Preview
322-558426-14 FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
3/26/2015 1:42:46 PM
NO. 322-558426-14 THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
ALYSON WOLFLE §
AND § 322ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, JR. §
§
AND IN THE INTEREST OF §
R.L.W., J.L.W. AND E.M.W., §
CHILDREN § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
PETITIONER’S FIRST APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE
Petitioner Alyson Wolfle hereby moves for a continuance of the April 14, 2015
trial setting in this cause and requests that the case be reset for trial no earlier than July 1,
2015. As grounds therefore, Petitioner would show the Court as follows:
Background
Petitioner and Respondent were married in 2004. They have three small children
currently ages six, five and two. In the spring of 2014, Petitioner discovered that her
husband was involved in a personal relationship with a co-worker named Lauren Leahy.
To address that issue the parties began going to counseling with a counselor named
Myrna Ashby. During several sessions with Ms. Ashby, Rob Wolfle assured Petitioner
that there had been nothing inappropriate between Ms. Leahy and him, said that he did
not love Ms. Leahy, he assured Petitioner he had not had any type of sexual relations with
her, and he told Petitioner he had only had a few dinners and drinks with Ms. Leahy. He
excused his “meetings” with Ms. Leahy by claiming that Ms. Leahy had been working
with him on a business he had started with community funds. Respondent also assured
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 1
322-558426-14
Petitioner during the counseling sessions that he was committed to the marriage,
committed to the parties’ children, and that he had terminated the “relationship” with Ms.
Leahy.
In May 2014, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had been lying about the
“relationship” and in fact, had been spending substantial community funds on trips and
gifts with Ms. Leahy. This divorce action was initiated in June 2014. Respondent
appeared and counter-petitioned for divorce but also asserted claims for assault and
“offensive physical contact.” The parties did reach an interim agreement for possession
of their three small children. They then exchanged inventories and requests for written
discovery. Although some information was provided, Petitioner was forced to spend
substantial time and expense with a computer forensics expert in order to try to obtain
relevant communications that had been sent to or received by Respondent electronically
but which Respondent had deleted or destroyed from devices he possessed.
By the fall, Petitioner could see that the interim possession arrangements were not
in the best interests of the children. But Respondent refused to put his children’s interests
ahead of his, so Petitioner sought to schedule a hearing on Temporary Orders to enlist the
Court’s help. At the last minute the parties engaged in a mediation of the possession
arrangements in late November. After a mediation that lasted more than 15 hours, to
protect the interests of her children, Petitioner signed a partial agreement concerning
possession. Petitioner does not concede the agreement is in the best interests of her
children and reserves the right to challenge it. But regardless of the enforceability of the
mediation agreement for possession, the parties have not addressed nor resolved any
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 2
322-558426-14
property issues because there has been almost no discovery into the form, substance or
value of the community estate and in particular, the identity and value of some closely
held businesses and relationships Respondent formed to engage in real estate
development outside the State of Texas.
In early February, additional written discovery was served by Petitioner as well as
by Respondent. Substantial disagreements remain with respect to some of those requests
and including, discovery demands by Respondent to obtain personal information from
Petitioner’s parents, Greg and JoAnn Swienton.1
According to the Scheduling Order, discovery closed March 14th. However, both
parties seek to take depositions that have yet to occur for a variety of reasons further
explained herein:
Deposition of Myrna Ashby
o After Petitioner initially learned about Respondent’s “relationship” with his
co-worker, the parties began seeing a counselor named Myrna Ashby.
Later, after Respondent claims he was injured as a result of an alleged
assault by Petitioner, Respondent continued to see Ms. Ashby alone.
Respondent seeks damages for alleged bodily injury and personal injury, as
well as exemplary damages, in connection with his assault claim.
Petitioner sought to depose Ms. Ashby. Ms. Ashby, however, engaged a
Dallas lawyer named Tom Hartsell. Mr. Hartsell requested that the
deposition be postponed in order to give Ms. Ashby time to gather
1
Mr. and Mrs. Swienton are Florida residents.
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 3
322-558426-14
documents listed in the subpoena duces tecum served upon her. Mr.
Hartsell later offered to produce Ms. Ashby on April 8th. Petitioner’s
counsel has recently confirmed that the date is acceptable to Respondent
but it is highly doubtful that it will actually occur on April 8 and, if so, still
does not leave adequate time to use a transcript at a trial on April 14.
Deposition of Alex Kimbrell
o Alex Kimbrell is an individual who resides in Alabama. He has worked
closely with Respondent in connection with closely held business interests
that are part of the community, as well as an interest that appears to be part
of the community estate. Initially, Respondent offered to arrange for Mr.
Kimbrell to come to Fort Worth to produce documents and be deposed.
However, when Petitioner tried to finalize those arrangements, she learned
that Mr. Kimbrell had engaged Darrell Minter, a Dallas attorney. Mr.
Minter requested that Mr. Kimbrell’s deposition be postponed and
scheduled to take place in Mobile, Alabama. Letters rogatory will therefore
be necessary to obtain a subpoena duces tecum for that purpose. The
application for the letters rogatory will be heard April 1st so it is unlikely
Mr. Kimbrell’s deposition can be taken before mid to late April at the
earliest.
Deposition of Melanie Smythe
o Ms. Smythe is also represented by Darrell Minter. She too has some
affiliation with the closely held business interests in issue. Respondent
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 4
322-558426-14
initially offered to arrange for her to produce documents and appear for her
deposition in Fort Worth. But Mr. Minter advised she would not appear in
Fort Worth. And she is believed to be a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Letters rogatory will be necessary to compel her appearance along with the
production of relevant documents. Her deposition cannot be taken with
adequate time prior to trial.
Depositions of Greg and JoAnn Swienton
o Respondent has demanded that he be permitted to depose Petitioner’s
parents, Greg and JoAnn Swienton. Although each of them are persons
with authority to obtain legal services on behalf of Petitioner and who have
helped effectuate legal representation of Petitioner, they are also persons
who may be called to testify at trial in connection with what they have
observed of Respondent. The Swientons’ interests as witnesses in this case
are represented by Bill Warren and Sharon Fulgham at Kelly Hart &
Hallman. Under Florida law, the Swientons have a Constitutional right of
privacy that appears directly impacted by Respondent’s demands.
Other parties to be deposed:
o Petitioner also intends to depose Jason Morina, an attorney who has been
involved in connection with Respondent and the closely held business
interests. Petitioner also seeks to depose a representative of Swearingen
Realty, the company that employs Respondent.
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 5
322-558426-14
Depositions of the parties
o Respondent has demanded to depose Petitioner. Petitioner has no objection
to being deposed but does insist that her deposition be taken after she takes
the deposition of Respondent. And Petitioner has made it clear since early
February that she wants to take Respondent’s deposition after the
depositions of Ms. Ashby, Mr. Kimbrell, Ms. Smythe, Mr. Morina, and a
Swearingen representative have been completed.
Other:
o Petitioner deposed Respondent’s paramour, Lauren Leahy. Ms. Leahy
testified that Respondent has made cash gifts to her that she deposited into
her bank account. Petitioner has sought to obtain Ms. Leahy’s bank
statements from January 1, 2012 to date but Ms. Leahy’s counsel has failed
to respond. So it appears that a deposition upon written questions will need
to be served and taken to obtain and prove up those bank records.
o Petitioner has served Respondent with requests for production and
interrogatories. Although Respondent has produced some documents and
provided some response to the interrogatories, he has nevertheless made
numerous objections that will need to be resolved by the Court.
Summary
The foregoing illustrates that there are still discovery issues that must be resolved
by the Court and that there are a number of depositions, including two that will require
out of state travel, that need to be completed before the case can be tried. These issues
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 6
322-558426-14
cannot be resolved and the needed discovery cannot conceivably be completed in time to
allow orderly preparation for trial on April 14th. The depositions to be taken are material
and Petitioner has used due diligence to procure that testimony. The testimony from Ms.
Ashby, Mr. Kimbrell, Ms. Smythe and Mr. Morina, as well as from Respondent, cannot
be procured from any other source. Petitioner’s request for continuance is not sought for
delay only but that justice may be done.
This motion for continuance is supported by the Affidavit of Robert E. Aldrich,
Jr., attached as Exhibit A.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner urges that the Court grant this motion for continuance
and reschedule the trial of this cause no earlier than July 1, 2015.
/s/ Ralph H. Duggins
RALPH H. DUGGINS
rduggins@canteyhanger.com
State Bar No. 06183700
CANTEY HANGER LLP
Cantey Hanger Plaza
600 W. 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 877-2800
Facsimile: (817) 877-2807
/s/ Robert E. Aldrich, Jr.
ROBERT E. ALDRICH, JR.
radlrich@aldrichpllc.com
State Bar No. 00984100
1130 Fort Worth Club Tower
777 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: 817-336-5601
Facsimile: 817-336-5297
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 7
322-558426-14
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that Respondent’s lead counsel has advised that Respondent
opposes any continuance.
/s/ Ralph H. Duggins
RALPH H. DUGGINS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served
in the following manner to the following on the 26th day of March 2015.
Via Eservice
David Hoffmann
dhoffmann@qslwm.com
Elizabeth Hunter
ehunter@qslwm.com
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.
2001 Bryan Street Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
/s/ Ralph H. Duggins
RALPH H. DUGGINS
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 8
322-558426-14
Exhibit
A
322-558426-14
CAUSE NO. 322-558426-14
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
ALYSON WOLFLE §
AND § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, JR. §
§
AND IN THE INTEREST OF §
RL W, III, JL WAND EMW. § 322ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT E. ALDRICH, JR.
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF TARRANT §
On this day personally appeared Robert E. Aldrich, Jr., known to me, who upon
being first duly sworn, stated upon his oath as follows.
"1. My name is Robert E. Aldrich, Jr. I am over the age of twenty-one,
have never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, am competent to
execute this affidavit, and have personal knowledge and am personally familiar
with the facts set forth herein, all ofwhich are true and correct.
2. I am one of the attorneys representing Petitioner, Alyson Woljle.
3. The testimony Petitioner seeks from Myrna Ashby, Alex Kimbrell,
Lauren Leahy, Jason Marina, Melanie Smythe and Swearingen Realty is relevant
and material to the issues of determining the nature, scope, extent and value of the
community estate, to determining the extent of Respondent's breaches offiduciary
duty, to determining the compensation or benefits paid, and to be paid,
Respondent, or to determining the true extent of any personal injury or bodily
1
322-558426-14
injury Respondent claims to have suffered as a result of any alleged assault or
offensive physical contact by Petitioner. Such testimony cannot be procured from
any other source.
4. Petitioner has had difficulty scheduling the depositions of Alex
Kimbrell and Melanie Smythe because Mr. Kimbrell is believed to be a resident of
Mobile, Alabama and because Ms. Smythe is believed to be a resident of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Kimbrell and Mr. Smythe have worked with
Respondent in developing and promoting the interests of Pure Development and
Pure One, as well as another entity known as Pure Acquisitions. Pure
Development and Pure One are listed by Respondent in his inventory as closely
held business interests that are community property. Respondent claims he 'has
no ownership interest in' Pure Acquisitions. Petitioner has reason to believe
otherwise and believes that testimony from Mr. Kimbrell, Mr. Marina, and Ms.
Smythe should provide information on the true relationship between Respondent
and the Pure entities, as well as the relationship between Respondent and the
witnesses.
5. Petitioner has sought bank statements from Lauren Leahy as
evidenced by email I sent to her attorney, a true and correct copy of which is
attached as Exhibit A. There has been no response.
6. Petitioner does not seek the continuance for delay only but that
justice may be done.
2
322-558426-14
drich, Jr.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on
this U, tb day of March 2015, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
Notary Public ~State of Texas
3
- ---------- --- --·- ·- --
- -- - - - - - -- -- - - -·· - .. ······--- - - - -
From: Robert Aldrich [raldrich@aldrichpllc.com] 322-558426-14
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 10:05 AM
To: jonmfr~mks@qmail.com
Cc: Ralph Duggins
Subject: Wolfle v. Wolfle- Leahy Deposition
Jon Michael:
During the above-referenced deposition, Ms. Leahy testified that she has bank statements showing the deposits of cash
that she received from Mr. Wolfle. I need to know if she will provide copies of her bank statements from 1/1/12 to date
without my filing a motion requesting same.
Thanks.
Robert Aldrich
Gardner Aldrich, LLP
1130 Fort Worth Club Tower ·
777 Taylor st.
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817-336-5601
817-336-5297 (fax) .
1
EXHIBIT
1
Preview
322-558426-14 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 3/26/2015 1:42:46 PM NO. 322-558426-14 THOMAS A. WILDER DISTRICT CLERK IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE MARRIAGE OF § § ALYSON WOLFLE § AND § 322ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, JR. § § AND IN THE INTEREST OF § R.L.W., J.L.W. AND E.M.W., § CHILDREN § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS PETITIONER’S FIRST APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Petitioner Alyson Wolfle hereby moves for a continuance of the April 14, 2015 trial setting in this cause and requests that the case be reset for trial no earlier than July 1, 2015. As grounds therefore, Petitioner would show the Court as follows: Background Petitioner and Respondent were married in 2004. They have three small children currently ages six, five and two. In the spring of 2014, Petitioner discovered that her husband was involved in a personal relationship with a co-worker named Lauren Leahy. To address that issue the parties began going to counseling with a counselor named Myrna Ashby. During several sessions with Ms. Ashby, Rob Wolfle assured Petitioner that there had been nothing inappropriate between Ms. Leahy and him, said that he did not love Ms. Leahy, he assured Petitioner he had not had any type of sexual relations with her, and he told Petitioner he had only had a few dinners and drinks with Ms. Leahy. He excused his “meetings” with Ms. Leahy by claiming that Ms. Leahy had been working with him on a business he had started with community funds. Respondent also assured PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 1 322-558426-14 Petitioner during the counseling sessions that he was committed to the marriage, committed to the parties’ children, and that he had terminated the “relationship” with Ms. Leahy. In May 2014, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had been lying about the “relationship” and in fact, had been spending substantial community funds on trips and gifts with Ms. Leahy. This divorce action was initiated in June 2014. Respondent appeared and counter-petitioned for divorce but also asserted claims for assault and “offensive physical contact.” The parties did reach an interim agreement for possession of their three small children. They then exchanged inventories and requests for written discovery. Although some information was provided, Petitioner was forced to spend substantial time and expense with a computer forensics expert in order to try to obtain relevant communications that had been sent to or received by Respondent electronically but which Respondent had deleted or destroyed from devices he possessed. By the fall, Petitioner could see that the interim possession arrangements were not in the best interests of the children. But Respondent refused to put his children’s interests ahead of his, so Petitioner sought to schedule a hearing on Temporary Orders to enlist the Court’s help. At the last minute the parties engaged in a mediation of the possession arrangements in late November. After a mediation that lasted more than 15 hours, to protect the interests of her children, Petitioner signed a partial agreement concerning possession. Petitioner does not concede the agreement is in the best interests of her children and reserves the right to challenge it. But regardless of the enforceability of the mediation agreement for possession, the parties have not addressed nor resolved any PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 2 322-558426-14 property issues because there has been almost no discovery into the form, substance or value of the community estate and in particular, the identity and value of some closely held businesses and relationships Respondent formed to engage in real estate development outside the State of Texas. In early February, additional written discovery was served by Petitioner as well as by Respondent. Substantial disagreements remain with respect to some of those requests and including, discovery demands by Respondent to obtain personal information from Petitioner’s parents, Greg and JoAnn Swienton.1 According to the Scheduling Order, discovery closed March 14th. However, both parties seek to take depositions that have yet to occur for a variety of reasons further explained herein: Deposition of Myrna Ashby o After Petitioner initially learned about Respondent’s “relationship” with his co-worker, the parties began seeing a counselor named Myrna Ashby. Later, after Respondent claims he was injured as a result of an alleged assault by Petitioner, Respondent continued to see Ms. Ashby alone. Respondent seeks damages for alleged bodily injury and personal injury, as well as exemplary damages, in connection with his assault claim. Petitioner sought to depose Ms. Ashby. Ms. Ashby, however, engaged a Dallas lawyer named Tom Hartsell. Mr. Hartsell requested that the deposition be postponed in order to give Ms. Ashby time to gather 1 Mr. and Mrs. Swienton are Florida residents. PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 3 322-558426-14 documents listed in the subpoena duces tecum served upon her. Mr. Hartsell later offered to produce Ms. Ashby on April 8th. Petitioner’s counsel has recently confirmed that the date is acceptable to Respondent but it is highly doubtful that it will actually occur on April 8 and, if so, still does not leave adequate time to use a transcript at a trial on April 14. Deposition of Alex Kimbrell o Alex Kimbrell is an individual who resides in Alabama. He has worked closely with Respondent in connection with closely held business interests that are part of the community, as well as an interest that appears to be part of the community estate. Initially, Respondent offered to arrange for Mr. Kimbrell to come to Fort Worth to produce documents and be deposed. However, when Petitioner tried to finalize those arrangements, she learned that Mr. Kimbrell had engaged Darrell Minter, a Dallas attorney. Mr. Minter requested that Mr. Kimbrell’s deposition be postponed and scheduled to take place in Mobile, Alabama. Letters rogatory will therefore be necessary to obtain a subpoena duces tecum for that purpose. The application for the letters rogatory will be heard April 1st so it is unlikely Mr. Kimbrell’s deposition can be taken before mid to late April at the earliest. Deposition of Melanie Smythe o Ms. Smythe is also represented by Darrell Minter. She too has some affiliation with the closely held business interests in issue. Respondent PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 4 322-558426-14 initially offered to arrange for her to produce documents and appear for her deposition in Fort Worth. But Mr. Minter advised she would not appear in Fort Worth. And she is believed to be a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Letters rogatory will be necessary to compel her appearance along with the production of relevant documents. Her deposition cannot be taken with adequate time prior to trial. Depositions of Greg and JoAnn Swienton o Respondent has demanded that he be permitted to depose Petitioner’s parents, Greg and JoAnn Swienton. Although each of them are persons with authority to obtain legal services on behalf of Petitioner and who have helped effectuate legal representation of Petitioner, they are also persons who may be called to testify at trial in connection with what they have observed of Respondent. The Swientons’ interests as witnesses in this case are represented by Bill Warren and Sharon Fulgham at Kelly Hart & Hallman. Under Florida law, the Swientons have a Constitutional right of privacy that appears directly impacted by Respondent’s demands. Other parties to be deposed: o Petitioner also intends to depose Jason Morina, an attorney who has been involved in connection with Respondent and the closely held business interests. Petitioner also seeks to depose a representative of Swearingen Realty, the company that employs Respondent. PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 5 322-558426-14 Depositions of the parties o Respondent has demanded to depose Petitioner. Petitioner has no objection to being deposed but does insist that her deposition be taken after she takes the deposition of Respondent. And Petitioner has made it clear since early February that she wants to take Respondent’s deposition after the depositions of Ms. Ashby, Mr. Kimbrell, Ms. Smythe, Mr. Morina, and a Swearingen representative have been completed. Other: o Petitioner deposed Respondent’s paramour, Lauren Leahy. Ms. Leahy testified that Respondent has made cash gifts to her that she deposited into her bank account. Petitioner has sought to obtain Ms. Leahy’s bank statements from January 1, 2012 to date but Ms. Leahy’s counsel has failed to respond. So it appears that a deposition upon written questions will need to be served and taken to obtain and prove up those bank records. o Petitioner has served Respondent with requests for production and interrogatories. Although Respondent has produced some documents and provided some response to the interrogatories, he has nevertheless made numerous objections that will need to be resolved by the Court. Summary The foregoing illustrates that there are still discovery issues that must be resolved by the Court and that there are a number of depositions, including two that will require out of state travel, that need to be completed before the case can be tried. These issues PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 6 322-558426-14 cannot be resolved and the needed discovery cannot conceivably be completed in time to allow orderly preparation for trial on April 14th. The depositions to be taken are material and Petitioner has used due diligence to procure that testimony. The testimony from Ms. Ashby, Mr. Kimbrell, Ms. Smythe and Mr. Morina, as well as from Respondent, cannot be procured from any other source. Petitioner’s request for continuance is not sought for delay only but that justice may be done. This motion for continuance is supported by the Affidavit of Robert E. Aldrich, Jr., attached as Exhibit A. WHEREFORE, Petitioner urges that the Court grant this motion for continuance and reschedule the trial of this cause no earlier than July 1, 2015. /s/ Ralph H. Duggins RALPH H. DUGGINS rduggins@canteyhanger.com State Bar No. 06183700 CANTEY HANGER LLP Cantey Hanger Plaza 600 W. 6th Street, Suite 300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 877-2800 Facsimile: (817) 877-2807 /s/ Robert E. Aldrich, Jr. ROBERT E. ALDRICH, JR. radlrich@aldrichpllc.com State Bar No. 00984100 1130 Fort Worth Club Tower 777 Taylor Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: 817-336-5601 Facsimile: 817-336-5297 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 7 322-558426-14 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that Respondent’s lead counsel has advised that Respondent opposes any continuance. /s/ Ralph H. Duggins RALPH H. DUGGINS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served in the following manner to the following on the 26th day of March 2015. Via Eservice David Hoffmann dhoffmann@qslwm.com Elizabeth Hunter ehunter@qslwm.com Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C. 2001 Bryan Street Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 /s/ Ralph H. Duggins RALPH H. DUGGINS PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE Page 8 322-558426-14 Exhibit A 322-558426-14 CAUSE NO. 322-558426-14 IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE MARRIAGE OF § § ALYSON WOLFLE § AND § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS ROBERT LOWELL WOLFLE, JR. § § AND IN THE INTEREST OF § RL W, III, JL WAND EMW. § 322ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT E. ALDRICH, JR. THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF TARRANT § On this day personally appeared Robert E. Aldrich, Jr., known to me, who upon being first duly sworn, stated upon his oath as follows. "1. My name is Robert E. Aldrich, Jr. I am over the age of twenty-one, have never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, am competent to execute this affidavit, and have personal knowledge and am personally familiar with the facts set forth herein, all ofwhich are true and correct. 2. I am one of the attorneys representing Petitioner, Alyson Woljle. 3. The testimony Petitioner seeks from Myrna Ashby, Alex Kimbrell, Lauren Leahy, Jason Marina, Melanie Smythe and Swearingen Realty is relevant and material to the issues of determining the nature, scope, extent and value of the community estate, to determining the extent of Respondent's breaches offiduciary duty, to determining the compensation or benefits paid, and to be paid, Respondent, or to determining the true extent of any personal injury or bodily 1 322-558426-14 injury Respondent claims to have suffered as a result of any alleged assault or offensive physical contact by Petitioner. Such testimony cannot be procured from any other source. 4. Petitioner has had difficulty scheduling the depositions of Alex Kimbrell and Melanie Smythe because Mr. Kimbrell is believed to be a resident of Mobile, Alabama and because Ms. Smythe is believed to be a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Kimbrell and Mr. Smythe have worked with Respondent in developing and promoting the interests of Pure Development and Pure One, as well as another entity known as Pure Acquisitions. Pure Development and Pure One are listed by Respondent in his inventory as closely held business interests that are community property. Respondent claims he 'has no ownership interest in' Pure Acquisitions. Petitioner has reason to believe otherwise and believes that testimony from Mr. Kimbrell, Mr. Marina, and Ms. Smythe should provide information on the true relationship between Respondent and the Pure entities, as well as the relationship between Respondent and the witnesses. 5. Petitioner has sought bank statements from Lauren Leahy as evidenced by email I sent to her attorney, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. There has been no response. 6. Petitioner does not seek the continuance for delay only but that justice may be done. 2 322-558426-14 drich, Jr. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this U, tb day of March 2015, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. Notary Public ~State of Texas 3 - ---------- --- --·- ·- -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - -·· - .. ······--- - - - - From: Robert Aldrich [raldrich@aldrichpllc.com] 322-558426-14 Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 10:05 AM To: jonmfr~mks@qmail.com Cc: Ralph Duggins Subject: Wolfle v. Wolfle- Leahy Deposition Jon Michael: During the above-referenced deposition, Ms. Leahy testified that she has bank statements showing the deposits of cash that she received from Mr. Wolfle. I need to know if she will provide copies of her bank statements from 1/1/12 to date without my filing a motion requesting same. Thanks. Robert Aldrich Gardner Aldrich, LLP 1130 Fort Worth Club Tower · 777 Taylor st. Fort Worth, TX 76102 817-336-5601 817-336-5297 (fax) . 1 EXHIBIT 1