Kristin Adamson — Direct/Cross/Redirect
435 linesMR. ZELMAN: I'm not accusing the state attorney's office of doing anything.
MR. ZELMAN: I'm merely advising the court what transpired. Mr. Campbell advised that when somebody from the sheriff's office went to speak with this officer, the officer expressed to that superior that they were no longer willing to speak with us.
MR. ZELMAN: And was no longer available — in fact, that the officer was going to be on leave.
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, we can bring in Undersheriff Gould. However, at this point in time, this does not invoke the court to need to go through a written inquiry. The witnesses that you're referring to — have they been disclosed to the state?
MR. ZELMAN: It's my understanding, not by us, Your Honor, because again, we have not had a chance to speak with her.
JUDGE EVERETT: Do you intend to call these individuals?
MR. ZELMAN: If we can confirm the information.
JUDGE EVERETT: These are not answers.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you are not actually intending to call a witness that has not been previously disclosed, at this point I do not have to engage in a Richardson hearing on this matter.
JUDGE EVERETT: But as far as witnesses that you may be investigating or you may speculate to have relevant testimony, until you disclose them, until you actually intend to call them, there's really not much I can do with this. If you wish for me to hear from the undersheriff, I will, but as far as perfecting a subpoena and speaking to these people who are either not under subpoena or not listed witnesses, there's not very much I can do.
MR. ZELMAN: Judge, it is the defense position that between 12:30 and when we got to the jail shortly before 5, somebody from the sheriff's office spoke with this officer and convinced her that it was not in her interest to cooperate with the defense?
MR. ZELMAN: We are asking for the court's assistance because of the rules...
JUDGE EVERETT: To do what exactly?
MR. ZELMAN: So that we can at least speak with her to find out if she has anything that's admissible.
JUDGE EVERETT: The court has jurisdictional authority limits. For someone who is not under a subpoena, I just can't compel them to come here, go there, or do certain things.
JUDGE EVERETT: There is no subpoena for these individuals.
JUDGE EVERETT: If they choose not to speak with you, so be it. But please bring in the undersheriff.
JUDGE EVERETT: He can speak to these matters that you've raised.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Whatever happened after we spoke with the officer yesterday afternoon — even if we had a subpoena ready to serve, they have represented to us that she is not available to be served.
MR. ZELMAN: Without the court's assistance, we cannot accomplish that.
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, and this goes to the timeliness of the witness itself and the fact that it's occurring in the middle of a trial, but that part of it, again, contains certain things I cannot assist with.
JUDGE EVERETT: Undersherriff, please raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth?
UNDERSHERIFF: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you can just stand in front of the court reporter instead of taking the witness stand. If you can explain to me what occurred with — I believe this is one of the correctional deputies that may or may not have testimony concerning this case. Please explain what happened and let them know to the best of your knowledge.
UNDERSHERIFF: To my knowledge, I was approached by Captain Georgia Dent, who had spoken with Deputy Franklin.
UNDERSHERIFF: 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 yesterday, and they wanted to speak to her.
UNDERSHERIFF: 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 chose, voluntarily.
UNDERSHERIFF: If she did not want to speak to them, they would have to have a subpoena to compel her to speak. So after speaking with general counsel, I spoke back to Captain Dent and she relayed that information to Deputy Franklin.
JUDGE EVERETT: Did you or any other person in a position of authority over this guard instruct them not to speak to the defense?
UNDERSHERIFF: No, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Any examination for Undersheriff Gould by the defense or state?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Not by the state, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Good morning, sir.
UNDERSHERIFF: Good morning.
MR. ZELMAN: It is our understanding that Officer Franklin is now on leave and not available to be served?
UNDERSHERIFF: That's not my knowledge. I have no clue about that.
MR. ZELMAN: So she is available to be served?
UNDERSHERIFF: I would think so. I'm not aware of her being on leave.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you.
JUDGE EVERETT: Undersheriff, there is no more inquiry that I will make of you concerning this topic. I appreciate you being here this morning.
UNDERSHERIFF: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE EVERETT: Concerning the other witness, who is not the guard — was the defense who made contact with this individual?
MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Judge, the information that we provided to Your Honor was purely to put it on the record that we had followed up on that information.
JUDGE EVERETT: It's on the record.
MR. ZELMAN: After discussions amongst Ms. Fulford and I, we had decided that we were not going to pursue that, given — given the status of that individual and the misinformation we believe.
JUDGE EVERETT: Right. As to the — I believe — second witness, is this person going to be disclosed or are you going to call them as part of your case? There you are. As to the guard, if you need to follow up with a subpoena for this individual and they have chosen not to speak with you, do so with all haste.
JUDGE EVERETT: The jurors at the time of selection were told this would be three weeks, that it could possibly go longer, but three weeks is what they were told.
JUDGE EVERETT: For today's witnesses, let's go through that before the jurors are brought into the room.
MR. ZELMAN: I apologize, I did not have a chance to prepare a list. At least for this morning, our intent is to call Kristin Adamson, Linda Bailey, Sara Newhouse, and Marissel Descalzo.
JUDGE EVERETT: For this afternoon?
MR. ZELMAN: This afternoon is up in the air, and that's going to require some additional conversations with our client.
JUDGE EVERETT: During lunch break, that would be your opportunity to have any final conversations concerning whether she will in fact testify. But we'll give the jurors a longer lunch break if necessary to accommodate this. Instead of an hour and 15 minutes, it will be an hour and 30.
JUDGE EVERETT: After that, we are going to have to go on the record concerning is she or is she not testifying.
MR. ZELMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please bring in the jurors.
MR. ZELMAN: Your Honor, I know that three of the witnesses are here. Ms. Descalzo's flight does not arrive until a little after 10 o'clock.
JUDGE EVERETT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: Miss Cappleman, I neglected to give you an opportunity to speak. If you actually wanted to be heard, please do so now.
JUDGE EVERETT: Members of the jury: everyone can be seated.
JUDGE EVERETT: We are going to continue today with the defense's case in chief. Mr. Zelman, you may call your next witness.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: The defense will call Kristin Adamson, please.
JUDGE EVERETT: Raise your right hand.
JUDGE EVERETT: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give today will be the truth?
JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat. You may examine when you're ready.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Good morning.
MR. ZELMAN: Can you please introduce yourself to the jury?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm Kristin Adamson.
MR. ZELMAN: Ms. Adamson, how are you employed?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm a lawyer.
MR. ZELMAN: What type of law do you practice?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I practice family law, and I have done so for 37 years.
MR. ZELMAN: How long have you been practicing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 37 years.
MR. ZELMAN: Are you board certified?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes, I am board certified in marriage and family law by the Florida Supreme Court.
MR. ZELMAN: What's involved in becoming board certified?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I've been board certified since 1996.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I had to take a test on family law and I had to pass a peer review by judges and my colleagues in the Florida Bar Family Law section.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have to recertify every five years, so I've had to also do that every five years. I'm coming up — I think 2026 I will be in my thing again where I'll have to recertify.
MR. ZELMAN: Have you received any other accolades or awards throughout your career for your work in family law?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I was heavily involved in the Florida Bar Family Law section, on the Executive Council, for a long time. I am a fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, past president of the Florida chapter, and I am a fellow in the International Academy of Family Law Lawyers as well.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: All of those required board certification prior to being allowed to be a fellow, as well as another test nationally and locally — and written tests and oral tests as well.
MR. ZELMAN: And how long have you been a member or a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have been a fellow since 2020, and I was president in 2012.
MR. ZELMAN: How long have you been a fellow in the International Academy of Family Lawyers?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Approximately five years.
MR. ZELMAN: In your work as a family law attorney, did you have occasion to represent Wendi Adelson?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did represent Wendi Adelson in the end of 2012, I believe it was, 2013, and part of 2014.
MR. ZELMAN: Would you call her divorce a bitter custody battle?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I would not. That's not how I would characterize it.
MR. ZELMAN: How would you characterize it?
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.
MR. ZELMAN: Is it unusual to seek — in your practice, has it been unusual to seek relocation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No, not at all. I have two right now.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, speaking to Tallahassee, why is it not unusual?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Why is it not unusual?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes.
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 — 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 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 her to because his job is here. So it's almost always about moving to be close 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, do you have parents who attend client meetings?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I do. 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Understood.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, you indicated that you typically have to go to court for relocation.
MR. ZELMAN: How difficult is it to get court approval for relocation?
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 that there's a presumption against relocation. And I always tell my clients that it's a very hard thing to obtain a relocation.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And so we sit down and we go through the statutory criteria and determine whether or not you'll be able to do it.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Most of the time, I tell them it's a 50-50 shot at best — sometimes a little bit more, sometimes less.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Did you have that conversation with Wendi Adelson while you were representing her?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And did you advise her of that same information?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did. Basically, I told her that if this is something that was important to her, this was her one shot at it. If you get divorced and then try to relocate afterwards, you're probably not going to win unless something really substantial comes up and changes it. So if she wanted to try to be able to relocate, this was her shot at it at best.
MR. ZELMAN: So in other words — is it not that it's easy, but is it easier to try to obtain relocation in the initial proceeding or in a modification?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: In an initial proceeding. Now, the standard for a modification — what is that standard? For a modification it is a substantial change in circumstance. And at the time that I had Wendi's case, there was also another component 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. That detriment part does no longer exist; now you have to just prove there's 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Is that why you advised Ms. Wendi Adelson, if she wanted to try relocation, she should do it at the front end?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes. Proving detriment is hard to describe to clients because they don't understand how substantial that really has to be. It has to be very substantial — children are failing in school, children are potentially being neglected or abused, or there's alcohol or drug or mental illness.
MR. ZELMAN: Have you ever been successful in convincing a judge to grant relocation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I personally have only won one case in 37 years for relocation.
MR. ZELMAN: So would you say it's difficult?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I think it's difficult.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, even though you've only gotten court approval for one with the client, have you been able to successfully negotiate for relocation in other cases?
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 shouldn't have, but I did represent my sister — she moved to Atlanta, and then her former husband was able to obtain a job in Atlanta and move up there. So we negotiated all those things.
MR. ZELMAN: And I think you said you explained all of this to Wendi.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did.
MR. ZELMAN: Was she aware that the chances of success were low?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes. I mean, I told her that this was her shot. I gave her — I thought she had some good reasons. I would never have someone file relocation if I didn't think they had a shot at it. So I think she did have a shot at it for many reasons — including the fact that her parents were down there, that Professor Markel had a very flexible job, he had family in South Florida, these were very little children at the time, we did not have the presumption of 50-50 parenting, and she had done most of the parenting. There were lots of reasons I felt like she had a really pretty good shot at it. But I did tell her it's not going to be easy.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Now, let's talk about family law rules of procedure generally.
MR. ZELMAN: Do the rules require the exchange of certain materials in dissolution proceedings?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: And what are those?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: We have mandatory disclosure in divorce and modification proceedings, including custody and just regular divorce.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court rules and 12.540, we have to file a financial affidavit under oath that the parties — and lawyers and their paralegals help them fill out. We also provide a laundry list of documents that keeps getting larger. It's bank statements for three years, it's retirement statements.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It's deeds, it is credit reports. I mean, it's a very large, voluminous amount of documentation that we have to exchange with the other party, the other counsel.
MR. ZELMAN: And when completing the financial affidavits — specifically when you completed Ms. Adelson's family law financial affidavit — did you gather records in the process of completing that, so you could disclose everything appropriately?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: We did. We gathered all those records and we exchanged them and gave them to opposing counsel.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Sometimes what does happen is the other side has all the records.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: For example, tax returns — we have to exchange tax returns for three years. Sometimes the father or the husband might have all the tax returns; the wife might have all the tax returns. So you do rely sometimes for the other side to provide the documents that you should have, but that does happen.
MR. ZELMAN: Do you have to list all assets on the financial affidavit?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Within reason, you do have to list your substantial assets. Sometimes I have people that want to list minutiae assets — minute, 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 family 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'd 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'll 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.
MR. ZELMAN: What about non-marital assets?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: We generally list non-marital assets as separate.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: If we have knowledge of them. Non-marital assets can be very clean, where you absolutely know something's non-marital, 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 divorce. Simply because it's in your name alone does not mean it's non-marital. 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 — she had an asset that was potentially marital and non-marital, because she owned some of it before the marriage and then 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 non-marital and what part is marital. If, for example, you have a retirement account and you've 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 non-marital. So if you have $100,000 in a retirement account, you get married — that $100,000, theoretically, except for 2009 — that $100,000 continues to grow, so you're entitled to the growth on it too. It's non-marital. 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, I want to back up a little bit. What happened with Wendi Adelson's relocation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She did not win her relocation.
MR. ZELMAN: Can you tell us what happened at that hearing?
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. She did have a job offer in Miami; we put on the lawyer from the law firm that 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It was me and Professor Markel's lawyer. And she told us she understood why Ms. Adelson wanted to move.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: But she wasn't going to allow it because she didn't think — she hadn't met her burden of proving it was the best interest of the children.
MR. ZELMAN: During that hearing or after the judge made those comments, did Wendi go out in the hallway to speak to her parents?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Well, after she made those comments, I went to — both Mr. Duggar and I went to our respective clients.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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'd already heard the best case of our case.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Did Wendi ultimately stipulate to the withdrawal or the denial of that petition with prejudice?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So what happened at that point was — we went back into court. The judge denied Professor Markel's motion to dismiss, because he had filed a motion to dismiss our pleading. She found our pleading to be sufficient, so she entered an order denying his motion to dismiss; she entered an order that we stipulated on the record that we would agree to the denial of the relocation; and then she entered another order where we all stood there and worked through with the judge what the temporary visitation would be for the next summer and the next several months, before we got to another agreement.
MR. ZELMAN: And at this point in time, I believe it was approximately the third week of June of 2013?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: And what was Wendi's reaction?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: At that point in time, I think she was upset that she wasn't going to — and 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 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, although the court denied the petition, would it have been possible for Wendi Adelson to offer Mr. Markel any financial incentive in order to convince him to change his mind?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Well, we hadn't finished the case. We still were going to go to another mediation. It's always possible — I tell everyone that even after an unsuccessful mediation, people settle their cases on the eve of trial all the time, in some way or another. They do. And it's always best if you can settle your case and not leave it to court. You have much more control if you are the decision-makers rather than the court.
MR. ZELMAN: Is there anything improper or illegal with one party offering a financial incentive to the other party to obtain relocation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No. And I actually have negotiated that in the past, and since that time as well.
MR. ZELMAN: Subsequent to that hearing, did you have another mediation on the dissolution, the distribution of assets, and the parenting time?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: We did. And at that mediation we came very close to settling it, and we were there for quite a long period of time, but we did not settle it at the mediation. I think we settled it within a week after the mediation, where opposing counsel and I exchanged a lot of phone calls, because we had gotten very, very close at mediation, and we were able to resolve all of it within a week of mediation.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: We had a court trial set, I believe, and so we were able to do it before the court trial.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you.
MR. ZELMAN: Prior to adjourning mediation, did an issue come up concerning a potentially non-marital asset that Ms. Adelson had?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It did.
MR. ZELMAN: And what asset was that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It was the — if I remember correctly, it was the Charles Schwab account that we had listed on the financial affidavit in the marital portion. And then on the non-marital portion we had listed it: Charles Schwab non-marital portion to be determined. And we went into mediation in that way, not knowing exactly what was marital, what was not marital.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, I know — in our pretrial discussions you indicated — can you typically talk about what happens at mediation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Mediation is confidential, and that's one of the things I tell my clients — 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 he made this offer." So it keeps everybody moving forward and not worrying about what the offers are.
MR. ZELMAN: Is there an exception for disclosing what happens in mediation if you're ordered to do so by the court?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: There is. And there's also an exception about what happens in mediation if the marital settlement agreement is asked to be set aside for some purpose, like fraud or overreaching or something like that — then the terms of it and the mediation would potentially be able to pierce that veil of confidentiality.
MR. ZELMAN: But for our purposes, in order to talk about what specifically happened concerning that asset and mediation, do you need the court to order that you disclose that information?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I would certainly like the court to order that. I don't want to fall foul of any mediation rules. I can tell you that my client has waived that confidentiality. The mediator, who was a friend and a lovely person, Joe Boyd — he is not with us anymore.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And Professor Markel is not with us anymore. So a lot of people in that mediation are gone.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And Ms. Adelson has waived confidentiality.
JUDGE EVERETT: You're nodding, Ms. Adelson?
JUDGE EVERETT: With the waiver of confidentiality by your client, I will order you to testify on the subject matters being inquired into.
JUDGE EVERETT: The state may cross-examine as to all subjects as well. You may continue.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Ms. Adamson, can you tell us — the Charles Schwab account that you mentioned, how was that addressed at mediation?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So this became sort of a last-minute little dust-up during the mediation.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So what we did was, we called the Charles Schwab account representative.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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 non-marital.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And then he went into the other room — we're not in the same room. Ms. Adelson, Wendi, 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 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 it actually happened, and everybody felt comfortable with what was marital and non-marital. 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And Professor Markel had almost $500,000 worth of non-marital Charles Schwab accounts of his own.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So he had non-marital money as well.
MR. ZELMAN: So based on what you've discussed, Mr. Markel was aware of the non-marital status of that portion of, uh, Wendi Adelson's, um, portion of what she would get.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He was.
MR. ZELMAN: And — As you said, shortly thereafter, that case was, uh, settled.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Within a week, I think, ish.
MR. ZELMAN: Shortly after the divorce was final, did Wendi invite you to a — I guess a "get her groove back" party?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I don't remember when the party was — whether it was a month or two or three — but she did invite me to a party in her new — I think it was an apartment or townhouse, I don't remember what it was exactly — but she invited me to a party. It was called "Wendi Gets Her Groove Back," and I had several friends I knew of Wendi's that were there as well, and it was just sort of a "Wendi's in a good place, come celebrate my new life" party. Yeah, in Tallahassee.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Uh, throughout the course of your representation, uh, did — uh, could you tell us, uh, the total amount of attorney's fees and costs that you incurred in this case?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Um, I think the total amount of costs and attorneys' fees — we did take a couple depositions, we had two mediations (one was ordered by the court on that relocation case, and then that one was a pretty short mediation, it was only a couple hours; the other one was much longer) — I think the total attorneys' fees were probably about thirty thousand dollars, and costs — that includes costs and everything, I think. Now, I know that sounds like a lot, but it wasn't that much compared to a lot of litigated cases.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Now, litigated cases have multiple evidentiary hearings.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
MR. ZELMAN: Did this?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No. We had no — we had — I don't believe we actually had any evidentiary hearings. The only other hearing that we really did have was post-dissolution.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So aside from the relocation, prior to the divorce being final, there were no contested hearings. There were no contested hearings.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, subsequently, did the marital settlement agreement require that Mr. Markel pay Wendi and yourself certain sums?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So according to the marital 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 and 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 non-marital assets, and he had also marital assets as well.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He was supposed to pay me $10,000 in attorney's fees, because he made a lot more money than Wendi did — and attorney's fees are 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, July 31st, I think — that's right.
MR. ZELMAN: Did Mr. Markel pay the sums that he was obligated to pay under the settlement agreement?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He was supposed to transfer, if I remember, from one of his Charles Schwab accounts to Wendi.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The money — he gave her $50,000 of the 120 in a pretty timely basis, and then he just didn't pay the rest.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And I don't like to file enforcement hearings on things like that, because it takes a long time to get to court.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It's not fun. So I was pretty much once a week or once every other week asking opposing counsel if Professor Markel was going to pay.
MR. ZELMAN: Did he pay?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He did not.
MR. ZELMAN: What did Wendi ask you to do to enforce that?
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 marital settlement agreement — if we have to file an enforcement and we win, which we 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So unlike custody — 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 be able to go after his assets and things of that nature. It's a lot easier — people will just pay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Sounds like it was a pretty straightforward motion that you filed.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It was pretty straightforward. It was probably four or five paragraphs.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Did that prompt Mr. Markel to pay?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No, it did not.
MR. ZELMAN: What happened?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So then Mr. Markel hired a new lawyer. And his new lawyer filed a responsive pleading to that motion, basically saying that he shouldn't have to pay because Ms. Adelson had breached the marital settlement agreement.
MR. ZELMAN: How did he allege that she breached the settlement agreement?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He filed multiple motions, but his first responses and motions — his first one, basically, if I remember correctly — was all about the money.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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 had the money, which doesn't make sense, because if he had power of attorney, he would know what 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.
MR. ZELMAN: So he filed a response — but did he seek to have the settlement agreement itself voided or set aside?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He did not. So — and that is what I told Wendi at the time — that is not a proper defense for not paying the money. Professor Markel, it was pretty obvious that he had actually written this pleading himself and the lawyer just signed off on it. It had footnotes, which is not something litigation lawyers would do; it was voluminous, and it was very personal about what was going on with Wendi and how he — I don't think at this point he alleged that — he might have alleged that she had committed fraud, but an appropriate pleading would not — that would have been for him to file a 12.540. Oh, I know it's kind of technical, but basically, if you think that an agreement is reached and it is not in good faith, or there's assets that were not provided, then you must file within a year for a 12.540 to have the whole agreement set aside. You can't just say one good breach is — is another. And I filed a pleading basically saying that his motion should be dismissed because it was inappropriate.
MR. ZELMAN: And you filed a motion to strike as a sham pleading?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did. I filed a motion saying this was an inappropriate pleading and it should be dismissed, because it wasn't the correct way to go about doing what he wanted to do. And so I then tried to set hearings on those motions so that we could move this forward and everybody could get paid.
MR. ZELMAN: In the process of doing this with his responses, did he file subsequently a pleading that further alleged fraud on Wendi's part?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I think he filed at least one or two more pleadings that did that.
MR. ZELMAN: And before we get to the final one, you advised Ms. Adelson along the way of what you just told us — about the unlikelihood of his success.
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." First of all, there's 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, anyway — not to worry about it.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, there was a hearing, uh, in February of 2014. Uh, I think the records indicate that Mr. Markel and his attorney were attempting to depose Ms. Adelson.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So what happened was, um, 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's nothing that would happen in terms of that marital settlement agreement that would require him to ask her any questions. So I did file a motion for protective order, so that he would not take her deposition. We went to court on that issue in front of the same judge.
MR. ZELMAN: And what happened at that hearing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: At that hearing — which we did not have transcribed, which we usually do, but we didn't, because it was pretty much a 15-minute hearing — the judge read all of the pleadings, and she said that she was very unhappy with Professor Markel's pleadings. She did not like them. She thought they were a poke in my client's eye, and they were not appropriate, and she never wanted to see pleadings like this in front of her again — but she was going to allow the deposition.
MR. ZELMAN: With some limits?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: With limits, yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I don't remember exactly all the limits, but they could only be about certain things.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, subsequent to that, did Mr. Markel file an additional pleading concerning complaints — complaints that he had about right of first refusal, parenting time, and things of that nature?
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: that Wendi wasn't allowing him to FaceTime with his children as much as he wanted to, that they weren't allowed to 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 — I think there was a right of first refusal in it, and that she was — her mom watched 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I think it was that one.
MR. ZELMAN: As he's filing these things, are you still trying to set a hearing — or set the depositions and set a hearing on your enforcement motion?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I've still been trying to do that. There were a number of hearings that got canceled — some of them, I think, were because the court needed to move things, some of them because I was trying to work this out. Still — I'm always trying to work out a case and not go to court if I can. So we're trying to work it out, but he wasn't paying, and I was trying to set hearings on all of this so we could get the money and we could get his motions dismissed, because they were frivolous.
MR. ZELMAN: Now, the one motion concerning my client, Mrs. Adelson — he referenced parental alienation. Have you dealt with parental alienation in your practice before?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I have.
MR. ZELMAN: And what is that?
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. 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've 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 want to do their teenage thing — it really truly impacts not children this young either. It's usually like 7- to 9-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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: They do use those terms. I've seen it.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. The statements that were included in the March 26, 2014 pleading filed by Mr. Markel that were attributed to my client — would that have resulted in any sort of relief preventing my client from having any sort of unsupervised time with the grandchildren?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It's not possible. And I told Wendi that.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. Now, as Professor Markel continued filing things, did you realize that you were going to have to become a witness?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So I can't remember how many pleadings he filed on that regard. It may have been three.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And it was the last one that he filed — I believe it was in May, May, I believe — where he said — 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.
MR. ZELMAN: Did that result in the hearing that had — now, going back up, had you been able, prior to withdrawing, to schedule the hearing on your enforcement motion as well as Mr. Markel's motions?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I had it scheduled.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It was scheduled, but then I had to withdraw because he filed that pleading after it was scheduled. So I had to withdraw, and I called Jimmy Jenkins and asked him if he could please represent Ms. Adelson. He said yes, but he needed more time to get up to speed on that case, so the hearing had to be moved.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And around this time, were you aware that Mr. Markel had to change counsel again as well?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did not know that.
MR. ZELMAN: Were you aware that, as Mr. Markel is filing these pleadings — including the one in March — that he continued to ask my client to watch the children during his timesharing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I don't know what they were. I don't know anything about their correspondence. I really only dealt with Wendi.
MR. ZELMAN: And on that note — we discussed earlier that it's not unusual for parents or family to be involved in meetings.
MR. ZELMAN: Was my client, Donna Adelson, involved in any of the meetings that you had with Wendi Adelson during her initial dissolution proceeding or any of the enforcement proceedings after the fact?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She was not involved in any. I never spoke to her, except for the one hearing on relocation that she and her husband came to.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: But even then, it was very brief. They were very nice, lovely people. I didn't — even afterwards, I didn't — they were fine, I had no issues with them, but I never spoke to them, I never emailed with them, they never came to any meetings, they were not involved with me.
MR. ZELMAN: Okay. And do you have a recollection of whether my client and her husband were in the courtroom for the relocation hearing, or were they out in the hallway?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I believe they were in the hallway. I don't believe they came in.
MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Nothing further at this time.
JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination.
MS. DUGAN: Good morning.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Good morning.
MS. DUGAN: So you said you weren't aware of Donna Adelson's involvement.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She was not involved with me, so no.
MS. DUGAN: Did you know that she was drafting Wendi's filings and having Wendi copy and paste them to send to you?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She couldn't have drafted any of the filings, because I drafted the filings.
MS. DUGAN: What she would like to be put in the filings — how about that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm not aware of any of that, no.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Do you know that she was drafting things for Wendi to put in her filings, in Wendi's voice?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Not that I'm aware of.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Did Wendi though give you input on things maybe to put in filings, or things that she would like said on her behalf?
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. 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. 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, like, "No, dismiss this. That's not true." There wasn't a lot more going on in most of them.
MS. DUGAN: So you wouldn't have knowledge of Wendi sending pleadings to her mom and saying, "Let's edit this"?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No, because I wouldn't have edited it based on that anyway.
MS. DUGAN: Okay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I mean, maybe they did, but I didn't do it.
MS. DUGAN: All right.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And I never heard about it.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. So this would have been between Donna and Wendi, if that happened.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yeah.
MS. DUGAN: You mentioned that, of course, she had a shot with relocation, but given the situation in this case — being that the kids were raised in Tallahassee, the parents' jobs with FSU — you were not personally surprised when the relocation was denied?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm never surprised, because it's hard to prove detriment at that time. I'm always hopeful, you know, but — and I thought she had a good shot, or I wouldn't have let her do it. I mean, I'm not going to file a frivolous motion, and I thought she had a good shot for a number of reasons.
MS. DUGAN: Regardless, though, of what you think, do you ever have clients or family members of clients who have unrealistic expectations of what the courts will allow or what you can do for them?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Even given your best guidance?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And that's not an uncommon thing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No, that's why parents are often involved in these cases and come to talk to me about what they think I should be doing.
MS. DUGAN: Yes, I get that a lot. Right. And at that relocation hearing, were Donna and Harvey Adelson possible witnesses?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: You know, I've been trying to think about that. I think that that's probably why I had them sit outside — because they could potentially be witnesses, and invoking the rule. However, I think we — I think we had come to either the close of our case —
MS. DUGAN: But you wouldn't know that until —
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Right, you were done calling witnesses, that's right.
MS. DUGAN: Yeah. Okay, so that's why they were in the hallway. Okay. Not because they didn't care, they weren't involved?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Oh, no. They were — they were very nice. I mean, I met them. They were there when I got there in the morning. They introduced themselves. They were very nice. We did our thing, came back and told them afterwards. Nobody yelled or screamed or cried or didn't need carrying on, which sometimes happens. So no, it was all very appropriate.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Do you sometimes have clients or family members of clients who take the news harder than you do when they lose something in court?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I don't like to lose either. There's that. I don't like it. That's why I don't like to go to court if I think I'm going to lose. That's why I want to settle things.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: But sometimes they take it really hard, especially family, if they're not there. And they do.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And you said Wendi was upset when she was denied the relocation, but she was calm. Let me also ask you this.
MS. DUGAN: Wendi Adelson stipulated to the denial of the relocation after you found out behind the scenes from the judge that it was going to be denied?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And she was upset about it, but calm?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. DUGAN: She's not screaming?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No.
MS. DUGAN: No. Okay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And I have people do that. I mean, I've had to have my own clients taken by the bailiff out.
MS. DUGAN: I'm sure you've seen it all. And how did Donna Adelson feel about not winning the relocation?
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 I get to make these 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.
MS. DUGAN: So if there are emails of Donna Adelson being upset about — and very disappointed — about it being denied, or unhappy with your representation for some reason, that's not something she's telling you to your face?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No.
MS. DUGAN: You talked about Dan Markel not paying what he was supposed to pay according to the settlement agreement. In Dan Markel's court filings, did he — did he give — and I know you don't agree with those reasons — but did he give his reasons for not paying?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He gave his reasons.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And that included the fact that he was accusing Wendi of non-compliance?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That's true.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Eventually, did you seek to have Dan Markel held in contempt of court?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I did. Part of my motion was to have him held in contempt of court and enforce it. That's not the kind of contempt where I can throw him in jail.
MS. DUGAN: Yeah, what does that mean, contempt of court? Can you explain that?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So in a child support hearing or an alimony support hearing, if someone doesn't pay their child support or their alimony, 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, 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.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: In a property issue, it would be a multi-step thing to have him held in contempt of court. He would basically — the judge would have to find that he was not paying, that he's willfully not paying.
MS. DUGAN: Could I ask you a different question?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Okay.
MS. DUGAN: But even in a property situation, the court could put him in jail ultimately?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: But it would be multiple steps I would have to go through. It would — it would not be just one step, and it would be difficult.
MS. DUGAN: What ultimately is the consequence of that? Is my question.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: So ultimately, the ultimate consequence is — we would probably get a final judgment against him for the amount that was owed, like a lien — a lien against — and we could possibly — we would get a lien against the house. 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.
MS. DUGAN: So if it was successful, probably a lien; worst-case scenario, he could go to jail. And then, him being an attorney, though, could he lose his bar license?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Possibly. If he's held in contempt of court, or at least be in trouble with the bar, he could. I've had lawyers held in contempt of court over these issues before.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I haven't had one lose their license yet.
MS. DUGAN: Okay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: But they could. It is a possibility.
MS. DUGAN: Did you inform Wendi Adelson that you were seeking to have him held in contempt?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm pretty sure I probably did, because it's kind of a generalized form. It's a motion for contempt and enforcement.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. And then at some point, did he allege that Wendi Adelson should be held in contempt?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I don't know of contempt. Contempt, I don't know if — I can't remember if he actually said she could be — should she be held in contempt legally the way that I was using it. I think his pleadings were much more, Wendi should be disbarred.
MS. DUGAN: Okay.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: And that's what he specifically said.
MS. DUGAN: Right.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: She was committing fraud, and she should be disbarred.
MS. DUGAN: Would you describe this divorce as contentious?
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 week-long trials over things of that nature.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: 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. 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.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Thank you for that information. It wasn't contentious, but you did say that his motions were very personal, his pleadings were very personal.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That's where I think it became contentious.
MS. DUGAN: And that was — that personal attacks on both Wendi Adelson and you.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: And he was alleging that Wendi Adelson committed fraud, right?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MS. DUGAN: He's alleging you committed fraud.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: He did.
MS. DUGAN: It got so bad that you had to get off the case so that you could be a witness on Wendi Adelson's behalf, right?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That's happened before, though. I mean, I've had that happen before.
MS. DUGAN: And he alleged Wendi should be disbarred, you said.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: And he's having issues with Wendi's mom, Donna Adelson, even being able to watch the kids, is what you said, in one pleading?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: One of the pleadings said something about the right of first refusal that he had and she shouldn't be allowed to have the kids unsupervised, I think, during right of first refusal, because she was saying things about him to the kids, he thought.
MS. DUGAN: And did the litigation between Dan Markel and Wendi Adelson continue even after you got off the case?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Once I got off the case, it was the end of June, and I think that he was gone within a few weeks after that.
MS. DUGAN: So you were supposed to be a witness on Wendi Adelson's behalf, right?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
MS. DUGAN: Were you ever able to have that hearing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: No.
MS. DUGAN: Why not?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Because I got a call from Jimmy Jenkins when I was in Tampa, and he told me that he was dead.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It was pretty shocking.
MS. DUGAN: Does that happen very often in your divorces?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: That does not. We've had a few people get murdered, and I've had a few suicides.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: But it's rare, and I remember all of them.
MS. DUGAN: Right. But not contentious.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Sometimes — I don't know with the suicides. I don't know.
MS. DUGAN: That's all. Thank you.
JUDGE EVERETT: Redirect examination.
MR. ZELMAN: Briefly, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Miss Adelson...I'm sorry...Miss Adamson. States demonstrative A. I think it's court exhibit 1. On page 441 of the demonstrative. And then I'm holding 454.
MR. ZELMAN: Is that the March 26, 2014 pleading that Mr. Markel filed.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: It appears to be.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Is that the prayer for relief for that motion?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Yes.
MR. ZELMAN: Can you direct your attention to the portion that reflects my client Donna Adelson's time with the children?
MR. ZELMAN: Does that reflect that Mr. Markel was asking that my client's unsupervised time with the children not interfere with his right of first refusal?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I think you're talking about paragraph six, where it says "enjoining the former wife from allowing the maternal grandmother to have unsupervised time with the children consistent with the right of first refusal" — that was that right of first refusal.
MR. ZELMAN: Yes. "And to impose appropriate limitations to safeguard the children from being subjected to disparaging comments about their father."
MR. ZELMAN: Ms. Adamson, you testified that the divorce was not contentious, but some of his pleadings post-divorce were contentious.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I think that's accurate.
MR. ZELMAN: And that his pleadings were personal — essentially he attacked both Wendi Adelson and yourself.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct. Correct.
MR. ZELMAN: Is that what caused you to withdraw?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I'm very used to personal attacks. I've had a lot of personal attacks.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The only reason — and I'm fine with that — the only reason that I withdrew is because I was going to be a witness, not because I cared what he said about me.
MR. ZELMAN: Had Mr. Markel not included in his pleadings these attacks, would that hearing have gone forward in May of 2014?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: If he had not included personal attacks against me that I would have had to testify about, then I would have continued with the hearing.
MR. ZELMAN: I want to go back to relocation. After the relocation hearing, my client, Donna Adelson, appeared to accept the court's ruling.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: To you. As far as I know.
MR. ZELMAN: You don't know what she said privately, do you?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I do not.
MR. ZELMAN: Concerning Wendi — Adelson's involvement in drafting of pleadings, I understood your testimony on cross to be that you'll take input from clients, but ultimately you're the one who is drafting the pleadings.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I take responsibility for my pleadings, and I've never filed a pleading based upon what a client told me I have to do. I will take input, because I don't know all the facts. Sometimes I need more facts from them so that I can do it, but I'm ultimately responsible. My name's on those pleadings.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And so you're not going to cut and paste from what a client sends you?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Well, sometimes if they send me really good facts, I'll sort of go, oh, these are good facts, and then I'll take the facts and I'll put them in, but not legal arguments or anything like that, no.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So if you took facts that were provided to you by Wendi Adelson and put those in in the factual statements or arguments concerning pleadings or memoranda, the law is still your own writing?
KRISTIN ADAMSON: The law is, and I don't really think Wendi — I don't remember that Wendi had much input into any of it, honestly. She wasn't that client. I have clients that are those clients, and she was not that client.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I get a lot of ChatGPT now. A lot.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Telling me what I should be filing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't think you're the only one there, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Had you not withdrawn to be a witness, the motion would have been heard in May of 2014.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: May or June, whenever it was set. I don't remember exactly when it was set.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Whatever the docket says for whenever it was set, yeah.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So if the docket reflects, I think it was May 15th of 2014, the hearing would have gone forward.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: Correct.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The judge would have been able to make a decision on all the pending issues.
KRISTIN ADAMSON: I believe that's the case.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Nothing further.
JUDGE EVERETT: Will this witness be recalled?
MR. ZELMAN: We'll retain her, but she's free to go about her business.
JUDGE EVERETT: Thank you. You may step down.