Untitled Page

Remember: The Plaintiff is Anna Slintak
                       The Defendant is Frantisek Slintak

1)    The Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Spousal Support on March 5, 1991

2)    Much of the confusion results from Ms. Slintak’s failure to provide appropriate
       documentation or proof and her questionable behavior in selling some of the assets.

3)    The Referee assumes a reasonable price for the house would be $180,000. Plaintiff
        submitted a competitive market analysis which suggested a price range from
        $290.000 to $326.000. This market analysis is useless. Plaintiff also claimed the
        house had been evaluated by The Michigan Group Realtors for $326,000. Again,
        this valuation is suspect. Defendant’s appraisal of $180,000 is easily the most reliable.

4)    This part of the Referee’s Report describes Anna’s property transaction valued at
        $64,000. She sold the property to her boyfriend for $26,000. The Court declared this
        transaction invalid saying that Plaintiff has not been completely forthcoming or
        honest about this transaction.

5)    It is also appropriate to ignore Plaintiff’s claimed promise of 18% interest. There is
       no proof this was the agreement. In addition the remaining $25,000 of investment
       money Plaintiff claims she used to buy these properties and still owes should be
       ignored. Plaintiff’s proof of this debt is scanty at best, and her credibility is suspect.

6)    This part deals with the evaluation of the Defendant’s boat he has been building.
       Plaintiff argues it is worth in excess of $300,000 and she submitted a value list price
       of $450,000. This is ridiculous. Defendant submitted an appraisal by a marine
       surveyor which valued the boat at approximately $5,000. Defendant should be given
       the boat at $5,000.

7)    Plaintiff’s testimony is simply not credible.

8)    Plaintiff’s claims she has made no money is hard to disprove, but harder to believe.

9)    Finally, add to this Plaintiff’s disingenuous submission of a blatantly incorrect
       appraisal of the marital home and the sweetheart sale of the land contract to her
       boyfriend’s company. The referee does not believe Plaintiff has revealed all the
       relevant income information nor that she has no income.

10) Neither party should be awarded spousal support.

Note: The Referee declared in her concluding statement the following: Ms. Slintak, if
          your husband gives my report to the Board of Realtors, you will loose your
          realtor’s license