1.Kristin Adamson — Direct/Cross/Redirect

BRICE GOOGLE: To my knowledge, I was approached by Captain Georgella Dent, who has spoken with Deputy Franklin, and Deputy Franklin informed Captain Dent that she had received a phone call from Inmate Adelson's attorneys, and they were advising her that they were going to be at the detention facility later that afternoon, which was on yesterday, and they wanted to speak to her.

So she was inquiring with Captain Dent if she actually had to speak to them, and she was saying that she didn't know what they wanted to talk to her about. Captain Dent then came to me and gave me that information. I then talked to our general counsel, the agency's general counsel, and we were in agreement that she could speak to them if she so choose voluntarily. If she did not want to speak with them, they would have to have a subpoena to compel her to speak.

So I -- after speaking with general counsel, I spoke back to Captain Dent and she relayed that information to Deputy Franklin.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: She had a relocation case where she desired to go to Miami. All relocation cases are a little bit more difficult than just regular custody cases because we almost always have to have a court determination on a relocation case, because, unlike almost all other family law cases, relocation is a win-lose thing.

Almost everything else in family law is sort of a split the baby. Relocation is not. So we did have to go to court on that, and going to court always is a little bit harder. But in general, this was more or less, after that, a run-of-the-mill kind of parenting issue kind of case.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: It's not unusual because it depends on why someone is here in Tallahassee. Tallahassee has a lot of students with the university. They may graduate with a degree, have children, expect to be able to move somewhere else after they graduate. One person wants to leave. The other person doesn't want to leave. The two cases I have right now -- they're not here in front of this Court, so -- they're actually -- one of them settled. But one of them, the mother received a potential job offer in North Carolina. The father lived here. She wanted to move to North Carolina. All of his family was here. Her family was not. She wanted to move somewhere else. So that was one.

And another one that I have right now is a person wants to move to Pensacola, my client wants to move to Pensacola because her family is there, and the father does not want to because his job is here. So it's almost always about moving to be closer to your family when a marriage dissolves. I mean, that even happened with my sister. When she divorced in Florida, she moved to Atlanta to be close to my parents. It's a very common thing for people to want to move to be near their parents, no matter how old they are.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: I do. I -- and it doesn't seem to matter whether my clients are 20 or 40. I have many cases where a mom or a dad or sister or somebody comes to almost every meeting I have, including mediations, and they're heavily involved in the divorce of their sibling or their child regardless of age. It's just something -- families tend to be enmeshed in their other family's divorces. They do.

I usually let them come to mediation because sometimes it's important to hear how the mediation is going so that they don't try to armchair quarterback it after the mediation.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: well, I always tell my clients in Leon County that even though, according to the statute, there's no presumption that someone should be able to leave or not leave, I do think there is a presumption against relocation. And I always tell my clients that it's a very hard thing to obtain a relocation. You have to have kind of special circumstances, and there's a whole laundry list of statutory criteria that you have to meet to try to be able to relocate.

And so we sit down, we go through the statutory criteria and determine whether or not you'll be able to do it. Most of the time, I tell them it's a 50/50 shot at best. Sometimes a little bit more, sometimes less.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: The standard for a modification is a substantial change in circumstance. And at the time that I had wendi's case, there was also another competent which no longer exists. But at the time that I had wendi's case, you had to prove there was a substantial change in circumstances, that it was in the best interest of the child for a modification, and that it was detrimental to the child not to modify.

The detriment part no longer exists now. You have to just prove there has been a substantial change in circumstance and that it's in the best interest of the children. But at that point, you would have had to prove that it was detrimental in some way to the children to modify.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have been able to negotiate relocation in other cases, sometimes through help of mental health professionals who will interview the parties and the children and make recommendations. Sometimes we'll have a guardian ad litem appointed to make a recommendation. we'll have a parenting evaluation or something like that that makes a recommendation. And if you have those things behind you, then it does help, because most people don't want to go to a judge if you have a mental health professional that says, oh, yeah, relocation would be great. So we have been able to do it in that way.

I also have been able to have relocations when you have an older child who really wants to relocate and the other parent doesn't object, or sometimes you have -- like in my sister's case, which I actually did -- shouldn't have -- but I did represent my sister, you have -- she moved to Atlanta, and then her husband was able to obtain a job in Atlanta and move up there, too, her former husband. So we negotiated all those things.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: within reason. You do have to list your substantial assets. Sometimes I have people that want to list minutiae assets, de minimis assets. we don't really do that. we try to keep it as global as possible. we don't list everybody's clothing or, you know -- but we list all the cars, generally speaking.

But financial affidavits are also a work in progress. We can amend them. And that is part of what happens when you go through a dissolution, sometimes more documents come to light. A lot of times when people are getting divorced, they're not always in their best mind, and they're not always working as well as you would want them to, so it takes a lot of help to get a lot of these documents sometimes.

So we amend financial affidavits. And I always tell them, don't worry, we will amend before we go to court. If we have more documents that come up or we find out more information or you change jobs, we have to do that.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: we generally list nonmarital assets as separate if we have knowledge of them. Nonmarital assets can be very clean where you absolutely know something is nonmarital, or they may not be. Because what people don't always understand -- it's an education process as you're educating your client as they're going through a divorce. Simply because it's in your name alone does not mean it's nonmarital. So it can be in your name alone and still be marital if you have obtained it during the marriage; however, sometimes it can be both and we have to separate things out.

I know with wendi's case, that was one of the things that happened, is that she had an asset that was potentially marital and nonmarital because she owned some of it before the marriage, and then she had some of it -- she contributed some of it after the marriage. So it's hard to determine how much initially. And we sometimes have to hire expert witnesses, financial witnesses to come and help us determine what part of this is nonmarital and what part is marital.

For example, if you have a retirement account and you have contributed to that retirement account before the marriage, everything you contributed before the marriage is yours. It's not marital. And whatever increase in value due to the market is also nonmarital.

So if you have a hundred thousand dollars in a retirement account, you get married, that hundred thousand theoretically, except for 2009 -- that hundred thousand dollars continues to grow. So you're entitled to the growth on it too as nonmarital. So that's why sometimes it gets very complicated and we can't determine it initially when doing a financial affidavit, but we do try to determine it by the time we get to court at least.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So we had a hearing on the relocation. We put on wendi Adelson and she testified about the reasons that she wanted to move. we -- she did have a job offer in Miami. we put on the lawyer from the law firm that was -- had offered her the job. He testified about what the job would be, how much more money she would be making, and the flexible hours, et cetera, et cetera. We put on all of that.

And then at the end of our testimony, the judge asked to speak to counsel, which happens a lot. And she took counsel out, it was me and Professor Markel's lawyer, and she told us she understood why Ms. Adelson wanted to move, but she wasn't going to allow it because she didn't think she had met her burden of proving it was in the best interest of the children.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: well, after she made those comments, I went to -- both Mr. Duggar and I went to our respective clients. we told our respective clients what the judge had said. And, basically, if the judge had already determined this without hearing from Professor Markel, we didn't really have a chance of winning this at all because she already heard the best case of our case.

So I talked to wendi about that. And then wendi's parents were there, and I actually spoke to Wendi and her parents, and then she went and spoke to her parents again, I think, if I can remember. It was a long time ago. But I think she spoke to her parents outside of my presence as well.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: At that point in time, I think she was upset that she wasn't going to -- nobody wants to not win their case. She was upset. She was always calm during all of my meetings with her. She understood. She's a lawyer. She understood what I was telling her in terms of the legal ramifications. I think she was resigned to it. we did speak a few times after that because we had to get geared up for the next round of this. we had to go to -- we had already gone to a mediation before that, and we had not been able to agree at the mediation on the relocation.

So we knew we had to go to another mediation. So I talked to her several times about the next mediation, which would be dealing with all the other parenting issues and the financial issues. So I did talk to her quite a bit after that, and she seemed resigned to it.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: Mediation is confidential, and that's one of the things I tell my clients is that the mediator can't be called to testify about what happened in mediation, and I can't testify about what happened in mediation, et cetera, et cetera. So the theory behind that is that people will be as open to negotiation without fear that it's going to come back in court and hurt them in some way in front of a judge.

You can't talk about the settlement offers that were made. For example, in mediation if they say, oh, but he offered to pay child support above and beyond child support, and then we don't reach an agreement, you can't come into court and say, but you made this offer. So it keeps everybody moving forward and not worrying about what the offers are.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So this became sort of a last-minute little dust-up during the mediation. So what we did was we called the Charles Schwab account representative and during -- and this is not uncommon in mediation. And I had Joe Boyd, who was the mediator, come in and talk to the Charles Schwab account representative. So it wasn't just me talking to the representative and telling the other side what had happened. I wanted the mediator to actually do it and to hear it.

And so he talked to the Charles Schwab representative who outlined in his opinion what the possessory status of that Charles Schwab account was, who owned it when, where it was, how it had been separated into multiple accounts, apparently, and which ones were marital and nonmarital.

And then he went into the other room. we're not in the same room. We're in -- Ms. Adelson and I are in one room, and Professor Markel and his lawyer are in another room, and the mediator is going back and forth between the two rooms. So in our room, he listened to the -- what the Charles Schwab representative said, and then he went into the other room and told them what he had said.

And after that mediation, Mr. Duggar and I discussed the fact that that actually happened and everybody felt comfortable with what was marital and nonmarital. And that was when, along with other little things about the parenting and other loose ends being tied up, we were able to actually have a marital settlement agreement.

The Charles Schwab account, in all its different permutations, was listed in the marital settlement agreement, and Professor Markel had -- he had -- he had almost $500,000 worth of nonmarital Charles Schwab accounts of his own. So he had nonmarital money as well.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So according to the martial settlement agreement, Professor Markel kept the house. So he was supposed to pay wendi for her part of the house, and all the other assets were divided equally so that he kept an equal amount, she kept an equal amount.

He was supposed to pay, I think it was about $120,000 for his part of the house within 60 days. He had the money because he had more than $500,000 in nonmarital assets, and he had also marital assets as well. He was supposed to pay me $10,000 in attorney's fees because he made a lot more money than wendi did. And it's based upon -- attorney's fees is based upon who has more resources, and he had considerably more resources than wendi did.

So that was part of the agreement. He was supposed to pay me $10,000, he was supposed to pay her $120,000, all within 60 days of the agreement, which was July sometime, 2013.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: At some point I wrote a letter, I believe, to opposing counsel. So this was -- you know, first it's a bunch of emails and phone calls, and then it's a letter saying, please, please pay so we don't have to file an enforcement. Part of our martial settlement agreement, if we have to file an enforcement and we win, which would have because he had to pay, then he would also have to pay additional attorney's fees for doing that. So then it just becomes more and more money that he owes and he's not paying theoretically.

So -- and this was all on property issues. So unlike custody, we're not going to be able to -- or child support, we can't put him in court -- or in jail. we're not going to be able to put him in jail or anything like that. we're only going to have to be able to go after his assets and things of that nature. It's a lot easier if people will just pay. So I finally filed a motion for enforcement saying he'd only paid $50,000, he owed the other money, and he owed me money, and I asked for a court hearing on all of that.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: He filed multiple motions, but this first -- responses and motions. His first one basically, if I remember correctly, was all about the money, and he said that he shouldn't have to pay because she had hidden the charles Schwab money from him. And he used to have power of attorney, so he knew that she hid the money, which doesn't make sense, because he if he had power of attorney, he would know where the money was. So it didn't make sense to me.

But, anyway, that she had hidden that money and that she hadn't told him about several other of her retirement accounts, and, therefore, the marital settlement agreement was breached, and he shouldn't have to pay her the money.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did not think he was going to be successful in his response because it was an inappropriate pleading and it should have been dismissed, which I believe it would have been dismissed. And you can't say, I'm not going to pay you because you breached this agreement by not giving me documents. That's just -- first of all, there is a lot of case law that says that if a case is heavily involved with mediations and lawyers and all these documents have been produced, you had your shot at it. So he was not going to be able to do that.

Plus, I knew that he knew about these assets because we had that conversation at mediation, and I had several conversations with his lawyer afterwards, and the marital settlement agreement listed all these assets that he was claiming he had no knowledge of, and they were already listed on the marital settlement agreement. So it was not, in my opinion, a successful response, and I told wendi that it wasn't and not to worry about it.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So what happened was, I wanted to take his deposition so I could find out why he wasn't paying, and their response was to want to take her deposition, which I did not believe was appropriate because we were simply trying to enforce a marital settlement agreement, and there is nothing that would happen in terms of that marital settle agreement that would require him to ask her any questions.

So I did file a motion to -- protective order so that he would not take her deposition. We went to court on that issue in front of the same judge.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So that's the first time -- and this is actually almost a year after the divorce and we're done with the whole divorce. That's the first time that he brought up any parenting issues, and it was a series of issues that he had now about the parenting.

And it was that wendi wasn't allowing him to FaceTime with his children as much as he wanted to, that he wasn't -- they -- he -- that they weren't allowed to go to the same -- be present at the same birthday parties, that if there was a birthday party that he was at, she wouldn't come, things like that. And that -- that she wasn't -- I think there was a right of first refusal in it, and that she was having -- letting her mom watch the kids and he didn't like her mom watching the kids. And I think he alleged that her mom was saying bad things to the kids potentially about him. I think that was -- and that was the first time.

He also -- I think it was that pleading where he went on a little bit more about Wendi and how she should probably be disbarred from the practice of law, and that I should be disbarred from the practice of law. I think it was that one.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: well, it's not actually a recognized legal term, and it's not actually a recognized mental health term by the mental health professionals, but it does happen. I mean, we all know that there are parents who do alienate their children against their spouse by saying really terrible things or trying to put up roadblocks to parenting.

And I have had cases that were pretty serious in the past where little children -- it doesn't usually impact teenagers. By the time they're teenagers, they have already done their -- they want to do their teenage thing. It really, truly impacts -- not children this young either. It's usually, like, seven- to nine-year-olds that we deal with when we have parental alienation, where they've completely aligned with one parent inappropriately. And not because the other parent is doing something, like abusing them or something like that. It's because the other parent truly is putting up these roadblocks. They do use those terms. I have seen it.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So I can't remember how many pleadings he filed on that regard, it may have been three, and it was the last one that he filed. I believe it was in May -- May, I believe, where he said that -- well, he became very personal to me, which occasionally happens. It doesn't usually happen with professional people, so I was surprised. But he became very personal towards me and said that I had committed fraud and that I should be disbarred based upon what had happened.

At that point in time, I knew that I was going to actually have to be a witness now in this case, and as a witness, you can't be a witness and a lawyer representing your client. So I knew that I had to withdraw. So I withdrew so that I could testify in the case that was going to come up. And I sought new counsel for Ms. Adelson at that point.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: Not a lot. I talked to wendi on a pretty regular basis when I was filing something on the phone or by email, and she was a very good client, in all honesty, where she listened to me and she basically -- we have clients that don't. Now, we have clients that give you ChatGPT and want you to do ChatGPT pleadings, you know, so there's that.

So she wasn't that client. She would say something like, well -- and my pleadings were very short. I mean, my pleadings were very, very short. They were to the point and, like, no, dismiss this, that's not true. There wasn't a lot more going on in most of them.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: I don't know how she felt. I can only tell you that I came out, I talked to wendi, and then briefly, as far as I remember -- because, I mean, it was 13 years ago -- I think I talked to all of them and kind of told them what happened and what was going on. And, you know, I didn't agree with the judge, but this is the judge, and they get to make the decisions.

And I think that Wendi went and talked to her parents without me and then came back and said, okay, we're good. we can go into court and we can stipulate. which is what I had suggested.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: So in a child support hearing or an alimony support hearing, if someone doesn't pay their child support or their alimony, it's a much -- we can have someone held in contempt of court and put in jail if we can prove they had the ability to pay, but they're just not paying, and then the Court can put them in jail until they pay the amount they're supposed to pay, okay, because they have it.

If it's a property issue, we can't really have them held in contempt of court because it's a property issue, and that was part of why Dan's pleadings didn't make a lot of sense, because he was mixing up property and child issues, and you can't do that. It's strictly property or it's kid issues.

In a property issue, it would be a multistep thing to have him held in contempt of court. He would basically -- the judge would have to find that he was not paying, he's willfully not paying, and then --

KRISTIN ADAMSON: And a lien against -- and we could possibly -- we would get a lien against the house, and we would -- and then I would -- and I have to do this often, I would send them to a debt collector attorney, who would then have to file another suit to be able to collect that money, and then they would probably be able to go into his assets and get the assets.

So it's a multiple-stage process, which is why I just wanted him to pay the money and not make me do this.

KRISTIN ADAMSON: I wouldn't describe the divorce as particularly contentious at all compared to most of the divorces I had. I mean, we settled it. I don't settle a lot of my cases, where ~we actually go to weeklong trials over things of that nature.

I think it was like any divorce, where there were ups and downs, of moments where it was contentious and not fun, but for the most part we kind of settled it, and we settled it after mediation and it wasn't a problem.

I do think that this whole issue of the enforcement got a little contentious. I really didn't understand it. Because he paid the first 50,000 fine, and then all of a sudden he decided not to pay the rest, and I didn't really get it and know why he was doing that. Because the parenting stuff didn't come up for, like, several months afterwards.

So none of what he was doing made sense. I think he just got upset with wendi or something. I don't know what it was.