3.Kristin Adamson — Direct/Cross/Redirect
208 linesJUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.
Members of the jury, now that the State has rested its case, the Defendant is going to have his opportunity to put on his case as well.
Mr. Rashbaum, you may call your first witness.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, the defense calls Kristin Adamson.
JUDGE EVERETT: I know it's unfamiliar, but all the way up here, Ms. Adamson. Please raise your right hand.
whereupon, KRISTIN ADAMSON was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: Good afternoon, Ms. Adamson.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Good afternoon.
MS. MEYERS: would you please introduce yourself to the jury?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I am Kristin Adamson and I'm an attorney at law. I was wendi Adelson's lawyer in her dissolution of marriage action.
MS. MEYERS: where do you attend law school?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I attended law school at Florida State University. I graduated in 1988.
MS. MEYERS: Are you a member in good standing of the Florida Bar?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I am.
MS. MEYERS: Do you specialize in any areas of practice?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I do. I specialize in marital and family law. I am board certified since 1994, I think, in marital and family law by the United States -- by the Florida state Supreme Court. I also am a fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, former president of the Florida Chapter. I'ma fellow in the International Academy Of Family Law Lawyers. I have been named a Florida Super Lawyer in family law and Best Lawyers in America since 2008, specifically, Tallahassee best family law lawyer in 2012 and 2021.
MS. MEYERS: You mentioned earlier that you are a board-certified lawyer. What does that mean exactly?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: To be board certified the Florida Supreme Court promulgates a list of criteria that you have to have to become board certified in a specialty area. And you have to pass a test, both written and oral, and a peer review by your peers and the Court as well. And you have to pass all three of those things in order to become board certified.
MS. MEYERS: You mentioned in your introduction that you were wendi Adelson's attorney in her divorce proceedings against Professor Markel. When were you retained?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I was retained I think approximately October of 2012.
MS. MEYERS: Did there come a time during your representation of wendi Adelson that you filed a motion to allow her to relocate to South Florida?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did. I filed that motion almost immediately after I was retained. I filed an amended petition for dissolution of marriage to request that she be allowed to relocate and a temporary motion that she be allowed to relocate. So that would have been in 2012.
MS. MEYERS: Is there anything wrong with asking the Court for permission to relocate?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No. It's a -- especially in Tallahassee, because it is kind of a transitory community with the college and everything, it's fairly common for -- when people get divorced, for one party to want to relocate somewhere else, either back where their family is or they graduate from school and they want to move to someplace else because of a job or they remarry. we do file these relocation requests fairly often.
MS. MEYERS: In Leon County, in your experience, how often are such motions granted?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So that is the kicker. Even though we file them, I've been -- I have now been practicing 35 years. And I think I've only actually won one that was allowed to relocate. They're very hard to do and you have to have pretty serious circumstances that would require the relocation.
MS. MEYERS: Did you share that statistic with Ms. Adelson?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did. I thought she had a shot at it because of all the facts surrounding her case. But I did tell her that it's very unlikely that we will win this. But I did tell her that if you do plan to relocate or want to relocate, you need to do it now in this initial proceeding and not wait until everything is over and then ask. So we made that tactical decision to at least attempt to relocate.
MS. MEYERS: what was her reaction to that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She wanted to be able to try, so we did. we filed the motion for relocation.
MS. MEYERS: Was that motion ever heard by the Court presiding over her divorce?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes, it was. we filed it and we set it for hearing. For any number of reasons, the hearings kept getting -- legal proceedings take a long time sometimes and things get complicated. It kept getting pushed off. But ultimately I think it was around June of 2013 that we had a hearing about that relocation issue.
MS. MEYERS: And what was the Court's ruling?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The Court said, no, she could not go.
MS. MEYERS: what was Wendi Adelson's reaction to the Court's ruling?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She was pretty --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to object to the extent that question calls for hearsay, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Adamson, you may testify to what you recall about what you observed from your client but not to her actual words.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So she was pretty calm about the whole thing. She seemed to understand that it was not a given that it would happen, that it's usually a long shot. And I spoke with her afterwards, right after the proceeding, and I spoke with her several times afterwards to sort of decompress and she seemed fine about it. She understood, pretty resigned to the idea of it.
BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: There has been some testimony in this case that in the wake of that denial, the Adelson family was considering offering Professor Markel a certain sum of money, a million dollars, to allow wendi Adelson and the boys to relocate to South Florida. Are you aware of that offer?
MS. MEYERS: In your experience, have you ever heard of one spouse making a monetary offer to another spouse to allow for things like relocation?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, relevance.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, the State --
JUDGE EVERETT: Overruled. You may answer the question.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So that's a fairly common occurrence for relocation. And I actually just had one a couple of weeks ago where that's exactly what happened was the husband of -- the new husband of a woman who wanted to relocate basically paid my client to allow her to be able to relocate.
I've also had people -- it shouldn't be the case that money and children are connected and we've tried hard to not have that happen but it does happen sometimes. I also often have one say, if you allow us to relocate, you never have to pay child support, all kinds of those kinds of money things do get offered. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: Is there anything illegal about one spouse making an offer to another spouse to do that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Not as far as know.
MS. MEYERS: At some point was Professor Markel and Ms. Adelson's divorce case mediated?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: We mediated it twice. We mediated once before the hearing on the parenting. And that mediation was just about the relocation and the ability to go. And we were not successful in mediating that, so we had the hearing. Then we mediated it again in July of 2013 and that was also an impasse. It was sometime around July 20, 21, maybe, something like that. But then we settled the case a week later because that happens sometimes. I tell my clients this all the time. Just because we haven't settled it at mediation doesn't mean it's over. We continued to have discussions and conversations during that last week until we finally settled the case.
MS. MEYERS: So there was no trial?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: There was no trial.
MS. MEYERS: There was a marital settlement agreement entered. Do you recall the date?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It was the end of July, 2020 -- 2013; right? 2013, yeah. It's a long time ago, sorry.
MS. MEYERS: without getting into words spoken, what was your impression of wendi Adelson's reaction to the settlement of the divorce case?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She was very relieved. Most people are when you settle the cases.
MS. MEYERS: Did you continue to represent wendi into 2014?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall that in February of 2014 Professor Markel filed a motion seeking to sanction wendi and you?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He did.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall what Professor Markel was claiming, the substance of that motion?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The substance of that motion was in response to a motion that I had filed in October of 2013 when he did not pay her, or me, the money that he was supposed to pay according to our marital settlement agreement. He only paid part of it and he didn't pay the rest of it and he didn't pay me. This was just about the financial part. It had nothing to do with the children. So I filed a motion to enforce. It took him several -- the day that I filed that motion to enforce, his lawyer that he had at that time withdrew and he obtained a new lawyer.
So that new lawyer and I talked about these issues for quite a while. And ultimately what happened was he filed -- Mr. Markel filed this response. And he claimed that wendi and I had committed fraud in obtaining that marital settlement agreement by hiding an asset.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall what relief he was seeking?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Several things he was seeking. He was seeking -- he was basically saying that he shouldn't have to pay wendi because she breached the contract. And one good breach deserves another I guess is what his theory was. And, second, that both wendi and I should be disbarred.
MS. MEYERS: were you concerned about the substance of Professor Markel's allegations in that motion?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objections, relevance. Move to strike.
JUDGE EVERETT: Sustained. Discard the last comment from the witness.
You may move on.
BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: what was your view about the likelihood of success, in your experience, of that motion and of getting disbarred and of wendi Adelson being disbarred as a result of that motion?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection, relevance.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor --
JUDGE EVERETT: Approach.
AT THE BENCH
JUDGE EVERETT: The pleadings themselves are already a part of the record for the case. what is the witness's opinion going to lend to the jury's understanding of the case or what is in dispute?
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I can't recall what day it was, but the State took the position in interviewing Mr. Markel's former defense -- former divorce attorney that the potential disbarment and sanctioning of wendi Adelson was part of the motive underlying the murder. And so what we would like to show is that this attorney was not concerned about the prospect of being disbarred, was not concerned about the prospect of wendi Adelson being disbarred. And that she communicated that to her -- that advice to her client.
JUDGE EVERETT: Response?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't think this witness's opinion on whether or not the pleadings were going to be successful is relevant.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. I do know that mr. webster, he was allowed to speak to professional -- Rules of Professional Conduct. This is getting a little bit further as it relates to the success or the merits of a motion that was not heard. Correct?
MS. MEYERS: Well, Your Honor, I'm not actually asking about the merits of the motion or whether the motion would ultimately be granted or denied by a Court, because obviously there is nobody that can get into the mind of a Court.
what I am -- what I do believe is highly relevant, given the position that the State elicited from Mr. Webster, is what is -- what Wendi believed based on what wendi's lawyer believed.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. I'll allow you --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May I?
JUDGE EVERETT: -- go ahead and then I'll make a ruling.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Wendi Adelson was a witness in this case. I think what she believed that could go to motive would have been fair game. But this witness's opinion about what she believed I think is irrelevant.
JUDGE EVERETT: I'‘11 allow her to testify to what she communicated to her client. As far as the merits or any further opinions, we're not going there. All right?
MS. MEYERS: That's fine, Your Honor. Thank you.
IN OPEN COURT
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Adamson, you may communicate -- or, I'm sorry, you may testify as to what you communicated to your client concerning this motion.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Concerning this motion, I basically told my client that I wasn't concerned about the legal ramifications of this either regarding the claim of the fraud, because I know we had covered that really well in our discovery process and we had litigated it and I was not concerned about that. I was not concerned about -- so much so that I was not concerned at all about any ethical issues that I might have had with the bar and/or Ms. Adelson either. I was not concerned.
BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall that Professor Markel, or his attorney on his behalf, filed another motion in March of 2014?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So in March of 2014, well after the first motion that was just about the property, he filed a motion that made some additional claims for why he shouldn't have to abide by the payment. And these claims started talking about the children. And he made -- and I don't remember all of the claims but they were -- basically the substance was that he should be allowed more electronic communication with his children than he was getting and that Ms. Adelson's mother should have supervised visitation only with her grandchildren because of statements that he thought that she might be making to the children.
MS. MEYERS: Did you communicate your thoughts on this motion to Ms. Adelson?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes, I did.
MS. MEYERS: And what were those thoughts?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So I told her as far as the electronic communication, I wouldn't worry about that too much because we already had a marital settlement agreement that outlined everybody's rights and obligations. And there had been no real changes on that, so -- and the Judge had actually already ruled on that kind of issue in 2013 at one of our hearings, we had a couple of hearings. So I wasn't really worried about that because they kind of already set out what everybody should be doing. And I didn't see that there had been any changes that would make the Court make any changes to that agreement.
And then as far as the grandmother, I also told her that these kinds of allegations, while they're not nice or fun, they're pretty run-of-the-mill. And lots of people after they get divorced don't get along very well and their extended families don't get along that well. But I wouldn't think that the Judge would order supervised visitation based on these kinds of allegations because supervised visitation is for pretty extreme cases.
For example, I've had people who have maybe multiple DUIs and shouldn't be allowed to be with children because it's an unsafe situation. Or I have had people who were abusive and they can't be with the children, so they have to be supervised.
Basically what happens when people aren't talking nice -- and I didn't know if it was actually true or not, it was an allegation he made -- aren't talking nice about it, what we try to do is just have conversations with the Judge. And the Judge might say, okay, everybody, be nice and that's it. I wasn't worried about that issue.
MS. MEYERS: Did there come a time in the divorce and post-divorce proceedings when you filed a motion to withdraw?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall when that was?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Right. So we had those first two motions. They were odd.
MS. MEYERS: By "first two motions” --
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The ones that we just talked about. we had the first motion where he said it was okay for him to breach because she breached and then we had the next one about the kids and all of that. And then he filed a memorandum, I believe it was in May or June. I think May, I think May of 2014. And it was a long, detailed memorandum of law that had a lot more facts in it.
And I realized at that point in time that I was probably going to have to be a witness in this case because of what he was saying about me in the memorandum and the motions. And I can't be a witness and a lawyer in the same case by the Florida ethical rules. So I withdrew because I knew I would have to take a different role.
MS. MEYERS: You spoke about a lot more facts in this memorandum. Did the view of the motion that you conveyed to Wendi Adelson change as a result of the memorandum, other than the fact that you had to withdraw?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No. It was just kind of reinstating all of the same kinds of things but it was a lot more vehemently, with a little bit different language. It kept upping the ante. And that's when I realized this was not going to be something that we were going to be able to probably resolve without a court hearing, because I had been trying to do that with his lawyer. So I was going to have to -- I was going to have to do that. So I moved to withdraw. And I called another lawyer and asked him if he would please step in in my place.
MS. MEYERS: Did you seek to withdraw because you felt you did something wrong?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No. It was only because I knew I was going to have to testify in the case and that was the only reason.
MS. MEYERS: You mentioned you contacted another lawyer. Did wendi Adelson ultimately retain that other lawyer?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She did.
MS. MEYERS: And do you recall when she did that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I know that he filed -- I filed a motion to withdraw. And then the Court granted my order within a few days of that. And I believe he -- which was in the end of May-ish I think. And then he came in in the first part of June, I believe.
MS. MEYERS: Okay. So days before what has been talked about in this case as the first attempt, Ms. Adelson retained a new attorney to represent her in the ongoing proceedings with Professor Markel?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She did.
MS. MEYERS: One additional question, Your Honor. May I have a moment?
JUDGE EVERETT: Take your time.
MS. MEYERS: And it is actually only one.
BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: There has been some discussion in this case, some testimony, concerning telephone calls on the morning of May 2nd.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: And whether those telephone calls related to a motion to compel and a notice of hearing filed by Professor Markel's attorney on his behalf. And, again, the testimony related to calls on the morning of May 2nd. Can you tell the jury -- I'm showing you a portion of State's Exhibit 56.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: This is the notice hearing that was filed, as you can see, on May 2nd, 2014. Can you tell the jury what time?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It looks like it was filed at 3:14:48 -- they've got the seconds on there -- p.m.
MS. MEYERS: And the motion to compel, what time was it filed?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 3:14:48 p.m. as well.
MS. MEYERS: Okay. And just to be extra clear, is 3:14 in the afternoon or the morning?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It's p.m., so it's afternoon, yes.
MS. MEYERS: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, at this time, I'd ask to publish defense's demonstrative -- what number is this exhibit, the demonstrative?
MS. MEYERS: Demonstrative B.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: B, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So on May 2, 2014 -- I know you're not familiar with this exhibit, but if these calls occurred at --
(off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury, this is our version of, how many advanced degrees does it take to change a lightbulb?
(Laughter.)
MS. MEYERS: There's a lot of money here, Your Honor, a lot of educational dollars.
MR. RASHBAUM: We didn't have computers then.
MS. MEYERS: That is true.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were asked about a filing -- or two filings that were made on May 2nd. If the phone calls in question occurred ~well into the afternoon hours, it would have been after that filing. would you agree with that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have no idea, sorry.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I think you do because I think you were shown the documents and asked about the time of the filings.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I know about the filings, yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So if the calls occurred in the late -- into the late afternoon, we have it now 3:15, 3:49, 3:54, all of these times, 3:56, 4:39, 4:55, would have been after those filings. would you agree with that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That would appear to be correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Thank you.
were you familiar with Dr. -- Professor Markel's practice of e-mailing Wendi prior to making these filings and saying -- basically laying out the whole thing in an e-mail. This is what I'm going to do if you don't comply, I'm going to make this filing. Were you privy to those e-mails?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Sometimes.
MS. MEYERS: Objection, Your Honor, foundation.
JUDGE EVERETT: Sustained.
Ms. Cappleman, if you can go through that with the witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm sorry, what did you say, Your Honor?
JUDGE EVERETT: Foundation.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Were you privy to e-mails from Professor Markel to your client, wendi Adelson, previewing the filings before he made them?
MS. MEYERS: Same objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Overruled. She is trying to lay the foundation now.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm aware of -- that he did that on occasion, yes.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you know whether he did that in reference to the May 2nd filing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have no idea.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the case you talked about where you recently had somebody buy out their former spouse's rights to their children, basically -- relocate for money, relocation for hire -- how much money did that person -- how much money was exchanged for that relocation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That was not a million dollars, but it was basically -- when we did all of the child support and everything that would have been paid, it turns out to be somewhere probably around 200,000.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: If what was alleged in Professor Markel's motion about Wendi having lied and hidden assets and all of that, if she had taken those action, that could have had serious consequences to her personally as well as her law license. would you agree with that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: You described -- I'm sure you were referring to different parts of the case but you referred to the case as run-of-the-mill and you referred to it as odd. was this a particularly contentious or memorable case for you or was it run-of-the-mill?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So those are two separate statements I think. I think that the quibbling about the children was run-of-the-mill. I think the case was odd.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How much -- I guess in general would you agree that divorces come with high emotions?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do clients always take your advice?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do clients always chill out when you tell them, this is nothing to worry about?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you have any contact with Donna Adelson, the mother of wendi Adelson, in reference to wendi's divorce?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The only time I had any communication with wWendi's mother was at the relocation hearing that we had in June of 2013.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did Donna testify at the relocation hearing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She did not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So is it fair to say your contact with her was almost nothing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes. She and her husband were at the hearing and my contact with them was minimal.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And so have you had an opportunity to review Donna Adelson's e-mails to wendi in reference to this divorce and in particular your representation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have not.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect examination.
MS. MEYERS: Very briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MEYERS:
MS. MEYERS: Ms. Adamson -- I apologize.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That's okay.
MS. MEYERS: You were very briefly shown this presentation on cross-examination. Is this call in the morning of May 2nd? Excuse, me let me start at the top. Is this call in the morning of May 2nd? See the time stamp in the upper right-hand corner?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I do. So 12:00 a.m. is morning, 12:00 p.m. is noon; right? My husband always says we should use military time.
MS. MEYERS: So 12:00 a.m.?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I think 12:00 a.m. means morning; right? Right after --
MS. MEYERS: Yes.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: How about 9:10 in the morning?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. MEYERS: 9:25 in the morning?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. MEYERS: And so on?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. MEYERS: Over here, 9:35 in the morning. Okay.
And you were asked by Ms. Cappleman, if wendi had done the things that Professor Markel accused her of, failing to disclose assets and such, whether that would have been a serious matter; correct?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. MEYERS: were you aware if wendi Adelson failed to disclose assets in the context of a divorce proceeding?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No, she didn't. And in particular the particular asset that he was talking about, it was a nonmarital asset of hers. And it was -- her parents had given it to her and she basically took it back. But we showed him the whole paper trail of it. And his argument was kind of an esoteric legal argument about why it should be his and part of the marital estate.
So it was kind of weird -- when I say the case was odd, what I mean is it's odd for the opposing party to make claims against me, to want me disbarred as well as his wife. So that's what was odd about the case and I remember it because that doesn't happen in my cases. But that was the arguments that he was making.
And we -- several times -- it was one specific retirement account. So several times we gave him the documents that he requested. It just never was what he wanted.
MS. MEYERS: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may step down.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Thank you.