Epstein Secrets

to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah. sold the home where she and the children were

n's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it. P mg on the production of the NM agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NM was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah, sold the home where she and the children were

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah. sold the home where she and the children were

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has