of the house. That's what they use that 14 for, I think; and probably it's all done by the lawyer and 15 not by my wife. 16 THE COURT: Mr. Brownstein. 17 MR. BROWNSTEIN: If I may respond, Your 18 Honor. On May 27th this Court heard this case. My client 19 was the only party to offer testimony and exhibits, other 20 than me regarding attorney's fees. Mr. Alavoor declined 21 to testify. 22 Immediately prior to trial -- which was May 23 27th -- on April the 2nd, we supplemented discovery. On 24 May 5th -- now, this is 2014; and the trial was May 27th, 25 2014 -- we filed our Third Amended Inventory.

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 On May the 7th, 2014, we amended our -- we 2 supplemented our inventory again. And then on May the 3 9th, 2014, we filed our Fourth Amended Inventory. 4 Your Honor, way back on June 27th, 2011 -- 5 that's when the first application for a protective order 6 was entered -- the parties reached an agreement back on 7 June 28th, 2011, regarding temporary orders. 8 The case brought before you was just on the 9 divorce. The protective order and the divorce were 10 consolidated. 11 And, Your Honor, we believe that the decision 12 that you made was correct. There has been no suggestion 13 of newly discovered evidence. Mr. Alavoor is complaining 14 that he feels that your division of property was unfair 15 and that he feels it was unfair that you found grounds for 16 divorce not only insupportability but cruelty. 17 And as much as he has now appealed this to 18 the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Your Honor, I'm asking 19 this Court to deny all post-trial motions of Mr. Vasudevan 20 in a proposed order that I have before this Court and to 21 deny a new trial. 22 We think your decision was accurate based 23 upon the evidence, and we ask that you deny all of these 24 motions. 25 MR. VASUDEVAN: I raise objection to his

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 statements, Your Honor, because what amended inventory 2 they filing, they have not updated the figures according 3 to the latest statements. 4 And also, on the protective order, what of it 5 has she written? It's not written by her. And there is 6 no proof that there was any cruelty. 7 So to date, they have not submitted anything; 8 and I asked them to. I also send a copy to the opposing 9 counsel to submit the proof, if they have any; but so far 10 I have not gotten any. 11 Also, for one of the items, No. 2, the DLR 12 interest, it's a land that she purchased during the 13 marriage; and it's, as per law, it is -- it's a community 14 estate. CHECK INTERNET COURT RECORDS FOR THIS 15 And she has not provided any proof that it's 16 a separate -- the burden lays on her to submit the proof. 17 She has not given any solid proof to the Court. 18 And also, there was some gold, which -- a lot 19 of gold she was hiding, like 14 gold bars and jewelry. 20 And all this she has not disclosed that in the inventory 21 at all. She's hiding and concealing. 22 So the inventory, whatever they submitted, is 23 wrong; and it's not correct and accurate. 24 So what I'm requesting the Court is they 25 should -- the Court should order them to correct the

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 inventory and give the latest -- update all the items. 2 And they need to update the statements and 3 submit the statements, all the financial statements. 4 So I hope that justice will be done here; and 5 if I don't get justice, then I may be forced to go to 6 appeals court, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. 7 And I don't want to go spend that much time 8 in the Court of Appeals; and it takes a lot more time, so 9 I want to settle this in this Court. 10 THE COURT: Give me just a minute. Let me go 11 pull my notes and look at the Court's file. I'm going to 12 pull my notes and come back and let you know what we're 13 going to do. 14 MR. VASUDEVAN: Your Honor, I'll give you the 15 same copy which I sent it to you before. 16 THE COURT: I have all that. It's all 17 electronic. That's what I've been looking at. 18 MR. VASUDEVAN: You have all that. Okay. 19 (Brief recess.) 20 THE COURT'S RULING 21 THE COURT: All right. I have looked at 22 the -- I'm going to call it the Motion to Reconsider, 23 which was filed 9/12/2014 by Mr. Vasudevan. I have looked 24 at the other notices that were filed and the Notice of 25 Appeal.

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 I've also looked at the decree, the 2 inventories that were filed, and I've looked at my notes 3 from the time of the hearing. 4 And I will find that the motion for new trial 5 should be denied. The decree will stand as the final 6 order. 7 And you have already given notice of appeal, 8 so we'll let the Court of Appeals deal with it from this 9 point out. 10 MR. BROWNSTEIN: I have a proposed order I 11 believe that encompasses your ruling, Your Honor. If you 12 feel that is accurate, we ask that -- in essence, denied a 13 new trial. 14 THE COURT: Yes. All right. Anything else? 15 MR. VASUDEVAN: Your Honor, they submitted 16 the Third Amended Inventory; and they need to update the 17 inventory, so they have not updated it yet. 18 THE COURT: They filed a Fourth Amended 19 Inventory -- 20 MR. VASUDEVAN: But those figures were not 21 updated. They just simply did a fourth one. 22 THE COURT: I understand you might not 23 believe that they are accurate, but that was the latest 24 inventory -- 25 MR. VASUDEVAN: That's old figures.

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 THE COURT: That's the latest inventory that 2 was filed by Mr. Brownstein on behalf of his client. 3 In looking at the Court's file, I think -- 4 MR. VASUDEVAN: I also filed one Third 5 Amended Inventory. You might have got it along with that. 6 THE COURT: When did you file that? 7 MR. VASUDEVAN: It was on July -- 8 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. July what? 9 MR. VASUDEVAN: 2014. 10 THE COURT: After the trial. 11 MR. VASUDEVAN: Right. 12 THE COURT: Okay. It may be filed, but it 13 was not filed such that it could be considered by the 14 Court. 15 Your inventory that I considered at the time 16 of the trial was -- I think that was filed October, 2013. 17 MR. VASUDEVAN: No, no. It was in May. 18 THE COURT: May? 19 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah. I took an oath; and 20 then on the same day I submitted it, an inventory. 21 THE COURT: Submitted another inventory? 22 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, the second inventory. 23 THE COURT: I have one that was introduced as 24 an exhibit. 25 I saw your notes to correct her inventory.

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 Did you file a separate inventory? 2 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. 3 THE COURT: On what day? 4 MR. VASUDEVAN: On the same day. I took an 5 oath, and then I submitted. 6 THE COURT: What day? 7 MR. VASUDEVAN: On 27th May. 8 THE COURT: 27th May. The day of trial? 9 MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, the day of the trial. 10 THE COURT: Okay. That may have been the 11 exhibit that was introduced. I did have an inventory that 12 was filed or introduced as an exhibit that day, but I 13 don't have the exhibits. Those are upstairs in the 14 clerk's office. 15 If it was an updated one, I did take that 16 into consideration at the time of the trial on May 27, 17 2014. 18 I can't take into consideration an inventory 19 that was filed after the trial because it would be late. 20 MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. It would be late; but 21 for this trial, I think -- I thought you would consider 22 that in today's hearing. 23 THE COURT: Well, there's certain things that 24 have to be presented in the motion for new trial hearing; 25 and I can't tell you what those are. I can't help you

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 represent yourself. 2 I understand that you're representing 3 yourself, but I can't show you how to do those things. 4 All right? 5 So my ruling is that the motions for new 6 trial will be -- or motion to reconsider, which might also 7 be known as a motion for new trial, will be denied.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: May we be excused? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. (Hearing concluded.)

KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF BRAZORIA ) 2 3 I, Kim Keeler, Deputy Court Reporter in and for 4 the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, State of 5 Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing contains a 6 true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence 7 and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for 8 the parties to be included in this volume of the 9 Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, 10 all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and 11 were reported by me. 12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of 13 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, 14 if any, admitted, tendered in an offer of proof, or 15 offered into evidence. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 prepartion of this Reporter's Record is $150.00 and 18 was paid by Alavoor Vasudevan. 19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 12th day of 20 November, 2014. 21 /s/Kimberly Keeler

Kimberly Keeler, CSR 22 Certification Number: 8253 Expiration: December 31, 2014 23 Deputy Court Reporter, 300th Judicial District Brazoria County 24 111 E. Locust, Rm. 401 Angleton, Texas 77515 25 25 (281)352-0863 KIM KEELER, CSR DEPUTY COURT REPORTER Appendix B Trial Courts Judgment 27 May 2014 The trial courts judgment is given here (next page) REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 3 VOLUMES TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 63935 APPELLATE COURT CAUSE NO. 14-14-00765-CV IN THE MATTER OF * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE MARRIAGE OF *

*

DEEPA VASUDEVAN

* 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AND *

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN *

* AND IN THE INTEREST OF * PALLAVI DEV, A CHILD * BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS ********************************************************

MASTER INDEX

******************************************************** A P P E A R A N C E S MR. ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN PRO SE Post Office Box 710163 Houston, Texas 77271 Phone: (832) 244-1927 PETITIONER AND RONALD A. BROWNSTEIN SBOT NO. 03229800 5208 West Broadway, Suite 200 Pearland, Texas 77581 Phone: (281) 485-2770 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT/COUNTER-PETITIONER, DEEPA VASUDEVAN

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX VOLUME 1 - MASTER INDEX

VOLUME 2 - TRIAL ON FINAL MERITS

MAY 27, 2014

PAGE VOL Witnesses Sworn by the Court .................. 6 2

COUNTER-PETITIONER/

RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL

Vasudevan, Deepa 8 59 81 2 Brownstein, Ronald Allen 83 86 2 Counter-Petitioner/Respondent Rests ........... 88 2 Petitioner Offers Exhibits .................... 88 2 Petitioner Rests .............................. 92 2 Court's Orders ................................ 92 2 Court Adjourned ............................... 96 2 Court Reporter's Certificate .................. 97 2

VOLUME 3 - MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

OCTOBER 8, 2014 PAGE VOL

Appearances ................................... 2 3 Motion for New Trial .......................... 4 3 Court's Ruling ................................ 10 3 Adjournment ................................... 14 3

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX CONTINUED

VOLUME 3 - MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - (continued)

OCTOBER 8, 2014 PAGE VOL

Court Reporter's Certificate .................. 15 3

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES WITNESS' NAME DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL Brownstein, Ronald Allen 83 86 2 Vasudevan, Deepa 8 59 81 2

OFFICIAL REPORTER'S RECORD CERTIFICATION PAGE THE STATE OF TEXAS) COUNTY OF BRAZORIA) I, Renee Rape, Official Court Reporter in and for the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties. I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of this Reporter's Record is $576.00 and was paid/will be paid by Petitioner, Mr. Alavoor Vasudevan. WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 17th day of November, 2014.

17 18 19 /s/ Renée Rape ____________

Renée Rape, Texas CSR# 4031 20 Expiration Date: 12-31-16 Official Court Reporter, 300th District Court 21 Brazoria County, Texas 111 East Locust, RM 402 22 Angleton, Texas 77515 979-864-1229 23 24 25

REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 2 OF 3 VOLUMES TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 63935 APPELLATE COURT CAUSE NO. 14-14-00765-CV IN THE MATTER OF * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE MARRIAGE OF *

*

DEEPA VASUDEVAN

* 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AND *

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN *

* AND IN THE INTEREST OF * PALLAVI DEV, A CHILD * BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS ********************************************************

TRIAL ON FINAL MERITS

******************************************************** On the 27th day of May, 2014, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler, Judge presiding, held in Angleton, Brazoria County, Texas. Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand Method.

A P P E A R A N C E S MR. ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN PRO SE Post Office Box 710163 Houston, Texas 77271 Phone: (832) 244-1927 PETITIONER AND RONALD A. BROWNSTEIN SBOT NO. 03229800 5208 West Broadway, Suite 200 Pearland, Texas 77581 Phone: (281) 485-2770 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT/COUNTER-PETITIONER, DEEPA VASUDEVAN

I N D E X MAY 27, 2014 PAGE VOL Witnesses Sworn by the Court .................. 6 2

COUNTER-PETITIONER/

RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL

Vasudevan, Deepa 8 59 81 2 Brownstein, Ronald Allen 83 86 2 Counter-Petitioner/Respondent Rests ........... 88 2 Petitioner Offers Exhibits .................... 88 2 Petitioner Rests .............................. 92 2 Court's Orders ................................ 92 2 Court Adjourned ............................... 96 2 Court Reporter's Certificate .................. 97 2

EXHIBIT INDEX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION

OFFERED ADMITTED VOL 1 Second Amended Inventory and 88 90 2 Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan 2 Objections to Inventory Filed 90 X 2 By Wife on 9 May 2014 5 Citibank Account Statement for 67 X 2 April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 12 Wedding Photographs Showing 71 X 2 Gold, Diamonds, Jewelry 13 Handwriting Diary of Wife 71 X 2 14 1. Bank of America Payment 71 75 2 Notice, 7-1-13 to 6-30-14 2. Bank of America Payment Notice, 7-1-08 to 6-30-09 3. Bank of America Account Statement August, 2001 - Pages 1 and 2 of 13 4. Bank of America Account Statement August, 2001 - Pages 7 and 8 of 13 5. Bank of America Account Statement July, 2002 - Pages 1 and 2 of 13 6. Bank of America Account Statement July, 2002 - Pages 3 and 4 of 13

EXHIBIT INDEX CONTINUED PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION

OFFERED ADMITTED VOL 14 7. Handwritten Notes 71 X 2 15 Handwritten Notes 71 X 2 16 Samples of Identity Thefts and 72 X 2 Article from Odisha Sun Times

RESPONDENT/COUNTER-PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION

OFFERED ADMITTED VOL 1 Bank of America Account 31 32 2 Activity as of 10-28-13 2 Letters between Petitioner 33 33 2 and Mr. Ron Brownstein 3 Deepa Vasudevan's Motion to 36 38 2 Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and Protective Order 4 Affidavit for Business Records 41 42 2 For Deepa Vasudevan 5 Fourth Amended Inventory and 43/50 50 2 Appraisement of Deepa Vasudevan 6 Photograph 49 49 2 7 Photograph 52 52 2 8 Attorney's Fees for Ronald 85 86 2 Allen Brownstein

MAY 27, 2014

THE COURT: All right. All those who are going to be testifying in the Vasudevan matter, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn.

(The witnesses were sworn by the Court.)

11:34AM

THE COURT: All right. Please have a seat at counsel table, and we will get started. All right. Mr. Brownstein? MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, Your Honor, I am the

Counter-Petitioner in this case. I would be glad to

11:35AM

proceed forward if Alavoor would allow me to do so. THE COURT: Mr. Vasudevan? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You are representing yourself? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, Your Honor.

11:35AM

THE COURT: And you understand this is on final today? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. THE COURT: Give me just one second. And this was consolidated with another case,

11:37AM

66539. MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. THE COURT: So, we have 63935 and 66539.

Everything is in the older matter. And we're still working with your original petition; is that correct?

11:37AM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. THE COURT: And, Mr. Brownstein, you have --

is it still your original Counter-Petition, or have you had an amended?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: The original

11:38AM

Counter-Petition was filed by previous counsel from Scott Brown's office. I had filed a First Amended Counter-Petition and supplemented that twice, the most recent of which was a name change request, Your Honor.

So, my active pleadings are my First Amended

11:38AM

Counter-Petition with two supplemental -- two supplements to that document, Your Honor.

THE COURT: November 22, 2013, and December 16, 2013. I have both of those. All right. Mr. Vasudevan, do you want to

11:39AM

proceed as the Petitioner, or do you want Mr. Brownstein to proceed first as the Counter-Petitioner? Your choice.

MR. VASUDEVAN: It doesn't matter. He can proceed.

11:39AM

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Brownstein, on your Counter-Petition. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I first ask the

Court to take judicial notice of the entire file in this case, including the original Application for Protective

11:39AM

Order of which this, being the older case, has now been consolidated with the divorce action.

THE COURT: I'll take notice of both files in 63935 and 66539. MR. BROWNSTEIN: All right. I would like to

11:40AM

call my client, Mrs. Deepa Vasudevan. THE COURT: Once you're seated, if you'll pull that microphone in front of you, please. You may proceed. DEEPA VASUDEVAN, 11:40AM and having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNSTEIN: Q. Please tell the Judge your name. A. Deepa Vasudevan.

11:40AM

Q. And may I address you as Deepa, since that's how I've known you for over two years in this case? A. Yes. Q. Mrs. Deepa, prior to filing your lawsuit and

Counter-Petition for divorce, you first filed an

11:40AM

Application for a Protective Order against your husband; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. Are you married to Alavoor Vasudevan? A. Yes.

11:41AM

Q. When did the two of you marry? A. March, 1992. Q. And when did you separate, more or less, living

together as husband and wife? A. Around June. I filed for the Protective Order

11:41AM

in June of 2011. Q. Prior to filing your -- and you subsequently then filed with Scott Brown's office a Petition or a Counter-Petition for divorce; is that correct?

A. Yes.

11:41AM

Q. Prior to filing your Counter-Petition for divorce, did you live in the state of Texas at least six months and Brazoria County the preceding 90-day period?

A. Yes. Q. Approximately six months before you filed for

11:41AM

divorce, you filed your Application for Protective Order; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. Why did you seek the protection of the Court? A. Because at the point that I filed for it, I had

11:42AM

the injury to myself and I was not in a safe environment; and both for me and my daughter, I needed some protection because I was abused both mentally, physically, as well as sexually by my husband.

Q. And in your Application for Protective Order,

11:42AM

there was attached an affidavit which accused your husband of certain activity. Is it true --

A. Yes. Q. -- that your husband threatened to kill you and

your daughter?

11:42AM

A. Yes. Q. Is it true that he threatened to burn down the

house with you and your daughter in it? A. Yes. Q. Is it true that your husband had a history or

11:43AM

pattern of physically assaults upon you? A. Yes. Q. Would he grab you and shake you? A. Yes. Q. Why would he do that?

11:43AM

A. In most cases, it was as if it was because he wanted to either get physical with me or if there was a disagreement on any issue relating to finances.

Q. On June 26, 2011, the day before you filed your -- or prepared your affidavit, is it true that he

11:43AM

followed you into the bathroom and started shaking you and pinning you against the bathroom wall?

A. Yes. Q. Who came to your rescue? A. I called one of my friends, and her husband

11:43AM

came. They lived in the neighborhood, and they came to help me.

Q. Was your daughter in the house at this time? A. She was. She was sleeping upstairs.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: May I approach, Your Honor?

11:44AM

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) As a result of your Application for Temporary Orders -- for a Protective Order, you and your husband and his respective attorney agreed to Temporary Orders; is that correct?

11:44AM

A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Judge, these were filed with the Court on July 22nd, 2011. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) In the Temporary Orders, was it agreed upon at that time that although the two of

11:44AM

you did not agree and use the term "conservator", that you were appointed the primary custodian of your daughter?

A. Yes. Q. Your daughter was what age at that time?

11:44AM

A. She was 15 and a half. Q. Okay. And she was going to public schools; is

that correct? A. Yes. Q. And pursuant to the terms of the agreement, you

11:45AM

were agreed to have exclusive rights to designate where the child lived within Brazoria and the surrounding counties?

A. Yes. Q. Exclusive right to consent to medical and

11:45AM

surgical treatment involving any invasive procedures? A. Yes. Q. Exclusive right to psychiatric and psychological

treatment of the child? A. Yes.

11:45AM

Q. Exclusive right to receive support for the child, child support? A. Yes. Q. Exclusive right to represent the child in legal

action; to agree, if you so consented, to early marriage

11:45AM

or enlistment in the armed forces; to make educational decisions; and to manage her estate, all of these being exclusively awarded to you in this agreement; is that correct?

A. Yes.

11:45AM

Q. Regarding your husband's possession or access to the child, was it agreed that any access by your husband, Alavoor, was to be supervised by a friend or a family member designated by you?

A. Yes.

11:46AM

Q. And that no specific times and dates were awarded to him on visitation. A. Yes. Q. And you both agreed that was in the best

interest of the child.

11:46AM

A. Yes. Q. Why didn't -- did the child want to be around

the father? A. The child has had actually no bond at all with the father. He had not spent any time with her. Her

11:46AM

complete care from when she was born close to about four years was helped by my mother because I was doing my residency. And after that, after my mom passed, it was pretty much under -- she was under my care.

So, she had no bond whatsoever. There has

11:46AM

never been a day that she's been alone with her father taking care of her. So, she was very, very nervous about staying with him. And after the threatening episode in June, there was definitely no -- I was very nervous and so was she to spend any amount of time with

11:47AM

him alone. Q. As a matter of fact, since the date of your Protective Order hearing, which occurred on July the 19th, 2011; is that correct?

A. Yes.

11:47AM

Q. To today's date, has the father ever had the child spend overnight access with him? A. No. Q. How many times has the father, your husband,

physically been in the presence of the child for

11:47AM

visitation or access? A. I would say three to four times. Q. And have all of those times been supervised? A. Yes. Q. And have sometimes you've been the person to

11:47AM

supervise that visitation? A. Yes. Q. Regarding the child support, did you agree that

Mr. Vasudevan, your husband, would pay child support as deemed appropriate by him?

11:48AM

A. Yes. Q. Until September of 2011, at which time -- at

that time, either party could seek additional orders; is that correct?

A. Yes.

11:48AM

Q. As part of your agreement in this Protective Order application, did you also agree that both of you would attend a parent education and family stabilization course?

A. Yes.

11:48AM

Q. And that you would present proof that you have taken that course and filed your certificate with the Court?

A. Yes. Q. Did you take that course?

11:48AM

A. Yes. Q. And did you file that certificate with the

Court? A. Yes. Q. Do you know if your husband ever filed any

11:48AM

certificate with the Court? A. I'm not aware. Q. All right. Was your husband also ordered to

attend at least ten sessions of anger management? A. Yes.

11:49AM

Q. Did he ever tell you if he had attended all ten sessions or at least ten sessions? A. He did not tell me. Q. You also agreed at the time of the hearing on

your Protective Order that the residence of the parties,

11:49AM

3402 Castle Pond, that you would be awarded the exclusive use of that house.

A. Yes. Q. And that you would have the exclusive use of

your Mercedes.

11:49AM

A. Yes. Q. And that your husband, if he has not already

vacated, vacate the premises; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. You each had exclusive use of certain vehicles.

11:49AM

And there was an issue regarding a pink computer that was addressed in the Temporary Orders. He was ordered to return the pink computer belonging to your daughter, Pallavi; is that correct?

A. Yes.

11:50AM

Q. Now, tell me the date of birth of Pallavi, if you know it. A. 12-7-1995. Q. Did you and your husband acquire a pink computer

for your daughter's education?

11:50AM

A. Yes. Q. At that time, was she doing very well in school? A. Extremely well. Q. As a matter of fact, has she graduated number

one in her class at Dawson High School in Pearland,

11:50AM

Texas? A. Yes. Q. She's the valedictorian. A. Yes. Q. What would she use that pink computer for?

11:50AM

A. She had all of her files on -- all the Word files that she used to do her school work on, she had saved them on that file.

And after the Protective Order was filed, two hours later, my husband came to the house when he

11:51AM

was ordered not to by the Court. And my daughter was with her -- the housekeeper. And he came, disconnected all the connections, all the computer connections, took her pink laptop which was there, and left at that point.

And so, she was distraught because all her

11:51AM

work was on the computer. And hence, I had to come back and file, so that way I was able to get that computer back to her, at least to get all the files transferred back to a new computer, if I needed to.

Q. All right. And did Alavoor return the computer

11:51AM

back to your daughter? A. After the Court ordered, yes. Q. Okay.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I have not marked the Temporary Orders as an exhibit since it's a

11:51AM

part of the Court's file. But if you wanted a written copy -- I didn't know which is easier for you to review, if it's --

THE COURT: I have it electronically. MR. BROWNSTEIN: So, you do not need it for

11:52AM

that purpose. THE COURT: I don't need it unless you want it marked as an exhibit. It's up to you. MR. BROWNSTEIN: No, I do not, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

11:52AM

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Deepa, would you tell us a little bit about your educational background? A. I am an MD by my degree, and I finished my medical school in India in 1992. And I had, in Europe, internship that I did not complete. And I got married

11:53AM

and I came to the United States, did my exams, went back to finish the course, and then did my residency here with the University of Texas.

So, I have an undergraduate degree, which is from India, and then an MD, which is also from India.

11:53AM

But passing my exams, I was able to start my residency in the United States.

Q. All right. And tell me a little bit about your employment history. A. Okay. So, I started my residency 1995, June.

11:53AM

And before that, I was here for a very short time. I came in here in 1993, joined my husband for about seven months, did my exams, went back, finished all the required training, the internship that I had to do. Came back in early '95, took all my interviews, and then

11:53AM

started working in 1995. From '95 to '98, I was an intern at the University of Texas in Houston.

Q. All right. I'm going to stop you. During your internship, '95 through '98 -- A. Yes.

11:54AM

Q. -- what was your approximate salary or income? A. About 36,000. Q. All right. A. Annually.

And then in 1998, September, I was offered

11:54AM

the position of a faculty with the university and I accepted that and that's where I am presently employed to.

Q. Can you tell us approximately the incomes you have made since becoming a faculty member at the

11:54AM

University of Texas? A. So, initially, I started off at 110 to 120,000. And then progressively -- for a couple of years, I stayed at that salary and then went up to about 150 and -- for another few years. And then last year, I was

11:54AM

promoted; and I'm right now at 195,000. Q. All right. Of the marriage, Pallavi was the only child born; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. You have identified her on your petition as --

11:55AM

her name as Pallavi, last name, D-e-v; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. No other children were born or adopted during

your marriage? A. No.

11:55AM

Q. And you are not expecting a child at this time. A. No. Q. As grounds for divorce, you have alleged two

grounds. One, that your marriage has become insupportable due to discord or conflict of

11:55AM

personalities between you and your husband that destroys the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation. Is that true?

A. Yes.

11:55AM

Q. You've also alleged that your husband is guilty of cruel treatment towards you of a nature that renders further living together insupportable. Is that also true?

A. Yes.

11:56AM

Q. Can you be more specific and give examples of how your husband's cruel treatment has caused you to seek this divorce?

A. To go back a little bit, ours was an arranged marriage. And it was in 1992 that our families arranged

11:56AM

the wedding. And my husband returned back to the United States after the wedding in March of 1992. I joined him in January of 1993 for a short time.

The -- and then the first three years we spent a little time just because of my travel between

11:56AM

India and here. So, I did not know him very well at that point. After coming and spending some time with me, I've always had -- it's always been what he's wanted, whether it's been emotional, physical, sexual. It's never been what I have wanted. It's always been --

11:57AM

that was always the way it worked. And I was new. I was young. I was about 22. So, I didn't -- and I came from a very different culture where I was raised very differently.

We had Pallavi in 1995, about a year after I

11:57AM

had stayed with him. And all through the pregnancy, he had not come with me even for maybe one visit to the physician. Never offered any emotional, financial, or physical support of any kind. It was just, you know, a way to -- just fathering a child. That was all that was

11:57AM

important to him. After the child was born, I was a resident and so, my mother did come here to help me with the child. She took care of the child most of the time for about four years. During those times, there was very

11:57AM

minimal help offered, whether it was taking care of her, whether it was taking her to the doctors. I had a full-time housekeeper who would help my mother take care of the child's needs. The child slept with my mother in her room.

11:58AM

There was never an emotional bonding that was there with him and his child. And after I started my -- I finished my residency, I became the primary caretaker of the child. All her visits, all her school care, everything related to Pallavi was done by me.

11:58AM

In 2007, I lost my mother to breast cancer. At that point, he started mentally, as well as emotionally, abusing me. It was like the child was always the center. He knew that the child was my weakest link; and so, it was always I'm going to tell

11:58AM

the child or I'm going to take her here or -- it was very different.

Never provided for her. And I used to go to work and never be sure that I would come back and have the child fed or even taken to any of the activities she

11:59AM

needed. We had a housekeeper who did most of the work. Emotionally, it was very difficult because it was always about what he wanted and I had to give in just because we had a very young child. I was unsure of the system. I had just lost my mother. I was probably

11:59AM

at my lowest time. At that time, financially, he made several steps where he actually closed out an account, took money away. And so, at that point, I had to start making some financial decisions myself and that was

11:59AM

difficult for him to digest and he emotionally got worse.

This continued for about ten years where I was the primary caretaker for Pallavi. Even for a breakfast appointment, like a breakfast with dad, I had

11:59AM

to send money with the child, so that he could get a donut for her -- I mean, she could buy him a donut instead of the other way around.

About when she was 15, I think, my patience broke and it was getting -- every single day was a

12:00PM

challenge. Either it was physical, it was mental, it was emotional or sexual. And finally, I think a time came where I couldn't handle; and I moved upstairs into a bedroom upstairs. And I think that was the one where the physical abuse got quite strong.

12:00PM

I actually had to call in several friends several times to talk to him because he was under the impression that if he wanted something, he got it, whether it was physical, mental, financial, or sexual.

And when I moved into a separate bedroom, I

12:00PM

think it was very difficult for him to understand that, you know, he was not getting what he needed. At that point, I think the physical abuse got worse.

And I had kept my child very separate from all this. Whatever was happening between us was always

12:00PM

between four walls. But I think with this, it sort of separated out and my child got to see some of it. And I think when one of -- when I woke up one day and I walked down, that was when he pinned me down and I was very nervous. I thought that would have been my last day. I

12:01PM

did not think I would survive that, and I'm glad I did. And that's when I made the decision to say that I needed to file for -- I couldn't take the physical, mental, as well as sexual torture anymore. So, that's when I filed for the Temporary Orders.

12:01PM

THE COURT: All right. We're going to recess for lunch. See y'all at 1:00 o'clock. (Recess was taken.) THE COURT: All right. Let's continue. Mr. Brownstein?

01:14PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. May I proceed? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Deepa, tell the Judge a little bit about your husband's educational background

01:15PM

and his work history. A. He has an undergraduate degree in engineering from India, which is called BS. And he has an MS from university -- University of Texas El Paso here. And he's done several courses online, as well as he's

01:15PM

pursuing a PhD, I think. Q. All right. And is his pursuit of a PhD, is that in computer engineering or a computer science field? A. I think it is in computer science. Q. And has your husband been employed throughout

01:15PM

the marriage? A. Through most of the marriage, yes, he's been employed. He had a few months probably in 2003 that he was looking for work in between, but most of the time all throughout he has been employed.

01:16PM

Q. All right. Can you tell us the type of employment, who his -- who his employers were and his approximate income?

A. In California where we were initially, he was working for a company called Amdahl; and he made

01:16PM

anywhere between 80 to 120,000. And then after that, he worked for an accounting corporation in Houston. And subsequent to that, he changed -- he's worked for the, I think, San Jac college. He has worked for other companies, and his income has been anywhere between 80

01:16PM

to 110,000. Q. Is he employed today? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Who is he currently employed with? A. I'm not sure, but I think ABB is what I was

01:17PM

told. Q. All right. And his approximate income today is what? A. About 90 to 100,000. Q. As your child is getting ready for graduation,

01:17PM

tell me about her future plans. A. My daughter wants to pursue medicine as a career; so, she looked at several undergraduate colleges. And we went -- and we were in-state touring, as well as out of state. And she has decided to go to

01:17PM

University of Texas Dallas, the provision with admission to Southwestern Medical School in Dallas.

Q. And how many campuses or universities did you join her in looking at before she made her decision? A. We went to about six campuses, and I was there

01:18PM

in all of them. Q. And, Deepa, tell me about your future. By the way, you and your husband are both naturalized U.S. citizens; is that correct? A. Yes.

01:18PM

Q. And what are your future plans regarding service to our country? A. At this point since my biggest commitment, which was my daughter, is going to go off to college, it has given me some chance -- I always wanted to give back to

01:18PM

the country that gave me quite a bit. So, I'm planning to be a reservist in the Army for -- for a couple of years. So, I've already talked to the U.S. Army recruiters. I haven't decided on a date because my daughter is still a little nervous, but I probably will

01:18PM

do that next year. And that entails two months out of the year that I need to go and serve at one of the Army bases; and if there is a need determined, I will be asked to go serve in that area. And that may mean that with the

01:18PM

state I may be -- I will have to give a temporary resignation with the fact that since it's a federal opportunity, I will be given my job back when I do come back from service.

Q. As a reservist, is it possible that you could be

01:19PM

called up for an indefinite time period if the military branch so chooses?

A. Yes, that's a possibility. Q. Okay. In July 13 of 2012, you filed a Motion to

Modify the Temporary Orders seeking child support; is

01:19PM

that correct? A. Yes. Q. And why did you do that? A. Because initially when we came and I got the

Temporary Orders, my husband was supposed to pay child

01:19PM

support as deemed appropriate; but he never paid me any support. And hence, I had to file a motion to ask him to pay child support.

Q. As a matter of fact, he contributed no support to you from the date of your hearing on the Temporary

01:20PM

Orders on your Protective Order, that was July 22nd of 2011, until September 1st of 2012; is that correct?

A. Yes. MR. VASUDEVAN: Objection, please, because I was told not to give her any support by --

01:20PM

THE COURT: I didn't understand. You were told what? MR. VASUDEVAN: I was told not to give her any support or anything because of the court order. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

01:20PM

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) So, that period, September, 2011 -- I mean, July, 2011, through September of 2012, was 14 months where he contributed nothing to the support of you and your child; is that correct?

A. Yes.

01:20PM

Q. You and your husband reached an agreement with his attorney at that time for additional Temporary Orders; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And commencing -- and that was a court order of

01:21PM

this Court. MR. BROWNSTEIN: May I approach again, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Deepa, you and your husband

01:21PM

reached an agreement that was filed with the Court on September the 11th, 2012, now ordering your husband to pay child support; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And was he ordered to pay you $1,200 per month

01:22PM

beginning September 1st, 2012? A. Yes. Q. And a like payment due and payable on each month

until further order of the Court; is that correct? A. Yes.

01:22PM

Q. And did your husband initially pay his Court-ordered support of $1,200 per month? A. He started -- I think, the first month was September; and since then, he did not pay one month of child support from the time he was ordered to now.

01:22PM

Q. Okay. All right. Did it come to pass that in November of 2012 -- well, let me have my outline back. I'm going to hand you what is marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 1. And is this a record of your bank records where your husband was making direct

01:23PM

deposits of child support? A. Yes. Q. All right. He was not ordered to pay through

the Child Support Office; is that correct? A. Yes.

01:23PM

Q. All right. For the payment of November, 2012, did he pay you $1,200? A. No. Q. How much did he pay you? A. It says $1,048.36.

01:23PM

Q. Do you know why he paid you less than the $1,200 he was ordered to pay? A. Because he took me and my daughter out for dinner; and so, the cost of the dinner was -- MR. VASUDEVAN: Objection, Your Honor. This

01:24PM

is not correct. This is the utility bill I paid. Maybe that's --

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, opposing counsel will get a chance to cross-examine her. THE COURT: Go ahead.

01:24PM

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Okay. So, he paid you less than 1,200 -- A. Yes. Q. -- because he took you out to dinner. A. Yes.

01:24PM

Q. That difference was $151.64. A. Yes. Q. Was that the cost of the dinner? A. Yes. Q. And in which he participated, as well.

01:24PM

A. Yes. Q. Did he also miss a payment in July of 2013? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Has he ever caught that payment up? A. No.

01:24PM

Q. Okay. Does Respondent's Exhibit Number 1 evidence the November payment of 2012 that he was short and also evidence that there is no payment or no credit for child support that he delivered into your bank account for the month of July of 2012?

01:25PM

A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I'm going to offer Respondent's Exhibit Number 1. (Discussion off the record between Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Vasudevan.)

01:25PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to offer Respondent's Exhibit Number 1. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, Your Honor. On this,

the 1,048, that is due to the utility bill, which came

01:25PM

to my address. THE COURT: That's cross. You'll have an opportunity to ask her some questions. All I'm asking you right now is do you object to this being a copy of a bank statement --

01:25PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: No. THE COURT: -- of the witness? All right. One is admitted. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Additionally, did you have

01:25PM

your attorney send your husband a letter, among other things, indicating that he was behind in his child support?

A. Yes. Q. Okay. And is Respondent's Exhibit Number 2 a

01:26PM

true and correct copy of the letter sent to your husband, among other things, notifying him that he was behind in his child support of past due?

A. Yes. Q. Okay. Attached as part of Respondent's Exhibit

01:26PM

Number 2, is this a true and correct copy of the response, in part, received by you or your attorney indicating that Alavoor indicated that there was a delay due to a technical problem on the bank website?

A. Yes.

01:26PM

Q. Is that correct? MR. BROWNSTEIN: Do you have any objections to our correspondences? MR. VASUDEVAN: No. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Okay. No objection, Your

01:27PM

Honor, I ask that Respondent's Number 2 be admitted. THE COURT: Two will be admitted. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) On or about February 14th of 2013, did your husband file a Motion to Compel Discovery?

01:27PM

A. Yes. Q. All right. And at this time, he was no longer

being represented by Annette Henry? He was representing himself.

A. Yes.

01:27PM

Q. Okay. And was hearing held on that Motion to Compel on March 11th, 2013? A. Yes. Q. At the hearing on March 11, 2013, the Court made

a ruling denying your husband's Motion to Compel

01:28PM

Production; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And in addition, the Court ordered your husband

to pay you $600 in attorney's fees and costs on or before March 18th, 2013; is that correct?

01:28PM

A. Yes. Q. Did you ever receive that payment? A. No. Q. As we sit here today, your husband continues to

violate that Court order by not paying the $600; is that

01:28PM

correct? A. Yes. Q. Shortly after the hearing, on March the 19th,

your husband filed a request for court order on the Motion to Compel that the Judge just made a ruling on;

01:29PM

is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And he also submitted to the Court a court order

for the Judge to sign; is that correct? A. Yes.

01:29PM

Q. That was never heard or submitted to the Court; was it? A. No. Q. Do you know why your husband sent a second

request and a proposal for the Judge to sign the Motion

01:29PM

to Compel when the Judge had just made a ruling seven days prior?

A. I'm not sure. Q. On June 5th, 2013, did you request that I

forward a notice to take the oral deposition of your

01:30PM

husband set for July 11, 2013? A. Yes. Q. At the deposition set in my office on July 11,

2013, did your husband appear at his deposition? A. No.

01:30PM

Q. Were you required through your attorney to pay the court reporter $150 for her appearance? A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: May I approach again, Your Honor?

01:31PM

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Because your husband failed to appear for his deposition and because he was forwarding numerous additional production-related requests, were you forced to file a Motion to Compel

01:31PM

Discovery and for Sanctions? A. Yes. Q. Although this has been filed with the Court, I'm

going to mark this as Respondent's Exhibit Number 3. Is this a true and correct copy of the Motion to Compel

01:31PM

Discovery and for Sanctions that I filed with the Court? A. Yes. Q. This was filed for several reasons; is that

correct? A. Yes.

01:32PM

Q. One of which is your husband did not pay the $600 in attorney's fees ordered by the Court; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And that your husband failed to appear at his

01:32PM

deposition. Is that also correct? A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I'm going to ask that Respondent's Exhibit Number 3 be admitted. MR. VASUDEVAN: I do raise objections on the

01:32PM

motions. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I understand. You can cross-examine. Do you have any objections to the filing of this?

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I do.

01:33PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to ask that Respondent's Exhibit Number 3 be admitted. It is a true and correct copy of the Motion to Compel Discovery that was filed with this Court that you have taken notice of on August -- August 2nd, 2013.

01:33PM

THE COURT: Any objection? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, I do have objections,

Your Honor. THE COURT: What's your objection? MR. VASUDEVAN: The objection was that

01:33PM

Motion to Compel, it was not complete. The Judge said he wanted more permission from me; so, that's why I sent it.

THE COURT: He's offering an exhibit. Do you have any objection to that exhibit?

01:33PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: I do have objections. THE COURT: What's the objection to the

exhibit? Not to the hearing, not to the Motion to Compel, but to that exhibit.

MR. VASUDEVAN: The objections I have were

01:34PM

on Page 3, the hearing on Motion to Compel, and also on the Page 4, the Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions.

THE COURT: Okay. I don't know if you're understanding me or not, but we're not going back and

01:34PM

rehearing that hearing. Mr. Brownstein is simply offering that as an exhibit as to what happened.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Oh, okay. THE COURT: Okay? Do you have any objection

to that?

01:34PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: No, I don't. THE COURT: Okay. Three is admitted.

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Now, among the reasons that you have requested this Motion to Compel included the defaults of your husband you just testified to.

01:35PM

A. Yes. Q. Not appearing at his oral deposition, not

paying. And in addition, did your -- attached to this exhibit that has been now admitted, Respondent's

01:35PM

Exhibit Number 3, is correspondence that your husband directed to me questioning the corruption of the Court; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And his questions regarding the court hearing,

01:35PM

he suggested that the presiding Associate Judge at that time -- he asked several questions including whether I had a blood relative or other relationship with Judge Robertson; is that correct?

A. Yes.

01:36PM

Q. And that he basically, in a nutshell, if you were to summarize his questions, accused the Judge of being corrupt; is that correct?

A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Respondent's Number 3, Your

01:36PM

Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) At the hearing on this Motion to Compel, at that time he had just recently hired an attorney by the name of Shannon Tigner; is that

01:36PM

correct? A. Yes. Q. And did y'all reach an agreement regarding what

was to take place regarding my motion? A. Yes.

01:36PM

Q. All right. Did y'all agree that we would pass the Motion to Compel and that the parties were to attend mediation with Jimmy Phillips?

A. Yes. Q. Was your husband required, among other things,

01:36PM

to produce records that were responsive to the Exhibit A on my Motion for Oral Deposition?

A. Yes. Q. And was he also required to file an inventory at

least seven days prior to the mediation?

01:37PM

A. Yes. Q. Did your husband file his inventory prior to the

mediation? A. No. Q. Filed with this Court is the Mediated Settlement

01:37PM

Agreement as to Pallavi. You and your husband at the first mediation of Jimmy Phillips were able to reach an agreement regarding your child; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. That agreement, among other things, appointed

01:38PM

you the primary conservator of the child but only allowed possession and access of the child with the father as agreed upon between the child and the father.

A. Yes. Q. He was also ordered to pay -- or y'all agreed

01:38PM

for an increase in child support beginning on the first pay period after the date of the divorce. But you haven't been divorced yet; have you?

A. No. THE COURT: Mr. Brownstein, just as a point

01:38PM

for my notes, this is a property issue case; right? I mean, we got a lot of questions about child support, about visitation, about her going to visit all these schools, and I'm -- I haven't made a note yet on property division.

01:39PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: We're getting very close there, Judge. Since we have asked -- THE COURT: Can we go ahead and get there? MR. BROWNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right.

01:39PM

(Discussion off the record between Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Vasudevan.) Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Deepa, I'm going to hand you a copy of your Fourth Amended Inventory, which you have filed with the Court on May the 9th.

01:42PM

And I'm going to also hand you what is marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 4, which is your Affidavit of Business Records that you filed with the Court and gave notice to your husband back on May the 9th, 2014.

01:43PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: First, let me tender Respondent's Exhibit Number 4. Do you have any objections to the business records affidavit, Mr. Vasudevan?

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, I do have objections on

01:43PM

this. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, would you inform the Court what your objections are since I'd like to offer this?

MR. VASUDEVAN: I do send objections on this

01:43PM

one, on the inventory. THE COURT: When did you send it? MR. VASUDEVAN: I just gave it this morning

before lunch. The one where it says objections to the --

01:43PM

THE COURT: In this stack? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, that stack. It's the

second page, the second document. THE COURT: Okay. Well, once again, what is being offered is a summary.

01:44PM

Well, is it your four? Is that what you're on right now? MR. BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Respondent's 4 is the business records affidavit. THE COURT: That's not the inventory.

01:44PM

Your next exhibit is the inventory; right? MR. BROWNSTEIN: That's coming up next, Your

Honor. THE COURT: Okay. What is being offered now is a business records affidavit, which contains records.

01:44PM

Do you have any objection to that? What you just showed me was your objections to her inventory.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Right. Those documents are correct, but only thing is they are outdated. THE COURT: They're correct?

01:44PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: They are not up to date. THE COURT: Are they correct? MR. VASUDEVAN: They are correct as for the

last two years. THE COURT: That's all I need to know.

01:44PM

All right. Four is admitted. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) All right. And, Deepa, I'm going to hand you what is marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 5. And is this your proposed division of how you're asking this Court to divide your estate? Is that

01:44PM

correct? A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Do you have any objections to our proposal? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, I do have objections.

01:45PM

I gave that to the Judge. He already has a copy of the objections.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to offer Respondent's Exhibit Number 5, which is our proposed division of property as required by your local

01:45PM

rules of this Court for proposals to be tendered to the Court. There is an objection.

THE COURT: Do you understand what is being offered, Mr. Vasudevan? This is an offer of what your wife would testify to if she were testifying with regard

01:45PM

to each of these items. You may disagree with them, but that's going to be her testimony and that's what he is offering.

So, do you object to this being a summary of her testimony?

01:46PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, I do have objections. THE COURT: What is your objection? MR. VASUDEVAN: Those objections are given

in my -- THE COURT: You're not understanding what

01:46PM

I'm saying. She's going to testify to everything on here.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. THE COURT: You might disagree with it, but

that's what she's going to say.

01:46PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. THE COURT: So, do you have any objection if

they offer this as a shorthand of what she would say? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Okay. Then go through each

01:46PM

item. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I have a copy. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Of the Fourth Amended

Inventory? All right.

01:46PM

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) All right. Deepa, we're going to have you walk this Judge through what is the central issue now before this Court, which is how is your property to be divided by this Judge.

In conjunction with your Fourth Amended

01:46PM

Affidavit [sic], you have -- and the Judge has accepted your affidavit Of Business Records -- does your Affidavit of Business Records contain bank records and other documents that support each and every one of your valuations as far as bank accounts and property that you

01:47PM

are claiming as your separate versus community? Is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. Okay. All right. In that regard, Deepa, you

are claiming as your separate property a bank account in

01:47PM

India right now; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Of a Citibank NRA [sic] with a value of

$103,000. A. Yes.

01:47PM

Q. The -- of the 89 pages of your business records, is the first document your bank statement dated as early as July of 2013 showing a balance of 103,143?

A. Yes. Q. Is the balance of that account substantially the

01:47PM

same today? A. Yes. Q. You are claiming that as your separate property

as the sale of an inherited house that you inherited from your mother; is that correct?

01:48PM

A. Yes. Q. If we turn to the latter pages of your business

records affidavit, does this include a Last Will and Testament of your beloved grandmother?

A. Yes.

01:48PM

Q. And this will leaves property to some of your grandmother's heirs, including your mother; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And is this -- and does this Last Will and

01:48PM

Testament direct that a house be sold and that certain amounts of money be paid to different relatives of your grandmother, including your own mother?

A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what house is that, Deepa?

01:49PM

A. That was the primary residence of my grandmother and mother's estate in India. Q. And when that was sold, your mother was to keep most of the proceeds -- the majority of the proceeds; is that correct?

01:49PM

A. Yes. Q. But she was required under her mother's will to

dispose of certain amounts of money to different relatives; is that correct?

A. Yes.

01:49PM

Q. Who are those relatives? A. They were my mother's siblings and my mother's

nieces and nephews. Q. Okay. Now, when your mother died -- and when did she die, ma'am?

01:49PM

A. She died on June 8th, 2004. Q. And she was living here in the state of Texas at

the time of her death? A. Yes. Q. And was she married at the time of her death?

01:49PM

A. No. Q. Did she have any children born or adopted by her

other than you? A. No. Q. You are her only surviving heir; is that

01:49PM

correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you, in fact, enter into an agreement to

sell that house that you inherited from your mother? A. Yes.

01:50PM

Q. All right. And attached to your business records is the agreement between you and who else? A. It's between the developer that bought the property. Q. And what was the -- what were the terms of this

01:50PM

sale? A. The -- the terms of the sale were the initial payment was going to be made for the land; and once they built some apartments, the rest of the money was going to be paid.

01:50PM

Q. All right. Approximately, how much did you receive from the sale of this property that you inherited through your mother?

A. The entire property sold for about 1 crore 27 lakhs, which is about $211,000. And this was the entire

01:50PM

property; and I had to distribute it based on the will, to give other relatives that were determined to get some money from the proceeds, as well.

Q. Okay. After those proceeds were given to other relatives who owned that property, did you inherit

01:51PM

approximately a little over $100,000 -- or 150,000? A. Yes. Q. Okay. 100,000 of that is still in the bank

account in India; is that correct? A. Correct.

01:51PM

Q. Identified on your inventory under separate property as having a value of 103,000? A. Yes. Q. And did you, thereafter, take 50,000 and

purchase an interest in a partnership here in Texas?

01:51PM

A. Yes. Q. And was your partnership contribution $51,450? A. About that, yes. Q. Okay. Has there been any increase in value in

that partnership interest?

01:51PM

A. No. Q. When you got married --

I'm going to hand you what is marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 6 and ask if you can identify this.

01:52PM

A. Yes. This is a picture of me on my wedding day. Q. Okay.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Do you have any objections to this? MR. VASUDEVAN: No.

01:52PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: And -- okay. I'm going to offer Respondent's Exhibit Number 6. No objections on this one?

THE COURT: Six is admitted. Do you have any other proffer on Number 5?

01:52PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, I do; but I'm walking through the inventory, so to speak, as quickly as I can. That will be --

THE COURT: Okay. You moved off from that. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

01:52PM

THE COURT: I was going to rule on it. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I'm sorry, Judge? THE COURT: I was going to rule on it. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, Your Honor, as I'm

walking through the inventory, I would like to offer

01:52PM

Exhibit Number 5, which is our proposed division of property based upon my client's sworn inventory that has been -- her Fourth Amended Inventory that has been filed with the Court.

THE COURT: And five will be admitted for

01:53PM

that purpose. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) And in this photograph of you on your wedding day -- or on or about your wedding day; is that correct?

01:53PM

A. Yes. Q. You are bedecked with what appears to be jewels;

is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And were these jewels gifted to you by

01:53PM

your family? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Were some of these -- A. Yes. Q. Tell me what they are.

01:53PM

A. Some of them were bangles, gold; and some of them were just cosmetic jewelry. The hair band and stuff that you see is cosmetic, but the other stuff is gold.

Q. Okay. And on your inventory, you're claiming

01:53PM

this jewelry that you were wearing on your wedding day as your separate property; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. And you have evaluated that at approximately

$5,000.

01:53PM

A. Yes. Q. All right. Exhibit Number 7 is a photograph

when opposing counsel wanted to inspect your safety deposit box here in Houston; is that correct?

A. Yes.

01:54PM

Q. And did you allow them access -- A. Yes. Q. -- to take photos? A. Yes. Q. And is Respondent's Exhibit Number 7 a correct

01:54PM

representation of the contents of your safety deposit box?

A. Yes. Q. Were some of these items in Exhibit Number 7,

some of this jewelry, the same jewelry you were wearing

01:54PM

on the date of your marriage? A. Yes. Q. What items are identical? A. There is a hand band that I'm wearing in the

wedding day. The earrings that I'm wearing, the same

01:54PM

ones. Q. Any of the -- are any of the bangles or any other jewelry? A. I can't tell. There's a couple of bangles there, and I think those are the same ones that I'm

01:54PM

wearing. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Do you have objections to Number 7? MR. VASUDEVAN: No. No objections. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Okay. I'm going to

01:54PM

offer -- I think six has been admitted. I offer Respondent's Number 7, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Seven is admitted. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Other than this separate property that you have identified, is the remaining

01:55PM

property that you have identified on your Fourth Amended Inventory community property?

A. Yes. Q. Save and except those funds that are listed as

Exhibit A, which is your child's property; is that

01:55PM

correct? A. Yes. Q. Deepa, are all of the items that are listed with

a bank account on your community property, are all of those values identified in your business records

01:56PM

affidavit? A. Yes. Q. I am not going to go item by item; but if the

Court were to look at your business records affidavit, the values here would be identical to those documents

01:56PM

contained in your business records affidavit. A. Yes. Q. Is that correct?

We've also listed as Exhibit A that property that you believe belongs to your child.

01:56PM

A. Yes. Q. Tell me, did you and your -- did you or you and

your husband gift your child with a Kindle reading device?

A. Yes.

01:56PM

Q. Two laptops, one Apple and one pink? A. Yes. Q. A piano? A. Yes. Q. Does she play the piano?

01:56PM

A. Yes. Q. Has she been taking music lessons for many

years? A. Yes. Q. And finally, you and your husband set up two

01:56PM

Uniform Gift to Minors Accounts, one that you control and one that your husband controls, listed as Items Number 6 and 7 on Exhibit A as your child's property.

A. Yes. Q. And are you asking this Court -- now that she is

01:57PM

age 18, does she need these funds for college? A. Yes. Q. Do you want this Court to, as part of its court

order, to find and order that all of these funds belong to your daughter on your Exhibit A? Do you want that?

01:57PM

A. Yes. Q. And do you want the Judge to order the immediate

release and surrender of these accounts to your daughter, ones that you previously held and your husband previously held as custodians for the benefit of your

01:57PM

daughter? A. Yes. Q. In your division of property, you have

identified under Item Number 4 some India property that is in your husband's name or subject to his control; is

01:58PM

that correct? A. Yes. Q. You are not on the title of that India property;

are you? A. No.

01:58PM

Q. You really don't know the value of that property; do you? A. No. Q. You have also listed a bank account in your

husband's name in India with a value unknown; is that

01:58PM

correct? A. Yes. Q. All of those are evidenced in your business

records affidavit; is that correct? A. Yes.

01:59PM

Q. Deepa, you have made a proposal to this Judge, based upon your inventory, of how your estate should be divided.

A. Yes. Q. You're asking this Court to find as your

01:59PM

separate property the remaining sale proceeds of your mother's house in India of about $103,000; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. That account being in an Indian account.

02:00PM

A. Yes. Q. And 50,000 you used from the sale proceeds to

buy an interest with some friends and relatives called DLR Interest?

A. Yes.

02:00PM

Q. And, of course, all of your jewelry and personal effects. A. Yes. Q. If the Judge were not to find this as your

separate property, would you still want the Judge to

02:00PM

award this to you as part of your division of your overall estate?

A. Yes. Q. All of the items listed in your proposal have a

possession sign for -- "H" for husband and "W" for wife.

02:00PM

You're asking the Court to award you not only the house, the contents in the house, the personal effects, rather than trying to divide those.

A. Yes. Q. And your husband's inventory with the Court that

02:00PM

he filed several months ago, he has not listed any household furnishings in his possession; has he?

A. No. Q. Okay. To award you -- you're asking the Court

to award you a greater share of the estate?

02:01PM

A. Yes. Q. Is that in part because of the fault involved in

this relationship? A. Yes. Q. And in part because your husband did not

02:01PM

contribute to your support for a period of 14 months until a Judge ordered him to do so; is that correct?

A. 14 months was the one that the Judge, but he hasn't done much. Our finances have been separate since 2004, and there's been no contributions since then.

02:01PM

Q. If the Judge were to honor our proposal, it would allow you to keep all of the accounts in your name and the same for your husband; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. Save and except a retirement account that you

02:01PM

have. A. Yes. Q. And that is with your current employer; is that

correct? A. Yes.

02:01PM

Q. And you're asking this Judge to award you out of your 403 -- 403(b) plan with the University of Texas, 337,878?

A. Yes. Q. And 128,567 to your husband?

02:02PM

A. Yes. Q. And if the Judge were to do that and award to

you the proposal that you see here, you would be awarded approximately 60 percent of the community estate, as you have testified.

02:02PM

A. Yes. Q. Do you think that is a fair and equitable

division of your estate? A. Yes. Q. Deepa, was it necessary for you to hire me to

02:02PM

represent you in this case? A. Yes. Q. And have you agreed to pay me an hourly rate of

$350 an hour? A. Yes.

02:03PM

Q. And have you, to date, paid me over $37,000 in attorney's fees? A. Yes. Q. And you're asking this Court to award you

attorney's fees in this case; is that correct?

02:03PM

A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: One minute, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I pass the witness, Your

Honor.

02:04PM

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Vasudevan, do you have any questions of the witness? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes.

02:04PM CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VASUDEVAN: Q. First question I have is -- MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I wish opposing counsel would just go ahead and ask from his chair

02:04PM

unless he has something as an exhibit for her to review. MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, Deepa, when did you come to U.S.? A. First time, January of 1993.

02:04PM

Q. After coming to U.S., how many times did you travel back to India? A. I can't remember for sure. Q. Did you at any time travel or -- after 1993? A. Absolutely.

02:05PM

Q. About how many times? A. I can't remember. I must have gone three or

four times at least. Q. So, when you went back to India, how many -- how many months did you stay there?

02:05PM

A. The first time I went there, I stayed for about seven months because I had to finish my internship. Q. So, when did your mom come to U.S.? A. I can't remember the exact date, but she came

when I was pregnant.

02:05PM

Q. Was her visa -- A. It was in 1995. Q. -- rejected several times? A. What's that? Q. Was her visa rejected several times?

02:05PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object as not relevant. THE COURT: What's the relevance of that? MR. VASUDEVAN: I want to prove that I was

taking care of the family and the house and all that.

02:05PM

And she was saying that the maid servant was taking care of the house, but there was no maid servant. That's my point.

THE WITNESS: That was after Pallavi was born.

02:06PM

THE COURT: Okay. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I would object

on relevance. THE COURT: Your daughter is how old? THE WITNESS: She is 18.

02:06PM

THE COURT: 18?

THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: So, what does that have -- 18

years ago, what does that have to do with what I'm going to be doing today?

02:06PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Oh, for the last 18 years, I have been taking care of the family. THE COURT: Okay. MR. VASUDEVAN: And she was saying that -- THE COURT: Hang on. Are you asking me to

02:06PM

do something with regard to that 18 years? MR. VASUDEVAN: No. I just want -- she was saying in the beginning that I was not taking care of the home and --

THE COURT: And that's -- so, I'm going to

02:06PM

tell you the same thing I did Mr. Brownstein. What does that have to do with the property division? And Mr. Brownstein got right to the property issue, and that's when his --

MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay.

02:07PM

THE COURT: -- questioning stopped. So, what does that have to do with property? MR. VASUDEVAN: It's important in the marriage as to whose fault it is. THE COURT: The fact that you were taking

02:07PM

care of the family -- MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- has to do with the fault.

Okay. If you see that as an issue, I'll let you ask that. I don't, but --

02:07PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I'm going to object, Your Honor, because his petition -- the only grounds for divorce is insupportability, not fault.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that objection. Your next question?

02:07PM

Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) The next question was: So, you've been working like all time and working night duty and all that?

A. I was working at UT. UT gives me the ability to work overtime if needed. And I have to support the

02:07PM

family; and hence, I did work overtime. And my salary represents my -- what I get is one paycheck from the University of Texas. Whether I moonlight, whether I work excess, it's one paycheck. I do not get multiple paychecks. And they're all documented.

02:08PM

Q. So, who was taking care of the child when, in the night duty, when you were doing night duty? A. My mother. Q. Your mother was not here; right? A. 1995. She came when I was pregnant and stayed

02:08PM

for one and a half year. Q. How can she stay about one and a half years when the visa was only good for six months? A. She filed an extension for about a year after that.

02:08PM

Q. No. The maximum extension is only six months. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's no question. He's testifying. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VASUDEVAN: So, I want to prove, Your

02:08PM

Honor, that I was taking care of the child and she was going on duty -- on night duty and moonlighting, and I was taking care of the child. And child loves me, and I love the child and I love the family, too.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, again, I'm

02:09PM

going to object to testifying. If he has a question -- THE COURT: I'll sustain it. Make sure that you ask questions. MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, when I was working, I

02:09PM

was traveling a lot doing consulting work to other places?

A. I think you did one year where you went consulting. But most of yours was primarily in Houston. Q. But even in Houston, I had to travel a lot;

02:09PM

right? To Dallas every week? A. I don't -- I mean, I cannot remember when you were working in Dallas. Most of your travel was within Houston.

Q. Okay. Oh, on the pink laptop, you said that I

02:09PM

had taken it; right? The pink laptop? Who bought that laptop?

A. I think we bought it for our child. Q. And that was -- I was also doing office work on

that?

02:10PM

A. I don't think. There was very limited. There was nothing that you were working on. You had your own laptop.

Q. No. I was using that for my office work, too. MR. VASUDEVAN: So, that's the reason I took

02:10PM

that laptop, Your Honor. And then after I copied that, I returned that laptop.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Objection. Not a question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Make sure -- don't argue. Just

02:10PM

ask questions. All right? MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, why was the phone blocked when my -- my phone was blocked. I couldn't call home.

02:11PM

A. I had -- MR. BROWNSTEIN: Objection. Asking questions of evidence that's not been testified to, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

02:11PM

Ask a question. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) Okay. In the inventory, number one, where it says the Citibank NRI, it was reportedly having $113,000; right? And you have withdrawn $10,000 recently?

02:12PM

A. Yes. Q. Why -- why was it withdrawn? A. I had to pay for attorney fees. I had to pay

taxes. Also, for that bank, I have to pay the taxes for the India -- for the money in India. So, that was

02:12PM

deducted directly from that account. I also had to pay for other things that I needed for Pallavi's education.

Q. What did you spend for Pallavi's education? A. Books, travel. She had to go to campus tours. Q. So, what were you doing with the salary? You

02:13PM

were making 200, 300K salary; right? A. I was also running a house. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That's such a general question. It's impossible to answer what did she do with her salary.

02:13PM

THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, the Citibank NRI account, that 103, came from a joint account which we both had?

A. No. Initially, we held a joint account in 2004.

02:13PM

And that account was changed, and this account was opened. And this --

Q. How much -- how much was the money in that account? A. In the previous account, I cannot remember. But

02:13PM

it was definitely between 5 and 6 lakhs. MR. VASUDEVAN: Your Honor, I want to show an exhibit. THE COURT: Okay. MR. VASUDEVAN: It's Exhibit Number --

02:14PM

Number 5 in the deposition that she had. THE COURT: Her exhibit or your exhibit? MR. VASUDEVAN: My exhibit. THE COURT: Your exhibit? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes.

02:14PM

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to show Mr. Brownstein, so that he can figure out if he's going to object or not?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor -- well, I don't know if anything is being offered. So, if he wants to

02:14PM

ask questions about something -- I don't know how to respond. Nothing has been offered at this moment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Are you going to offer that as an exhibit --

02:14PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- or are you just going to read

from it? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I'm going to offer this as an Exhibit Number 5. Or the entire thing, I

02:15PM

want to give it. This is the deposition exhibits. So, I want to give them to the Court.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object if Mr. Alavoor wants to offer an exhibit to a non-certified copy of a deposition of my client.

02:15PM

Nothing has been filed with the Court. I'm going to object to it in its entirety.

THE COURT: Do you have a certified copy? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah. This was signed by --

this was a deposition that was taken on --

02:16PM

THE COURT: Do you have a signed copy? MR. VASUDEVAN: Right. It's signed by the

court reporter. THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to show it to Mr. Brownstein?

02:16PM

(Discussion off the record between Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Vasudevan.) MR. BROWNSTEIN: Judge, this is not a certified copy of a deposition that opposing counsel is tendering to offer, nor is it the written -- the

02:16PM

original. It's evidently something file stamped, a copy unsigned by my client. And I object to its introduction.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, this is Number 5.

02:17PM

What's among -- it shows here -- MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I thought you had sustained my objection. So, for counsel to use what you just sustained my objection, I'm going to further object that he not approach my client with it.

02:17PM

THE COURT: Sustained. Do you understand what the objection was?

The objection was that it was not a certified copy of a deposition. So, he's made an objection to you offering it as an exhibit, which I sustained, being that you

02:17PM

cannot use it as an exhibit. If you have some questions that you want to ask, you're welcome to ask those questions.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I have a question to ask. I need to show it to her. This is a statement --

02:18PM

this is a bank statement. It was showing amount of -- THE COURT: And that bank statement is in the same document that I sustained the objection, so that you can't use it as an exhibit.

MR. VASUDEVAN: The reason is, I want to

02:18PM

prove that this amount -- THE COURT: You can ask questions. Don't tell me what's in the document. MR. VASUDEVAN: The document, it says the balance is about -- more than $100,000.

02:18PM

THE COURT: If you have a question, you can ask the witness. MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. But she was saying that -- THE COURT: Don't ask me. Don't make a

02:18PM

statement. Ask a question. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, the statement here says that having more than 100,000. A. I don't know what -- MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to

02:18PM

object. Again, there's no evidence previously testified to my client regarding these issues. So, I'm going to object as to being questioned about evidence that hasn't been introduced before this Court.

THE COURT: Sustained.

02:19PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Can I ask her the question? THE COURT: Sure.

Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) Yeah. The statement here says -- THE COURT: Not about that. That's just the

02:19PM

objection I just sustained. MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. THE COURT: Okay?

Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) The next question I have is about the Entry Number 2, the DLR Interest. Here it

02:20PM

says $51,000 as being your part interest. How did you get this money?

A. That was money that I got through the sale of the property in India, which my mother inherited from her mother. And that's what I invested, because that

02:20PM

was her desire that it go as a gift to her granddaughter.

Q. But you got it in India rupees. How did you transfer it? A. I got it -- I converted it from India rupees.

02:20PM

It was done with friends and family. So, I gave them in Indian rupees. I gave them the value of that $50,000 in rupees.

Q. And how did they give you the dollar? Where is that? Did they deposit?

02:21PM

A. The property was purchased, yes. Q. Where was it deposited? A. Into the account. They paid the money for that.

I gave them the rupees, they got the dollars, and it was paid into that -- paid for the sale of that property.

02:21PM

Q. Where is the receipt for that? Receipts? A. The receipts for? Q. For the payments. A. They paid. There are receipts. The property is

bought; so, the amount is there. And this was done in

02:21PM

2004. Exactly around the time when I got the cash, it was given to the family, and they paid the amount. And if you want that -- at that point, yes, there are probably receipts. But it was purchased -- the land was purchased for that amount. The land is the receipt.

02:21PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Your Honor, this is not the separate property. This is a -- it should come out of the community property, these two.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I'm going to object. Again, we're under cross.

02:22PM

THE COURT: Sustained. MR. VASUDEVAN: The next question I have is

regarding the Item Number 3 where she's saying it is -- there's $5,000. I want to submit these Exhibits 12, 13, 14, and 15.

02:22PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I'm not certain the purpose, but there appears to be blurry photographs along with somebody's notes, perhaps notes of Mr. Vasudevan since he is offering that in the form of his analysis or description of what that

02:23PM

photo represents. To the extent that it contains things beyond the blurry photo, I'm going to object as it being hearsay.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Your Honor, I wish to show you these.

02:23PM

THE COURT: This is what you're offering? MR. VASUDEVAN: Uh-huh, yes. THE COURT: 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16? MR. VASUDEVAN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: Okay.

02:24PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I didn't go through all of them. If there's things beyond the photo, then I may have other objections, Your Honor. I didn't know he was trying to tender 15 or 20 pages of things.

THE COURT: There are several.

02:24PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: If I could take a look, I might offer additional objections, Your Honor. Well, my goodness. Okay. As to the objections as to things called Exhibit 12, which contain photos and additional typewritten language -- basically,

02:24PM

the typewritten language contained on Exhibit 12 appears to be testimonial in nature. I object that it's hearsay.

The same objection to -- I can't tell where Exhibit 12 and where others continue. 13 appears to be

02:25PM

a typewritten description of what appears to be handwritten. There's been no predicate. It's testimonial in nature. I object that it's hearsay. Along with Exhibit Number 13, a description of what this purportedly represents. Again, no predicate. It's

02:25PM

hearsay, Your Honor. Exhibit Number 14 -- So, if I could, could I ask the Judge to

rule on my objections to at least 12 through 13 before we go to 14? That's a little bit different in nature.

02:25PM

THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BROWNSTEIN: By the way, Your Honor, if

I could, I have what is marked as Respondent's Fourth Amended Inventory that I marked as Exhibit 5. And quite frankly, I don't know if I just premarked that

02:26PM

inappropriately. THE COURT: I admitted that. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Item 5, the inventory. THE COURT: Oh, wait a minute. I thought

you marked --

02:26PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I may have inadvertently marked this on my own. THE COURT: The proposed division is what I have as five. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Okay.

02:26PM

THE COURT: But I don't have five. MR. BROWNSTEIN: You don't have Exhibit

Number 5? THE COURT: No. MR. BROWNSTEIN: The proposed division?

02:26PM

THE COURT: No. You were asking questions. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Oh. Oh, I guess this is

the proposed division. THE COURT: So it is. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Thank you. I tender that

02:26PM

back. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BROWNSTEIN: As to Exhibit Number 14,

appears to be documents regarding a safety deposit box of the parties, some rental dating back from August

02:27PM

of 2001 to maybe some in 2013. To the extent they're offered to prove that my client had a safety deposit box, which we have the photos, I have no objections to Exhibit 14, 6 through 7, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You have no objection to those?

02:27PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I have no objections to 14 entitled Pages 1 -- 1 through 7, all the way through 6 through 7. There is part of Exhibit Number 14 that is 7 of 7 that I will offer objections to.

Regarding Exhibit 14, 7 of 7, again,

02:28PM

absolutely no predicate. I have no idea what it is, Your Honor.

Exhibit Number -- MR. VASUDEVAN: Oh, I can explain what it

is.

02:28PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, the remainder of these exhibits appear to be descriptions of some handwritten notes. There's been no predicate. I'm going to object.

And finally, the last page, Exhibit 16,

02:28PM

appears to be a copy of something from a Internet regarding Indian fraud. And again, no predicate, no relevance.

I'm going to object to the remainder of Exhibit 14, 15, and 16, Your Honor, for those reasons.

02:28PM

THE COURT: 14, Pages 1 through 6 are admitted; Page 7 is not admitted. 15 and 16 are not admitted. MR. VASUDEVAN: I can't ask any questions on

this one?

02:29PM

THE COURT: You can ask questions, but they're not admitted as exhibits. MR. VASUDEVAN: Can I show it to her as to what it is? No, I can't? Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) Okay. During the deposition

02:30PM

on 24th, there was exhibit -- an Exhibit 4. It was saying there are 14 gold bars, all bought by me.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He's referring to an unsworn, uncertified deposition, exhibits to that, that you have already

02:30PM

sustained my objection. So, I'm going to object that he's --

THE COURT: I sustained the objection. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, I object that he's

referring to a specific exhibit that is not before this

02:31PM

Court. THE COURT: I don't know what he's referring to. Those -- the documents in his hands were not that deposition. So, I don't know if he's asking a --

I'm going to let you ask the question. Just

02:31PM

make sure you don't -- MR. VASUDEVAN: Oh, well, this document is in reference to the deposition she already had. THE COURT: I have no idea what document you're referring to. I just know it's not the

02:31PM

deposition that you set down over here on counsel table. But you can ask that question.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, there were some -- there

02:31PM

were handwritten notes, and then there were typewritten, like 14 gold bars all bought by me. Were they bought by you?

A. I don't even know who wrote it, typewritten, typed. I don't have any idea. I did not write it.

02:31PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Can I show it to her if she says -- THE COURT: If it's on that exhibit, you can't. MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes.

02:31PM

THE COURT: You cannot. MR. VASUDEVAN: Then I can't prove further

what it is. THE COURT: Mr. Vasudevan, I cannot tell you how to present your case. You are representing

02:32PM

yourself. There are certain rules of evidence and rules of procedure that apply to any case presented in the state of Texas. Representing yourself, you are bound to abide by those same rules of evidence and rules of procedure.

02:32PM

The objections that are being made are proper. I can't tell you what to do with the exhibits that you did not get admitted. But let's move along.

MR. VASUDEVAN: Well, what I want to prove was that Item Number 3 is not just 5,000. It's more

02:32PM

than -- it's about $900,000. THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you this question. Do you object that they are being claimed as your wife's separate property gifts?

MR. VASUDEVAN: I do raise objection on

02:33PM

that, and I say it is a community estate. It was given to both -- both of us. And the value is also wrong. The value is not 5,000.

THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) The Item Number 4 in

02:33PM

inventory, I don't know what it is. So, do you know what it is, the Item Number 4, the India property, Plot Number 16?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: May I go ahead and tender the inventory since my client is not --

02:33PM

THE COURT: Sure. MR. BROWNSTEIN: -- able to remember

everything by memory? A. I'm sorry. What was the question? Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) Who gave you this one?

02:34PM

A. So, this was received as a mail. It came as a mail to our home address. Q. To whose home address? A. As of now, our home address. Q. So, who received it? You received it? You

02:34PM

opened it? A. It was in the mailbox. Q. It was in the mailbox. A. Yes. Q. And then did you open it?

02:34PM

A. I did not open it. Q. If you did not open it, then -- A. So, the mail is also -- Q. -- how did you read the contents inside of it? A. The mail was also picked up by Pallavi and gets

02:34PM

picked up by my housekeeper, Maria. So, she opens the edges of the letter sometimes. And this one was opened by Pallavi. She did not read the name. She opened the envelope, and that's how that was -- how we got that. So, I'm not the only one who opens the envelope, is the

02:34PM

answer. MR. VASUDEVAN: I object, Your Honor. Somewhere -- either she has opened it or I have questions for Mr. Brownstein, if I can ask questions.

THE COURT: This is the witness on the stand

02:35PM

right here. I think she's answered your question. MR. VASUDEVAN: The question was I want to ask if Mr. Brownstein has opened that mail. THE COURT: He's not on the stand. You see who's on the stand right now.

02:35PM

Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) So, this particular item should be ignored on Item Number 4. It's wrong. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Objection. No question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.

02:35PM

Are you claiming that you don't own a piece of property at Plot Number 16? MR. VASUDEVAN: No, I don't own. THE COURT: You don't own it? MR. VASUDEVAN: No.

02:36PM

THE COURT: So, I can award that to her if it's owned by someone in the marriage? You're okay with that?

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. Uh-huh. THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to know

02:36PM

what you wanted me to do with it. MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes. THE COURT: Go ahead. Do you have any more

questions? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, Your Honor. I have

02:38PM

some questions. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) On Item Number 27, the IRA plan, you have withdrawn some $10,000 from there. Why? Why did you withdraw?

A. There are a couple of withdrawals. If you see,

02:38PM

that is one, in answer to that question. And then also the subsequent ones, we had to replace the HVAC of our house since the entire system broke down. So, that cost me about $25,000 that I had to pay. That was one. I also have to pay the taxes April 15th, 2014, so.

02:39PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: That's all I have now. I can -- I can ask later, right, if I want to? THE COURT: I don't know. Mr. Brownstein, do you have any more

questions?

02:40PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Can I ask questions later? MR. BROWNSTEIN: Just a few follow-up, Your

Honor. THE COURT: Okay. REDIRECT EXAMINATION 02:40PM BY MR. BROWNSTEIN, Q. Deepa, in your petition you requested that your name be changed. What name do you wish? A. Deepa Iyengar. Q. And you are not seeking -- is that your maiden

02:40PM

name? A. Yes. Q. All right. And you're not seeking a name change

to avoid criminal prosecution or repayment of creditors; is that correct?

02:40PM

A. Yes. THE COURT: Yes, it is correct? THE WITNESS: I mean, I -- I am not taking

it for criminal court. THE COURT: It was a bad question.

02:40PM

Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Also, Deepa, you and your husband at the second mediation reached an agreement regarding the sale of the house; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. That's set out in the Mediated Settlement

02:40PM

Agreement, which has been filed with the Court. A. Yes. Q. And on your proposed division of property

regarding the residence, you just put on your proposal the division per the Mediated Settlement Agreement.

02:40PM

A. Yes. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I pass the witness again, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any more questions? MR. VASUDEVAN: Not questions, Your Honor.

02:41PM

I have the Second Amended Inventory of mine. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, we're in the

middle of -- if he has no further questions, I have another witness to call upon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Call your next

02:41PM

witness. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I call myself. Do you want me to -- Deepa, you can go ahead and sit down. (Discussion off the record between

02:41PM

Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Vasudevan.) MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I do have objections. THE COURT: A proper one? MR. BROWNSTEIN: May I testify in a

narrative form, Your Honor?

02:42PM

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

RONALD ALLEN BROWNSTEIN,

and having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNSTEIN: 02:42PM Q. Your Honor, my name is Ron Brownstein. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of Texas, having been -- having been licensed since 1978, I believe, which I know is hard for you to believe considering how youthful I look. I was --

02:43PM

THE COURT: Remember, you're under oath. Q. (BY MR. BROWNSTEIN) Since I'm under oath, I'll retract that last comment. I was retained by Mrs. Deepa Vasudevan to continue on in her representation in this divorce

02:43PM

action. Her previous attorney, through Scott Brown's office, had -- I either substituted or they were allowed to withdraw.

I am familiar with the customary and normal attorney's fees in Brazoria County for cases involving

02:43PM

divorces. And the issues involved in this case initially were related to the child since the child was only 15 when -- or 15 and a half when we started but is now, for all practical purposes, an adult.

I am charging my client $350 an hour, which

02:44PM

is, in my opinion, a reasonable fee considering the issues involved in this case. This has been a particularly difficult case, as the Respondent has had two separate attorneys that I have had dealings with, as well as himself, at two separate times, including now.

02:44PM

A fee of $350 an hour for attorney's fees in this county is customary, is reasonable.

And the fees that I have charged my client are set out in Respondent's Exhibit Number 8, which is a summary of those fees and services that I have performed

02:44PM

for my client, detailing the date the service was performed, a brief description of same, and the amount of time devoted to that.

My attorney's fees, including trial, have totalled 102.70 hours at $350 an hour, which my client

02:45PM

is seeking reimbursement. That is $35,945. In addition to that, there have been costs of $1,169.27. My total bill, which has been paid by my client, is $37,114.27.

I tender again Respondent's Number -- Exhibit Number 8 as a shorthand summary of my time

02:45PM

devoted on this case. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Do you have any objection, sir? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I do have objections. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well --

02:45PM

THE COURT: What's the objection? MR. VASUDEVAN: The objection is it should

not be listed under the -- this inventory. It is something even I -- even I do pay attorney's fees.

THE COURT: What is the objection?

02:46PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Oh, the objection is this should not be included in the inventory. THE COURT: Okay. MR. VASUDEVAN: If it is included, then even

I have to include my attorney fees, too.

02:46PM

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to this document being offered? MR. VASUDEVAN: Oh, this document which is offered? Yeah, no. No objection. THE COURT: No objection. Eight is

02:46PM

admitted. MR. BROWNSTEIN: I pass the witness. THE COURT: Do you have any questions of

Mr. Brownstein? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, I do have some

02:46PM

questions; but it's not related to that, the questions I do have.

THE COURT: I don't care what they're related to. As long as they're relevant, you can ask them.

02:46PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VASUDEVAN: Q. This is regarding the Item Number -- the 4 in the inventory. Can I show you? The Item Number 4 on

02:46PM

the inventory, Deepa was saying the India property, so and so. And then you have sent me a letter of this, right, the demand notice and all that. Who -- who gave it to you?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I'm sorry. I don't

02:47PM

understand the question, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. VASUDEVAN) The question was: Did Deepa give it to you, that one, or -- A. I -- I prepared that inventory based on information provided by my client and by your attorneys,

02:47PM

when you had attorneys, and yourself when you did not have an attorney.

Q. No. There was a demand notice, and I have the letters. Wait. Let me show it to you. These were the two, Articles 8 and Article 9 and 17, which are related

02:48PM

to the Item Number 4 in that inventory. A. All right. Sir, do you have a question? Q. Yes. Who gave this document to you? A. I'm sure this was provided by my client. Q. Was it opened when it was given like that, or

02:49PM

was it in an envelope? A. Oh, I have no recollection whether it was in an envelope, in a box, or in the form delivered to you in a -- in a supplement to our production. I don't remember.

02:49PM

Q. So, you don't know who opened that mail; right? A. I don't know how it came into anybody else's

possession except mine. I don't know if it came through the mail or not.

Q. So, this can be incorrect, too; right? So, it

02:49PM

can be a fake. It's not a real document maybe. It can be a fake document.

A. I guess anything is possible, sir. Q. Okay.

MR. VASUDEVAN: That's all I have.

02:49PM

THE COURT: Your next witness? MR. BROWNSTEIN: I have no further

witnesses, Your Honor. THE COURT: Rest? MR. BROWNSTEIN: We rest.

02:50PM

THE COURT: Mr. Vasudevan, do you have any witnesses? MR. VASUDEVAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: No witnesses? All right. You

rest? Do you rest?

02:50PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Huh? THE COURT: Do you rest, meaning are you

done? MR. VASUDEVAN: No, not yet, Your Honor. I have this second amended --

02:50PM

THE COURT: That's what I just asked you: Do you have any witnesses? You don't have any witnesses?

MR. VASUDEVAN: No, no witnesses; but I just want to submit this Second Amended Inventory.

02:50PM

THE COURT: Okay. Is that your inventory? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, this is my inventory. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm -- MR. VASUDEVAN: I gave you a copy of this. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I was handed a

02:50PM

copy of an unsworn-to document entitled Second Amended Inventory. I'm going to object as to its lateness, the fact that it is not sworn as required by the scheduling order and your local rules. I have not had adequate time to study or vet that document since it was -- well,

02:51PM

it's being tendered to you for some purpose. I don't know if it's for filing with the Court or for evidence. Those are my objections.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Vasudevan, you are under oath; so, let me ask you --

02:51PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- are you stating that all the

information contained in this document is true and correct?

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, true.

02:51PM

THE COURT: All the values are accurate? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: This is all the property that

you believe to exist? MR. VASUDEVAN: That's correct.

02:51PM

THE COURT: Is that your testimony? MR. VASUDEVAN: Yeah, that's my testimony. THE COURT: All right. I will let you file

it and admit it. MR. VASUDEVAN: Thank you.

02:52PM

THE COURT: You don't have it marked. Petitioner's 1 will be admitted. Anything else? MR. VASUDEVAN: One more document. (Discussion off the record between

02:52PM

Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Vasudevan.) MR. VASUDEVAN: Your Honor, this is objections to the inventory which he has filed. MR. BROWNSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object that it is a document purportedly testimonial in

02:52PM

nature. It's hearsay. And for those reasons, I'm going to object to the Court's consideration of that document.

THE COURT: I'll sustain your objection. And we'll mark this as Petitioner's Exhibit 2, but I will sustain the objection.

02:53PM

Anything else? MR. VASUDEVAN: These are the copies of the

deposition that she had taken. Do I need to -- shall I certify this and then submit? Or what do you want? What do you do?

02:54PM

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I think you've already -- THE COURT: I can't tell you what to do with

it. If it's the same exhibit that you offered previously, I've already sustained the objection. I think it was Number 5?

02:54PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: No, no. These are the -- yeah, these are the exhibits in the deposition that she has done. I want to submit a copy to the Court.

THE COURT: I'm not looking at it if it's not certified.

02:54PM

MR. VASUDEVAN: So, shall I get it certified and then submit to you? THE COURT: Can you do that right now? MR. VASUDEVAN: I need time for that. THE COURT: Today is the only day that's

02:54PM

going to happen. Did you realize that today was your final trial date, Mr. Vasudevan?

MR. VASUDEVAN: Yes, uh-huh. THE COURT: Okay. So, you got to be

prepared. If it's not certified, then I'm not -- I'm

02:54PM

not allowing it as an exhibit. MR. VASUDEVAN: Okay. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. VASUDEVAN: That's all I have, Your

Honor.

02:55PM

THE COURT: That's it? MR. VASUDEVAN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: Both sides rest? MR. BROWNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. The evidence is

02:55PM

closed. Give me until about 3:15, and I'll come back and give you my ruling. We'll be in recess until 3:15.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor. (Recess was taken.) THE COURT: All right. Let's go back on the

04:28PM

record in Vasudevan. I will make the following findings.

I will find the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities and find that there's no reasonable

04:28PM

expectation of reconciliation. I will further find fault in the breakup of the marriage; and based upon the testimony and evidence with regard to family violence, will find the cruelty fault to be true.

04:29PM

I will grant the divorce, terminate the marriage relationship as of today, pronouncing and rendering today, and give you an entry date of June 13 for the decree.

I will grant the name change that was

04:29PM

requested. With regard to conservatorship, find that the child is now 18 and graduating. With regard -- therefore, no other orders will need to be issued with regard to the child.

04:29PM

Relative to the prior Court's order on the Motion to Compel, those orders are orders that are subject to being enforced and may be enforced following the entry of a decree, specifically with regard to the payment of the $600 and the costs of 150 for the

04:30PM

deposition cost. I will find that the division of property, as I will outline for you in the Court's division, is a fair and equitable division; and considering the fault of the breakup of the marriage, results in a 60-40

04:30PM

division. I have the division -- thank you, Ed -- that I will hand out; and as soon as you have that copy, I will go over this with you and let you know what I have found to be fair and equitable.

At the top of the page, I will confirm as

04:30PM

Mrs. Vasudevan's separate property those three items -- 1, 2, and 3 -- finding that they are a result of inheritance on Items 1 and 2 and gift for wedding on Number 3.

With regard to Item Number 4, there's no

04:31PM

value assigned to it. And if that doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. But if it does exist, then it's awarded to Mr. Vasudevan. But I've assigned no value; so, it doesn't impact the overall division of the property.

04:31PM

I've confirmed the parties' agreement relative to the residence located at 3402 Castle Pond Court, Pearland, Texas, and just confirming that that is to be dealt with pursuant to the Mediated Settlement Agreement.

04:32PM

Where the items have a typed value, I am confirming that and accepting that as the value to be assigned to it. Where you see an item crossed out and a new value placed on that, that's where I have made a change.

04:32PM

Item Number 6, I changed that value from 5,000 to 3,500. Item 13, I changed that from 11,931 to 7,924. Over on Page 2, Item 29, I changed those -- that value; and Items 32 and 33, I changed those items.

Turning over to Page 4 at the bottom, I have

04:32PM

adjusted the overall division of the community property. And where you see the columns "Husband" and "Wife", those items that are awarded to the husband are listed in that column throughout this document and those items listed to wife are listed in that column throughout.

04:32PM

Page 5, I have also added the attorney's fees that Mr. Vasudevan is paying, pursuant to his inventory, of $8,000, to net out the value. And that's what you see at the bottom, Net CP, meaning Net Community Property. 358,779 to Mr. Vasudevan. 523,672

04:33PM

to Mrs. Vasudevan. And I've also included her attorney's fees. Each party will pay their own attorney's fees. And that division results in a 60-40 division. It's actually like 59.3 in favor of wife.

I will find this to be a fair and reasonable

04:33PM

division of the parties' property. Any of these items that are in this document that are awarded to a party and they are in the other party's possession, those will be turned over by the entry date, June 13. If those items are in your

04:34PM

possession, nothing needs to be turned over. But if an item is awarded to you, it's to be turned over to you by June 13th, 2014.

If you don't see an item listed on this, I didn't find sufficient evidence to find that it existed.

04:34PM

And if you don't see a value other than the items where you see values, I don't find that there is sufficient evidence to change the values, other than what has been set out.

On the last page, which is actually Page 6,

04:34PM

it's titled Child's Property, those items are awarded to the child, Pallavi, and are to be awarded to her. And again, by June 13, 2014, those items are to be turned over to her.

And that will conclude our business.

04:35PM

Any questions, Mr. Brownstein? MR. BROWNSTEIN: None, Your Honor. I'll

prepare the draft. THE COURT: All right. Any questions, Mr. Vasudevan?

04:35PM

If none, we'll be adjourned. (Court was adjourned.)

OFFICIAL REPORTER'S RECORD CERTIFICATION PAGE THE STATE OF TEXAS) COUNTY OF BRAZORIA) I, Renee Rape, Official Court Reporter in and for the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties. I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of this Reporter's Record is $576.00 and was paid/will be paid by Petitioner, Mr. Alavoor Vasudevan. WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 17th day of November, 2014.

17 18 19 /s/ Renée Rape ____________

Renée Rape, Texas CSR# 4031 20 Expiration Date: 12-31-16 Official Court Reporter, 300th District Court 21 Brazoria County, Texas 111 East Locust, RM 402 22 Angleton, Texas 77515 979-864-1229 23 24 25

Appendix C Final Decree of Divorce (Trial Court) The trial courts final decree is given here (next page). Appendix D Inventory filed by Husband Inventory filed by Husband is given here (next page) Cagse # 63935: Third Amended Inventory & Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan' July 2014 Cause No. 63935 s tN THE DTSTR|CT COURT IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

s s

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN

s s 3oorH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AND

DEEPA VASUDEVAN s

s AND IN THE INTEREST OF s s BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS PALLAVI DEV VASUDEVAN, A CHILD

Wife--- oI450pooaof-oo,ooo oo s"e Exhibit B 18may2o14 O-Oi---- O0 0 OqD*. ""*""t Mril r'-,d 0 00 0 00 ooes not exist Mail fraud 0 ^[00] I

- i a l2olo votvo c3o lw i 8 ^[12010] Volvo C30 g n.*rnt AOf K Wells Fargo

Ito l[""*nt - s29 Plr. Fid--807 LPLMa JO,COO.J/ I JO,COO.J/ lWife 32,294 ^{[54] [11]} o 2^^ ^^ wife VV IIE

L __

Husband. As ol 25mav2}14 --.

I

i 0.00 value miniscule - atc dead l, _17 ]!,99ount _ Hqfg !9!. qq1!9-4 iH i 18 Account - Merrill Edge ac xx14S04 -*

I

, sJB+s oo ,!9 qrya oo-fyt:-- - -- : - I - - gSS OO - -- ' 19 tnccount - pavpaf af avoor 385-OO Jrr;; lff - )28 r___._ 4124.41 4,124 ^[01] as of 25may?O14 Page I of5 Cquse # 63935 Cause # 63935: Third Amended Inventory & Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan' July 2014 ,t-l6ount - WeG Fargo saving x7461 1,281.64 1,281 ^[64]

H

N;.- Net Value Husband Wife Notes - -sollarm clockdo*.r B"d."," 000 Bro ken

W

31 ,Almirah in dining room '1,000 00 Expensive wood, architect 1,000 ^[00] W 32 lBed master bedroom 600 ^[00] 600 ^[00] lncludes headboard wood W 33 lCabinets (in small dine, up office) 50 00 50 ^[00] W 50.00 50 ^[00] 50.00 50.00

36 Chairs in up game room & ?A Chairq in rrn aame ronm R offiee 000 Not there anv more. Sold ?? lW

| Chairs & Tables in side living room 1,600 00 ^[37] Luxury wood & architect Child items(laptop, piano,kindle,apple) lW 1,600.00 see ExhibitA of deepa4thAm Coat Hanger in big dine room 30.00l Coat Hanger in small dine room

-- Coffee machine in kitchen l 20 00i __fW _l contents upsta;" B[frt""D;adr;P1, l - Contents upstairs BR table,TV, bed

150 00 150.00 computers 120 00 50.00 ^{[50] [00]}

120 ^[00] 3,000.00 Luxury wood & architect Dining room table in small dine 180 ^[00] 180.00 Dolls in entry and side room expensive wood dolls 40 00 Electric cooker large (kitchen) Electric cooker small (kitchen) 25 ^[00] 50.00 Exercise bike in BR 300 00 Exercise equip (treadmill wts etc)

000 000 External hard drive F&G Life insurance 0.00 Wife also has F&G account ^[56] Furniture in poss of husband 0.00 ^[57]

Garage items (bike, wires, plastics) 50.00 50 ^[00] Glass chess in side living room 60.00 60.00 lEofo pfateo Cofs,sifver in dine room

60 See Exhibit D 18May20l4letter IW 161 Health saving ac Fidelity xxx9315 479 ^[17] 479.17 H 40.00 40 00 rrood expensive 62 Key standboard in main living Lamp in side living __ 60_.00 60.00 63

lLife insurance NorthwesternM xx0804 W 48,684.60 69,369.19 20,684.60 Life insurance NWMutualX1672 pallavi iH i 14,792.97 14,792.97 61,435.83 Life insurance NWMut x1741 r-rrJrnsurance NWlrt ut it aa t

41,182 ^[18] 41,182.18 t ___ came with the house i6e t- )70 50 ^[00] Monitor upstairs office lw. ] Paintings in entryway 50 ^[00] Phone, wireless down Bedroom

-i 3Oo.Oo 3oo.o0 PotsiPan in Kitchen ] Page 2 of5 Cattse i+ 63935 Cause # 63935: Third Amended Inventory & Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan' July 2014 73 lRefrigerator in garage 100 ^[00] 100.00 W No. ]Commnunity Personal Property Posr Husband Wife Net Value Notes 74 lRefrigerator in kitchen 800 ^[00] W 800.00 70.00 70.00 75 Shelves, two wooden in master BR W Silk Sarees (cloths) silver,gold metal 500.00 500 ^[00] Has gold, silver wires in cloth 76 W 77 '',

W 500 ^[00] 500.00 !9i99O 78 lSony camcorder 50.00 50.00 - =vsten, fv"nOt Zg lsorint<tel. 0.00 0 ^[00] i part of the house Sprinkler system (yard ) 300 00i 3oo.oo Surround sound speak living, game rms 100 001 100.00 Glass TV table Table (located upstairs otfice) 40 00 40.00 Tea table in living room l ]f!q!g 1,500.00 Televisions (BR,dine living rooms) ) zooo 20 00 Toaster, bread in kitchen Toaster oven in kitchen Vase (in entry way) Wall poster paint in living room

all poster paint in side living room 56,021 ^[00] 56,021 ^[00] UTMA LPLxx0721 41,288.29 41,288.29 UTMA LPL xx'1549 Am *Fxx0367 ^[95] olo F&G Life insurance 96 Both W, H have F&G insurance -0.00 Dresser set mirror master BR Account - Nabard bank 50,000 ^[00] 98 Rs36,000,00 in year 2004.Now mor Account - I ndia banks(vt1,syn, corp, ici) 99 Wife needs to provide details

-+ -- I Commnunity eersonat eroperty Page 3 of5 Cause # 63935 Cause # 63935: Third Amended Inventory & Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan, July 2014 Husband Wife Net Value Notes No. Commnunity Unsecured Debt -2,218 87 0.00 2,218.87 Bank of America ac xx7493 89 -6,560 ^[00] 0.00 6,560.00 W 90 Capital One ac xx7063 -8,434 45 0.00 8,434 ^[45]

Discover acxx6482 W ^[91] -11,500 ^{[00] [1]} 1,500.00 92 Discover ac xx8851 H 000 not exist 0.00 State Bank of lndia House loan xx286 0.00 93 H 10,000.00 -10,000 ^[00] 94 Education Loan Alavoor lndia banks H

-10,000 ^[00] 95 Money owed to brother, sisters lndia 10,000.00 H -5,000.00 96 Money owed to friends 5,000,00 H -45.114 ^[00] Attorney fees owed 8,000.00 37,114.00 97 H 54,327.32 -98,827.32

Commnunity Unsecured Debt 44,500.00 Posr Husband Wife Net Value No. Separate Real Property Notes 000 5500.00 5,500.00 Alavoor ^[1] 0,000 - 4500 debts House Gandhinagar lndia, 1/6th share 97 H Cause # 63935

Page 4 of ^[5] Cause # 639352 Third Amended Inventory & Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan, July 2014

DIVISION ANALYSIS

Combined Total Husband,s Total Wife's Total 0g Community neal Estatel rtlt.ai""o ""ionr*rr,." I __ __l 60

4Ol

Separate Real Estate S,5O0i 5,500 separate personat property 0] oi

o

, vrrvrrqrr ;l rv1lsrr)' Ul

U

O, _ _ -___- Separate Unsecured Debt l O - - al

O-

Total Separate Estate _ _ s,q00 T^+al O^^^-^r^ r-r-r-

c,cuu o TotalCommunity and Separate 2.1ggtgot 1p24,30O aZZSgOl -I[^L d. ?-,,Jr -+4 (L:vt r.t .t" .#.e *-n-F \ -7 k'"-^ru*

\

.lt'(,L t, u-$o,trtt{ ,icl^e [r kra'cz-1 lt*" "t(n L:q u"t o{tt b"* h,r tc ( X-uv,c-dL v)+s t)EVtfr(t Page 5 of5 Cause # 63935 Appendix E Inventory filed by Wife Inventory filed by Wife is given here (next page) Appendix F Proof filed by Husband for Community Estates Proof filed by Husband is given here (next page) Appendix G Proof filed by Husband for hidden gold bars of wife Proof filed by Husband is given here (next page) EXHIBIT 1: Missing Items in Inventory: Wife's Handwriting 14 Gold Bars Cause No. 63935 DEEPA VASUDEVAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND § 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS This “Exhibit” says in last paragraph Item (6) as handwritten by wife (Deepa): “14 Gold Bars” (marked by red arrow) . This is for inventory number 3 which includes 14 Gold Bars and 30 Gold Coins.

Appendix H Court reporters copy filed Court reports report is filed directly to 14 th Appeals Court for 27 May 2014 hearing and 08 Oct 2014 hearing. EXHIBIT INDEX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION

OFFERED ADMITTED VOL 1 Second Amended Inventory and 88 90 2 Appraisement of Alavoor Vasudevan 2 Objections to Inventory Filed 90 X 2 By Wife on 9 May 2014 5 Citibank Account Statement for 67 X 2 April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 12 Wedding Photographs Showing 71 X 2 Gold, Diamonds, Jewelry 13 Handwriting Diary of Wife 71 X 2 14 1. Bank of America Payment 71 75 2 Notice, 7-1-13 to 6-30-14 2. Bank of America Payment Notice, 7-1-08 to 6-30-09 3. Bank of America Account Statement August, 2001 - Pages 1 and 2 of 13 4. Bank of America Account Statement August, 2001 - Pages 7 and 8 of 13 5. Bank of America Account Statement July, 2002 - Pages 1 and 2 of 13 6. Bank of America Account Statement July, 2002 - Pages 3 and 4 of 13 RENEE E. RAPE, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 300TH DISTRICT COURT 4

1 EXHIBIT INDEX CONTINUED 2 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS 3 NO. DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED VOL 4 14 7. Handwritten Notes 71 X 2 5 15 Handwritten Notes 71 X 2 6 16 Samples of Identity Thefts and 72 X 2 7 Article from Odisha Sun Times 8 9 RESPONDENT/COUNTER-PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

10 NO. DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED VOL 11 1 Bank of America Account 31 32 2

Activity as of 10-28-13 2 Letters between Petitioner 33 33 2 and Mr. Ron Brownstein 3 Deepa Vasudevan's Motion to 36 38 2 Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and Protective Order 4 Affidavit for Business Records 41 42 2 For Deepa Vasudevan 5 Fourth Amended Inventory and 43/50 50 2 Appraisement of Deepa Vasudevan 6 Photograph 49 49 2 7 Photograph 52 52 2 8 Attorney's Fees for Ronald 85 86 2 Allen Brownstein RENEE E. RAPE, CSR, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 300TH DISTRICT COURT Appendix I The Record Below

All the documents filed with the Trial court are given here (next page). Appendix J Texas Family Code 3.003 - Community Estates Texas Family Code for Marital Property Rights http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=FA Code = Family Code Chapter 3 Marital Property Rights and Liabilities Sec.3.003. Presumption of community property Sec. 3.003. PRESUMPTION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY. (a) Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property. (b) The degree of proof necessary to establish that property is separate property is clear and convincing evidence. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

Appendix K Texas Penal Code 2.01 - Cruelty by Husband Texas Penal Code for Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.2.htm#2.01 Code = Penal Code

CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

Sec. 2.01. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Appendix L Felony Charge on Wife's Attorney filed by Husband Husband filed felony charge on wife's attorney for postal mail thefts is given here (next page) Oct 13, 2014

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

v/s § JUDICIAL DISTRICT

RON BROWNSTEIN § TEXAS

Dear Ron Brownstein:

Please find below the “Notice of Intention to Petition”. Please show causes as to why this lawsuit should not be filed against your firm.

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PETITION LAWSUIT

This is an intention to file petition with the court for the following violations by your Law Firm (and you): a) Federal Privacy Law on mail and personal information b) Texas Privacy Laws (various and general) c) Federal Privacy Laws (various and general)

Background Information Mr Ron Brownstein, attorney at law and his Law Firm was hired by my ex-wife Deepa in divorce Cause # 63935 in Brazoria 300 th District Court. That case had trial on 27 May 2014. And for that case Mr. Ron Browstein (and his Law Firm) had illegally intercepted and opened all my postal mails which was addressed to my home address at 3402 Castle Pond Court, Pearland, TX. Mr Ron Brownstein took advantage that I was not living in that home but was living in an apartment situated at 8701 Gustine Lane, #5918, Houston, TX 77031. In that home at Castle Pond, my ex-wife Deepa was living. Mr Ron Brownstein not only opened all my mails but also sent those to me via Registered Postal Mail with RFP#5,8,10,17(second supplement). Also these have been filed with District Court. Attached are the copies of the mail and RFPs.

An oral deposition of Alavoor Vasudevan had been taken by Mr Ron Brownstein on April 10, 2014 and several questions regarding these RFP#5,8,10,17 (second supplement) had been asked. The “Choice Reporting” did the recording and is also the witness for this oral deposition. As a proof, deposition pages from 131 thru 142 describe the contents of the RFPs 5,8,10,17 (second supplement). Note that as per US laws – Title 18 U.S. Code § 1708 - Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein; or Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein which has been left for collection upon or adjacent to a collection box or other authorized depository of mail matter; or Whoever buys, receives, or conceals, or unlawfully has in his possession, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein, which has been so stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted, as herein described, knowing the same to have been stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Page 1 of 2 Oct 13, 2014 Amendments: 1952—Act July 1, 1952, made any thefts or receipt of stolen mail a felony regardless of the monetary value of the thing stolen.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap83-sec1708 http://ww.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap83-sec1708.pdf

Attached is the copy of the Title 18 US code 1708. Also Mr Ron Brownstein (and his Law Firm) had violated my privacy and violated general laws of privacy, intrusion, trespassing my “information-data”, identity theft and various others. These will cause me immense economic damages for a very long time. And there are other economic damages due to these actions.

Damage Claim I request the court to do following: i) Impose court fine (US dollars) on Mr Ron Browstein (and/or on his Law firm) and other penalties. ii) Award me $200,000 in damages. It should be charged to mal-practice-insurance of Mr Ron Browstein (or law firm) or if no insurance coverage is available then from the personal assets of Mr Ron Browstein.

iii) Impose all the court fees, admin fees, judge fees (US dollars) on Mr Ron Browstein (and/or on his Law firm) iv) Pay my attorney fees and other costs which I may incur. Sincerely, ___________________________________

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN

Alavoor Vasudevan P.O. BOX 710163 Houston, TX 77271 Ph: (832) 244-1927

Page 2 of 2 Oct 13, 2014 Appendix M Health Reports of Husband Health reports of Husband is attached here (next page) Appendix N Objections to Inventory filed by Wife See next page EXHIBIT 1: Missing Items in Inventory: Wife's Handwriting 14 Gold Bars Cause No. 63935 DEEPA VASUDEVAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND § 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS This “Exhibit” says in last paragraph Item (6) as handwritten by wife (Deepa): “14 Gold Bars” (marked by red arrow) . This is for inventory number 3 which includes 14 Gold Bars and 30 Gold Coins.

Cause No. 63935 DEEPA VASUDEVAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND § 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS Cause No. 63935: In the Matter of the Marriage of A1avoor Vasudevan and Deepa Vasudevan and in the Interest of Pallavi Dev, A Child; In the 300th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas

Wedding Photos showing Gold, Diamonds, Jewelry photo 1: Diamond finger rings and gold bangles photo 2: Diamond finger rings and gold bangles

photo 3: Diamond finger rings photo 4: Diamond finger rings husband EXHIBIT 1 3 : Handwriting Diary Showing word ONLY written by Wife pg 1 of 3 Cause No. 63935 DEEPA VASUDEVAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND § 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS This “Exhibit 13” has handwritings of Wife's Diary and proves that handwriting of word “ONLY” in “Deposition Exhibit 4” is written by wife Deepa. See also inventory number 3 $900,000.00 In “Deposition Exhibit 4” and there the last paragraph in “Exhibit 4” says this: “Several sets of jewellery and everything is given to be my mother except a ring and a chain with my mangalyam which al had given and he can get that; the rest goes to pallavi. There are 14 gold bars all bought by me and some given to me by amma and pati from what they had collected in the past. 400 dollar us savings bonds and that is for pallavi”. And in first paragraph is handwriting of Deepa which says “only”. The handwriting of “only” is a proof that this document exhibit 4 was indeed prepared by Wife (Deepa). See also page 9 of the deposition of Deepa Vasudevan taken on 24 April 2014.

Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 1 3 : Handwriting Diary Showing word ONLY written by Wife pg 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT 1 3 : Handwriting Diary Showing word ONLY written by Wife pg 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 15 Handwriting 14 Gold Bars pg 1 of 1 Cause No. 63935 DEEPA VASUDEVAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND § 300TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS “Exhibit 15” says this in last paragraph Item (6) as handwritten by wife (Deepa): “14 Gold Bars”. See also inventory number 3 $900,000.00

Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing “Brief of Appellant” was directed to Appellee Deepa Vasudevan, by and through their attorney Kelly McClendon, SBN: 13407200, P O Box 3457, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 email: kdmcclendon@comcast.net phone: 979-299-0755, via email on this 06 December 2014. ________________________

ALAVOOR VASUDEVAN

Pro Se PO Box 710163 Houston TX 77271 Email: alavoor@gmail.com Phone: 832-244-1927 18 Case No. 14-14-00765-

CV

Case Details

Case Name: Alavoor Vasudevan v. Deepa Vasudevan

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 2, 2015

Docket Number: 14-14-00765-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.