Girlfriend Claimed Marriage After Fraudulently Taking His Last Name... It COLLAPSED | The Coffee Pod

[00:00:00]Oh, your honor, this woman is not my wife.

[00:00:04]I want you to imagine you're battling in court to convince a judge that the woman who you were just in a relationship with, not married to, just dating, has somehow convinced herself that she's now your wife and she's now demanding half of your assets.

[00:00:20]>> Drink the coffee, it'll make you feel better.

[00:00:22]>> This is the situation that Victor Vescovo is in and you would think maybe he is married. Why? Well, because she has his same last name, Monica Vescovo, but there's an interesting way that she was able to get his last name which put them unfortunately in this predicament.

[00:00:43]The title of this hearing is woman demands to split ex's assets as if they were married. Yes, guys, the coffee pot's back, court hearings are back.

[00:00:53]We're back on schedule. Shout out to Court Proverb, no more wasting time.

[00:00:57]Let's get it. But before I play this video, I just want to let you guys know that this video will be very beneficial, this entire hearing, to two different types of people. The first are men who value marriage for whatever reason.

[00:01:10]Second are men who value a long-term relationship and you may be cohabitating with the woman. Some very interesting things in here that pertain to common law, you possibly ending up married depending on the laws of your state, and three, just men who've always been curious about why um some men may opt in signing a legal document and also protecting themselves with a legal document called a prenuptial agreement so that um things could be clear on paper, right?

[00:01:44]But more on that later. No more wasting time. Let's get it.

[00:01:47]>> Case number DF2505006, counsels, will you please announce for the record >> Addie Ewing and Stephanie Mathern on behalf of Victor Vescovo.

[00:01:57]>> And Richard Campichenti on behalf of Monica Vescovo.

[00:02:00]>> All right. Will those who intend to testify please raise your right hands?

[00:02:04]>> All right.

[00:02:04]>> Do you all swear or affirm that the testimony you give will be the truth and the whole truth?

[00:02:09]>> Yes.

[00:02:11]>> Okay. We are here set for a motion for new trial after a bill of review was denied. The moving in this case is Mr. Vescovo. Prior to going on the record, we had some um conversation about um no presentation of exhibits. They will all be argument. So, the court has set aside 15 minutes aside for the attorneys to argue. Um you may or may not call your witnesses, you know, that's completely up to you.

[00:02:43]And um attorney Ewing or is it you said Mathern?

[00:02:49]>> Yes.

[00:02:50]>> Okay. Um would either of you like to make an opening statement?

[00:02:55]>> Yes, Your Honor. I would. I would actually just like to present argument um rather than give an opening statement. If I could use my time for argument and then reserve some of that time for rebuttal to Mr. Campichenti's argument, that would be perfect. Thank you.

[00:03:10]>> Sure, go ahead.

[00:03:11]>> By the way, Judge Vonda, good judge.

[00:03:14]>> Okay. Well, may it please the court. We have filed um a motion for new trial and the crux of the motion is that we'd like this court to grant a new trial to allow for a complete record to be made um concerning um evidence that goes to every required element of the bill of review. And just to provide context for this court, um this this involves the suit involves this bill of review involves the review of an order um that was granted October 8th, 2020 um Monica Vescovo's name change. She's changed her name from Monica Alibayu to Monica Vescovo.

[00:04:01]She filed an application. She appeared before Judge Cook at that time and for a hearing and then obtained the name change. Something what what what Monica Vescovo did not disclose during that proceeding, not in her application, not during the prove appearing was that she apparently believed that she was married to Mr. Vescovo.

[00:04:30]So, she was there asking for her name to be changed to Monica Vescovo, but did not disclose to the court that she believed she was married to Victor Vescovo.

[00:04:42]>> All right. So, let me just give you guys a better just kind of context here of what's happening. So, here you have Victor Vescovo who's in the top right there. Um gray hair man.

[00:04:54]He is who we're going to call the victim of this situation, right?

[00:04:58]He's the guy who's like, wait, what we're married? And she's like, yeah, actually we are married. And obviously he does not want to be married to her, but she isn't giving him a choice. I have your last name, so I guess that means we're married. And what his legal team here is trying to prove essentially is she changed her name for other reasons.

[00:05:22]What she gives later on is work reasons.

[00:05:25]We're going to get to that a little bit later.

[00:05:28]But at the time did not believe or did not disclose to him that she was doing that fraudulently so that she could build a case, stronger case, to claim common law. They are in Texas after all, which does um common law. So, in short, imagine you're in a relationship or dating some chick over a long period of time and she says she wants to change her name to your name for work reasons, right? For some work reasons and doesn't tell you that later on she's going to use that name change as evidence for you being married to her when you never agreed to that whatsoever. That's the situation here that Victor Vescovo is in and what his legal team is trying to prove was a fraudulent name change for other reasons. Let's keep watching. The Coffee Pot is backed by fathershaverights.com.

[00:06:23]The ultimate pre-nup prep guide for men who value marriage in our modern day.

[00:06:28]Future husbands, the divorce industry makes billions when men walk into a lawyer's office unprepared. Don't let the system profit from your ignorance.

[00:06:36]My step-by-step guide at expert attorneys James Sexton and the lead attorney, hands you the questions, checklist, and strategy to walk in 10 steps ahead and it costs only a couple of dinner dates.

[00:06:50]Click the link pinned to the top of the comment section, secure your future, and join the hundreds of men preparing their marriages the right way.

[00:06:59]>> And that, your honor, deprived the court of being able to determine the the purpose for the name change. And oh, I want to talk about that in a minute. The but the purpose, your honor, was improper. But the improper purpose was never disclosed, so it could never be considered by the court. And it was also not disclosed to my client, Mr. Vescovo.

[00:07:26]And there's a really big distinction here, your honor, that I want to make and that's that's Mr. Vescovo discovering the name change occurred versus Mr. Vescovo discovering discovering the purpose, the fraudulent purpose for the name change.

[00:07:42]And I'll get to that in a minute, but I just wanted to bookmark that for you.

[00:07:46]So, um on October 8th, 2020, the name change order is granted. On April 10th, 2023, um and this is found in petitioner's exhibit eight that was admitted um at the trial, Monica discloses for the first time, when she sues Mr. Vescovo, alleging they are married, the improper purpose of the name change, namely, so she could lend credibility to her alleged belief that she had been married to Mr. Vescovo since June 10th, 2018.

[00:08:24]>> There we go.

[00:08:25]>> Again, she had never disclosed, not to this court, not to Mr. Vescovo, prior to April 10th, 2023, the purpose, or one of the purposes of her name change request, so that the court could, in exercising its gatekeeping function, decide whether the name change should be granted.

[00:08:47]Um and by the way, as part of that process, could the court could have also gotten in contact, asked Mr. Vescovo to bring Mr. Vescovo to the name change um prove-up hearing or a subsequent hearing, so that she the court could hear from him about, "Well, do you think that you're married?" and ask all of these questions, even though he's not a party to the underlying name change proceeding, he is still entitled to participate in that proceeding, to provide testimony in that proceeding, and in fact, Your Honor, there are several cases out of the courts of appeal where in name change proceeding courts have asked non-parties to appear and provide information, just so that the court could conduct this gatekeeping function.

[00:09:35]So, Your Honor, on April 10th, 2023, the statute of limitations for Mr. Viscovo to file a bill of review uh so that this fraudulently obtained order could be reviewed by the court and reconsidered in light of the now known improper purpose accrued.

[00:09:57]Uh it's a 4-year statute of limitation for bills of review, your honor.

[00:10:02]The April 10th, 2023 is when the um the the bill of review statute was triggered or it accrued, began accruing. This bill of review was filed well within that 4 years, and so Mr. Viscovo's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as Mr. Piacente argued at the trial.

[00:10:26]Now, one of the other things I want to talk to you about, your honor, is just this idea of standing. So, briefly, um in order to a threshold matter for uh bringing a bill of review is you have to have standing to bring that bill of review. And Mr. Piacente and I agree, I think we cited the court to the same case, but to have standing to bring a bill of review, a person does not have to be a party to the prior judgment. It doesn't matter that Mr. Viscovo was not a party to the underlying proceeding.

[00:11:02]What they need to have is a then-existing interest that was prejudiced by the name change order.

[00:11:10]And that certainly exists here, your honor.

[00:11:12]>> So, what's being argued right now is the difference between a simple name change, which any adult can just go and get their name changed, versus a name change that has legal consequences. And in this case, the legal consequence is a record that builds a case for her to then strengthen this fraudulent claim that she believed that they've been married since 2018, which is what I believe the attorney there stated. I think this is very important for men to realize that you can make decisions within a relationship that have legal implications far beyond what you may understand in that moment, which is why you got to be careful when it comes to things like this, right? Protecting your property, protecting um your name because let's be honest, this is insane. This is an insane situation. Let's keep listening.

[00:12:06]>> Mr. Vescovo had an interest and was prejudiced by his name being used by Ms. Vescovo for the purpose of lending credibility to a false claim of marriage.

[00:12:19]He didn't know that this is what she was doing or why she was asking for the name change again until April 2023. But this gives him standing. It's his name and now we know she wants to use it to lend credibility to a false claim of marriage.

[00:12:33]So, Mr. Vescovo establishes standing to bring a bill of review.

[00:12:38]Then we look at the elements of the bill of review itself, Your Honor. And the first is that Mr. Vescovo have a meritorious claim.

[00:12:47]Um the claim must not be barred by the statute of limitations, which I just addressed.

[00:12:55]Um and here Mr. Vescovo's claim is that Ms. Vescovo is seeking the name change for an improper purpose to create a false impression of marriage. Now, Your Honor, your the court's role in in an adult name change is a a serious role of gatekeeping because there are not other parties to the name change proceeding.

[00:13:21]The court has to um you know, ask questions, receive information, and receive, you know, truth from the person seeking the name change. The statute itself is found in section 45.102 of the Texas Family Code. It's 102 and 103. And what those statutes say that's important is that the court must consider the reason for the name change. Also, the name change must be in the interest of the public.

[00:13:56]And importantly, our courts of appeal have said that a person's right to change her name by court order is not absolute.

[00:14:05]Thus, it is generally held that an application for a change of name may be properly denied where the change is sought for a fraudulent purpose or where the change of name will result in the invasion of the rights of others.

[00:14:19]And your honor, had Ms. Viskovo told the court that she believed she was married to Mr. Viskovo at the time she made this application, the court could have properly considered whether she should then have therefore have the name, you know, Monica Viskovo without showing a marriage license, without hearing from Mr. Viskovo, the court could have exercised its gatekeeping functions and its discretion. The name change statute is not a rubber stamp.

[00:14:48]>> And they would have known that she's absolutely nuts.

[00:14:51]>> And this idea that simply because the name change statute doesn't did not require Ms. Viskovo to give notice to Mr. Viskovo that she was asking for his last name means that that he has no standing, he has no claim is is absurd. Because if nobody has it would basically mean that nobody, your honor, has standing to seek review of an adult name change order that was procured for an improper purpose when the improper purpose is withheld from the trial court, preventing the trial court from considering that purpose. That cannot be the case, your honor.

[00:15:33]Um additionally, the fact that she did withhold this improper purpose from the court is extrinsic fraud. It's It's the extra It goes to the heart of what extrinsic fraud is, which is something that occurred not within the proceeding, but outside the proceeding. We wish it had occurred inside the proceeding.

[00:15:54]Um because then the trial court would have would have known why Ms. Vyskocil was seeking this name change. But instead, she didn't disclose it. Her not disclosing it affected the court's ability to use its discretion to consider the name change and prevented Mr. Vyskocil from appearing or having the ability to appear or the court asking Ms. Vyskocil to have him appear so that he could tell the court what his position was on her asking for his name he he based on a false allegation of marriage.

[00:16:28]So, um the other thing, your honor, that I want to point out is that you do not have to be a party to a name change proceeding to have a claim that a name change is improper or or for the court to be allowed to make an appropriate inquiry into the requested change. There's an appeal of Evatt's, which is a court of appeal case.

[00:16:57]In that case, Marion Evatt, joined by her husband, um filed an application to change her name to Hearn.

[00:17:06]After the trial court considered the reasons for the name change, she basically wanted to go back to her previous married name, the trial judge trial judge instructed the name change applicant to notify a non-party Southwestern Oil and Refining Company of her application so that they could appear and participate in the hearing on the application. They then did appear and participate and the court denied the application after they participated. And the importance of this, your honor, is had she been forthright with the court, had she not committed extrinsic fraud by failing to disclose her belief that she was married to Mr. Vescovo, the court would have had the opportunity to do what the court in appeal of Abbott's did, which is say, "Well, where is Mr. Vescovo? Can I hear from him?" And make that appropriate inquiry. But she prevented that from happening. And now and benefited from that by obtaining the name change and then suing Mr. Vescovo on April 2023 claiming they had an informal marriage.

[00:18:07]Um So, your honor, what we would like is that the court allow us to have a new trial so that we can make sure there is a complete record um on each element of the the bill of review and in particular the um tolling of the statute of limitations in this case under the discovery rule because Mr. Vescovo had no way of discovering that Ms. Vescovo apparently thought they had been married 2 years before she sought the change of name and um told by um fraud fraudulent concealment.

[00:18:43]>> So, it sounds like the situation's even worse than we thought here. 2 years prior to her getting the name change, she's claiming, "I thought I was married to this man." He didn't know that.

[00:18:54]The more I listen to this, the more I think that she might actually need to be arrested fast, right? Quickly.

[00:19:01]Because if she is proven guilty for fraud, and I do believe that's what's happening right here, then she's blatantly lying to everyone because she knows she's about to lose her donor who supports her life. We see the age gap here, ma'am. We understand what you thought was going to happen, but it doesn't look like that's the case. Or maybe it might be the case. We'll see.

[00:19:27]>> Basically, Ms. Vescovo concealing the purpose of her name change.

[00:19:32]Um and there was testimony, Your Honor, during the trial that was testimony that was elicited from Ms. Vescovo on cross-examination, which is why no offer of proof was necessary when that testimony was excluded under Texas Rule of Evidence 103, but we would like because that because Mr. Pishchany objected to these questions that went straight to the heart of the improper purpose for seeking the name change. Um and those were um sustained, Your Honor. We would like a new trial so that we can ask those questions so that Your Honor can hear can can hear those answers and re-weigh the evidence and reconsider the evidence in light of that. Um I'll reserve the rest of my time, Your Honor, for rebuttal. Thank you.

[00:20:23]>> Thank you.

[00:20:24]Counsel, you um up there, you have 1 minute and 42 seconds left.

[00:20:28]>> Thank you.

[00:20:29]>> You're welcome. Attorney Pishchany, did I say it right? You're on mute. Did I say it right? You're on mute.

[00:20:34]>> [laughter] >> It's a shame because everything I said while I was on mute was brilliant. I don't remember it, but um it was definitely game-changing and going to win the case.

[00:20:43]>> Okay. [laughter] Okay. Did I say your name correctly?

[00:20:47]Okay. All right.

[00:20:48]>> Ha ha ha ha, trying to trying to crack jokes and get the judge to laugh. Be funnier. Try harder. It's not working.

[00:20:57]>> You may proceed.

[00:20:58]>> Thank you. May I please sit at the court? Um This I'd like to read to you something from one of the exhibits, which is what um Victor Vescovo declared under penalty of perjury in the divorce case. This is our exhibit one and it's in paragraph 20.

[00:21:17]It says, "I did not learn about Monica's actual name change until approximately 1 month after it was approved by the court."

[00:21:25]Then later in that paragraph, it says, um Now, I'll I'll continue on to the next sentence.

[00:21:32]"Once I discovered that Monica had legally changed her name to Vescovo, I researched the issue to see if there was any way for me to file a legal proceeding forcing Monica to change her name back to Alaia Beyou." "By the time I learned about her name change, however, I felt it was too late for me to do anything legally and understood from researching the matter that I had little grounds to stop such a change in Texas courts." The point of this is he has researched this matter and determined that he does not have grounds to force her to change her name. This This proceeding, their case, it is legally groundless.

[00:22:10]It is frivolous and they are aware of it and and Mr. Vescovo has declared under penalty of perjury that he knows that he doesn't have a basis to do what they're trying to do. So, I just want to start right there and, you know, if put this in the larger context, which is there was a a hard-fought divorce case that went on for over 2 years. They won, but it's on appeal and we don't know what the final outcome is going to be. So, no matter how many times they say that it's, you know, there's a final judgment that says they're not married, it's not final final yet.

[00:22:42]Um then after that, they sued her for defamation saying that she can't say that she was ever married to Victor and and they got a TRO that forced her to take down references to the marriage from her social media, um from from a GoFundMe and and she was >> GoFundMe?

[00:23:03]Damn, she's >> struggling.

[00:23:05]>> barred from saying anything about being, you know, ex-wife or, you know, married or anything like that. And the reason she got they got that is because she wasn't represented at the TRO hearing, and uh opposing counsel failed to alert the court to binding Supreme Court precedent that precludes the relief that they were seeking, and that was uh that was a violation of the duty of candor.

[00:23:30]Um at the preliminary injunction hearing, uh once I got involved, I filed a response to their preliminary injunction motion showing that there were three Texas Supreme Court cases that said they couldn't do what they were trying to do.

[00:23:43]And we had the hearing, and the judge agreed with me, uh denied the preliminary injunction, and they non-suited their case.

[00:23:52]Now, the day after I filed that uh brief, from which they would have known that they were going to lose this hearing, the day after they filed this proceeding.

[00:24:01]>> Hm.

[00:24:03]>> And >> Good job.

[00:24:04]>> They um this one is >> Shisha, you biased for for the man here, Vic? Yes. Yes. Yes. Welcome to the coffee pod.

[00:24:12]>> Break the coffee. I'm making coffee.

[00:24:13]>> Welcome to the coffee pod.

[00:24:14]>> completely meritless. And to address the the arguments that um opposing counsel made, the whole thing is is based on an improper understanding of well, standing.

[00:24:27]So, for one, there there is no right for him to participate. The the statute does not authorize it. There's nothing that gives him a right to notice uh of of this or anything. And they are assuming they keep saying that she had an improper purpose. They haven't shown that. There's no evidence of that. The entire their their their entire argument about improper purpose is that she had a name change on October 2020.

[00:24:54]She filed for divorce on April 10th, 2023.

[00:25:00]And that's the first time he supposedly knew that she thought they were married.

[00:25:05]>> I I want you guys to really think about that. I'm sorry I keep pausing it, but just really think about the woman you're not married to, right? You're just dating this woman, you're just in a relationship, files for divorce, and you're like, "Wait, why why why you why you filing for divorce? We're we're not married." She's like, "Yes, we are."

[00:25:21]Damn.

[00:25:22]This is so important because men will often ask um me even throughout the past few years. And of course this doesn't pertain to men who do not value marriage, right? So, there's guys there like, "Oh, don't get married." Men are going to get married, right? For different reasons, whether they want to um do it for religious reasons or they want to provide a two-parent household for that child. Now, what happens when you choose to get married in a state that respects common law without the legal documents? Well, now you're exposed to what may be common law. You may say, "Okay, well, then I'll move to a state that does not respect that." However, however, it does not mean that that person can't still sue you civilly when you've been living together for an extended period of time as partners or whatever you want to call it and take you to court to claim some of your assets. Cuz when you start commingling assets, even if somebody who you may not be married to, they can still take you to court. So, you want to think about a lot of these things, which is why, by the way, men who understand this sit there and they go, "Okay, well, eff it. We'll sign the legal document, but we'll also get a prenuptial agreement that clearly states, 'Hey, just because we're married, you don't get my business. You don't get my assets or anything else.'" And And course, you know, um it has to be what what what what they call fair to an extent.

[00:26:55]A document that isn't so terrible that no human being can sign it, but you can protect yourself and limit your losses, which is why I think this video is very important cuz a lot of people think that they're safe just because they haven't signed that legal marriage certificate, but they're cohabitating with a woman, right? And so, you want to think about a lot of these things. Just keep watching.

[00:27:21]>> I I don't see any other evidence from which they got from, you know, point A to point B and said she has an improper purpose.

[00:27:28]Now, she wanted to say that some of the evidence that was ex- the testimony that was excluded was, um, uh, should be considered and they want, you know, a new trial on that.

[00:27:39]She didn't preserve. She didn't preserve error. She didn't make an offer of proof. And so, she's not she's not allowed to challenge that at this point.

[00:27:47]And and she said she they rely on this case, um, In re Commitment of Smith to try to say that they didn't have to do that. This is on page eight of their, um, of their motion for new trial. And, um, and that case does not apply here because this was not cross-examination.

[00:28:05]Uh, Ms. Ewing called Monica Viskova to the stand. It was a direct examination.

[00:28:10]It was a direct examination of the opposing party, but it was still a direct examination. In other words, she controlled the scope of of that questioning. Um, and you know, the the reasoning of of, um, In re Commitment of Smith, which, you know, allows you not to have to give an offer proof in very limited circumstances, is that, you know, in a cross-examination, you you you are, um, the the answers are obvious of what you're trying to get at, and you're asking leading questions that are, um, you know, just taking down the path, and you can tell from the transcript itself what the person is going to say. You know, that's that was not the case here.

[00:28:49]This is a direct examination. So, that that exception just doesn't apply.

[00:28:54]Um, there's a few other things that I um, take issue with from um, counsel's presentation. Uh, one is about you don't have to be a party. That is true. There is a narrow exception. You don't have to be a party to the original judgment to have a bill of review, but you do have to have an interest in the matter. That doesn't mean an interest in colloquial sense of I'm interested in this you know, because I am. It means a legal interest. In other words, you were either a party or you had a right to be a party. He didn't have a right to be a party, and so he doesn't fall under that exception. And so, for that reason he doesn't have standing. And without standing, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, which is why I've argued all along that this case should be dismissed. Um, but even setting that aside, it also should be denied as the court properly did. So, I want to go now to the statute of limitations. They have tried to um, extend the >> It's not looking good.

[00:29:53]>> the um, They've tried to push the point uh, at which he found out later and later. Uh, the first way he did that was by changing his story from what he told the 303rd. Uh, you know, he said one month there under penalty of perjury. And then he came here and said it was seven months. Now, conveniently, that seven, if you take it out to seven months, that just so happens to be the month before the four years expires. So, that was a fortuitous, I guess.

[00:30:23]Um, then now they want to say, oh, it wasn't until uh, he discovered on April 10th, 2023 that she had any idea that that she was going to say that they were married. Well, if if you're if you're I guess from his perspective this is his living girlfriend.

[00:30:42]Um and they went to Albania where they had a I don't know what he would refer to it, some kind of a gathering at which she wore a white dress and they fed each other cake and the wedding march was played.

[00:30:54]Uh >> Okay, that's crazy.

[00:30:57]>> Um and then this person changes her last name to yours. He was on inquiry notice.

[00:31:02]He needed to go find out, you know, what was going on here. And I'm not saying that she did it she did it for that reason. I'm not saying that. She's been very consistent about what the reason was. The reason was she needed a name that was easy to pronounce. I mean, as we saw opposing counsel after 3 years of litigation now is still mispronouncing her name. It's Alibayou.

[00:31:22]It It's It's hard. It's a hard name.

[00:31:25]Um >> I guess this is why they say hell will be packed with attorneys. This guy really wants us to believe that she changed her name because Monica Vescovo here, the fraudster's attorney here, wants us to believe that she simply changed her name because her real last name was too hard to pronounce. It was beneficial for her professionally.

[00:31:47]Um if that event where they wore white was if that's facts, I guess I'm going to be charitable here and say that he did that to maybe make her feel like they they were married, you know, like You guys know how it goes. For men who have a difficult time standing their ground, I guess we could do something like that.

[00:32:10]But if she has uh a private investigator taking a bunch of photos behind a tree, >> [laughter] >> so she can later on call it a wedding, then you're effed.

[00:32:20]>> So they they don't have There's no interest and then let me see that Okay, I said they didn't make they didn't show any improper purpose. She's been consistent. She told the court it was because she needed an easier name to start her real estate career.

[00:32:33]And that's what she told um Victor Vescovo as well.

[00:32:37]Um and um and that's what she told this court.

[00:32:41]That is consistent. Um, it was not to to to believe their version of events, you'd have to think that, you know, an immigrant from Albania who came here when she was 12 years old uh, knows the ins and outs of uh, informal marriage in Texas and two years in advance planned out you know, how she was going to uh, say she was married uh, to get him for, you know, property and and whatever.

[00:33:11]>> Facts.

[00:33:11]>> But, >> 100% believable.

[00:33:13]>> at our exhibits, and these are um, exhibit six.

[00:33:18]Um, six and seven.

[00:33:22]He was encouraging her to use this name.

[00:33:25]He he got the domain domain name for her um, of vescovorealty.com.

[00:33:33]He register he helped her register that.

[00:33:35]vescovorealty.com.

[00:33:36]>> Damn, Victor.

[00:33:38]>> Uh, and also got her um, the email address um, well, she referred he refers to her email address [email protected] and gives that to Tyler Jennings um, with respect to some of this um, IT stuff. And um, and then what was the other email? The email address was um, we've got the domain registration and um, let's see. It was I think monica.vescovo.com was the other one.

[00:34:07]Um, but he's encouraging her to use this name. And I don't see how he can come now and say, you know, don't use it. I never wanted her to use it. Um, I actually broke up with her two years before that. I mean, it it just the story doesn't add up. Um, and so because there's no standing the case to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the um, the statute of limitations it is run.

[00:34:32]She they filed it more than four years later. The you don't have to believe the seven months when he's already said under penalty of perjury it was one month. And regardless of whether which is right or wrong, he's judicially estopped from doing it because the law doesn't allow you to play fast and loose with different courts like that. He's just he's just he can't do that. Um and and the the idea that it was should be not counted until April 10th, 2023, that doesn't work because he was on inquiry notice from the moment he found out to determine, you know, whether this person who lived with him and had adopted his name had some belief about, you know, marriage. And and that reminds me of one other thing. They're saying that she had an obligation to tell the court that she had a belief that they claim was unfounded.

[00:35:18]So, how is she supposed to know, like, oh, I'm supposed to I'm supposed to tell this mistaken belief to the to the court? I mean, she wasn't obligated to say anything about that because that wasn't the reason. The reason was she needed an easier name for her career.

[00:35:34]And and they haven't shown otherwise.

[00:35:36]Citing the petition in the divorce case doesn't prove that. It just doesn't. Um so, I'll I'll reserve the rest of my time.

[00:35:46]>> Okay. Counsel, you have 3 minutes and 12 seconds left. Attorney Ewing.

[00:35:50]>> Thank you, Your Honor. Um I first just want to I'll start with the issue of judicial estoppel. And I think essentially what Mr. Pierson II is saying is that because I guess because in an affidavit that he filed in the divorce suit where he stated that he thought he learned about the name change order in sometime I think in November 2020 before that he's therefore estopped um from now claiming that he learned about the purpose of the name change order in April 2023. These are two entirely separate issues, Your Honor, that I think Mr. Piacente is purposely trying to confuse the court about. It is not when he learned of the name change order. And by the way, his statements on that are inconsistent, and he testified that what he said in that declaration about when he learned of the order was was a mistake. Beyond that, though, it doesn't matter because what matters is when he learned of the purpose, the improper purpose for the name change order, and that's when he learned that Ms. Vescovo apparently believed that they were married.

[00:37:05]>> Right.

[00:37:06]>> And yes, she does have a duty of candor to this court. Mr. Piacente cited to the duty of candor. When she appeared before this court, she had the duty to tell the court, "Oh, and by the way, this name that I'm asking to be changed to Vescovo, I'm married to Victor Vescovo."

[00:37:24]That would have set off all kinds of inquiries and alarm bells for the court, which is exactly why she didn't do it.

[00:37:30]>> 100%.

[00:37:30]>> Also, this idea that I had that error is not preserved unless an offer of proof is made when you're asking a a cross-examination question that is objected to and sustained is just entirely false. Texas Rule of Evidence >> ran out of time.

[00:37:49]>> Thank you.

[00:37:50]>> Ooh, shut her down.

[00:37:51]>> Thank you.

[00:37:52]Um attorney Piacente, is there anything else?

[00:37:56]>> Yes, so she she I'm I'm not arguing what she said. She said that I'm saying that because he declared under penalty of perjury that she found out a month after the name change order that it happened, that that means it couldn't have been until April 10th, 2023, that he found the improper purpose. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he can't say it happened 7 months after after he found out about the name change 7 months after the order when you've already said it was 1 month after the order. The argue My argument about the April 10th, 2023 that he didn't find out the improper purpose until then is twofold. Number one, there's no improper purpose. They haven't shown it. Her proper purpose was she wanted an easier name for her real estate career. Just because they are in inferring and assuming that this had a nefarious purpose doesn't make it true and doesn't mean that there's any evidence of it.

[00:38:45]There is not. Um it it it wasn't for the purp it They had already been, you know, she believes they were married as of June 2018. They already have been married for over 2 years and she hadn't changed her name at that point. So, there's no reason to think that what the reasons that she gave weren't the reasons or that she had to disclose, you know, the marriage. It just it wasn't required. Um and then, let's see.

[00:39:13]I also wanted to make sure that the, you know, that I clarify what extrinsic fraud is.

[00:39:18]They keep referring to this as extrinsic fraud that she didn't tell she supposedly had this obligation to tell the court that she thought she was married. It it That's what, you know, what she said to the court and what happened in those proceedings, that's intrinsic fraud and that's what you don't look at when you're doing a bill of review. Extrinsic fraud is what fraud did a person commit that prevented someone who had the right to participate from participating. Well, he didn't have a right to participate. There's no fraud there. Um so, for all those reasons, we think the the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively deny the motion for new trial.

[00:39:57]>> Um extrinsic fraud. I'm looking at the definition here. It reads a legal concept describing deceptive behavior occurring outside of court proceedings to prevent a victim. Victor Ruscavo says it right here, right in the definition.

[00:40:13]I'm kidding.

[00:40:14]Um a victim from fairly presenting their case or defending their rights.

[00:40:20]>> Thank you, counsel. Um, Attorney Ewing, I do have a question.

[00:40:24]Um, in your case research, what has been the legal basis of the improper purpose that you're referring to in this case that case law has cited?

[00:40:36]>> Um, yes, Your Honor. So, um, the case law that I have relied on is are uh two cases, the appeal of Abbott um, and it and In re Erickson, where the court of appeals discusses that >> thing. Let's go one at a time and give me the site. In re >> In re Erickson, 547 >> E R I >> Yeah, E R I C K S O N >> Mhm.

[00:41:07]>> 547 South West 2nd 357 >> And what's the specific pin site?

[00:41:17]>> Um, the specific pin pin site on that And Stephanie, do you have that? I think I actually sent that to you this morning.

[00:41:26]I can look it up.

[00:41:28]Um is 357, Your Honor.

[00:41:34]Mhm. It's at 357.

[00:41:36]>> Okay.

[00:41:38]>> Um, the other case I would cite you to, Your Honor, is um, and Stephanie, do you have the full site for In re Gallagher?

[00:41:47]>> Yes, I do.

[00:41:48]>> [clears throat] >> In re Gallagher >> Spell Gallagher for the record, please.

[00:41:52]G A L L A G H E R Thank you.

[00:41:59]And um, this is a it's a Westlaw site, um, 2021 WL 526336 Thank you.

[00:42:12]>> And And Stephanie, can you also provide the court the Evitts citation?

[00:42:17]Once you have the full one, I think.

[00:42:19]It's at 784.

[00:42:21]>> The Evitts or the Erickson?

[00:42:23]>> Evitts, please.

[00:42:24]>> I have Erickson. Um could you spell the um the sec Eric however you say the second one?

[00:42:30]>> So, there's Erickson, Evitts, and Gallagher.

[00:42:33]>> Okay, I need the Are you saying Evitts?

[00:42:36]>> Evitts, E V E T T S.

[00:42:39]>> Okay, I got it. What's that site?

[00:42:42]>> 392 Southwest second 781 and the pin site is at uh >> 784.

[00:42:53]>> Yes.

[00:42:53]>> And your honor, um >> I am curious to know what they're doing right now. I think what they're doing is giving the judge other cases that are similar to this so that she can maybe see how they're handled.

[00:43:05]Um I'm going to be honest with you. I'm not sure. Let's talk to our AI system, Bruce and Miss Coffee. Miss Coffee, what's happening towards the end there where they're giving us some type of cited sources to what it sounds like maybe other cases. And I'm talking about the judge here.

[00:43:19]>> Yes, Coffee. Toward the end, they are giving the judge legal case citations and statute citations to support their argument.

[00:43:26]>> Mhm.

[00:43:26]>> They are not giving sources like articles. They are citing prior court cases and Texas statutes that the judge can look up and use to decide whether Monica's name change could legally be challenged.

[00:43:36]What's happening is this. Victor's attorney is arguing there are prior cases showing that a court can deny a name change if it is for an improper purpose, fraudulent purpose, or if it invades someone else's rights.

[00:43:47]>> Right.

[00:43:48]>> judge asks her "What cases are you relying on?"

[00:43:51]Then the attorney gives case names like In re Erickson, In re Gallagher, Evitts Texas Family Code Section 45.102, Adult Name Change Statute. The judge is basically saying "I understand your story, but show me the legal authority that makes this an improper purpose under the law.

[00:44:07]>> Additionally, I would ask um um that you look at um the adult name change statute, specifically section um 45.102 3.

[00:44:20]>> All right. And in these cases, what is the improper purpose that you're saying exist in this case that exists in the other string of cases that you just gave me?

[00:44:33]>> So So, the improper purpose in this case, Your Honor, we're we're stating is that Monica was seeking the name change so that to lend credibility to her assertion that the parties were married.

[00:44:47]>> Mhm.

[00:44:48]>> And [clears throat] she by not even informing the judge that she believed she was married to Victor Vescovo, the judge was not able to evaluate whether it would be an improper purpose to grant the name change.

[00:45:04]Um and so so that's what we're saying, Your Honor.

[00:45:08]And And we because we weren't able to ask questions of Ms. Vescovo about this improper purpose, I keep hearing there was no evidence. That's really the basis of our motion for a new trial. We want to be able to ask those questions of her to establish that evidence. Um And >> Okay, that's all I need, counsel, because you're you're already out of time. I just need that question answered. Sure. All right. So, what the court is going to do is um Well, there are two things that I want to The first thing I'm going to do is going to go and review all of these cases myself.

[00:45:43]Um and in the meantime, Attorney Ewing, I would like for you to prepare a brief on the improper purpose.

[00:45:51]Um because that's that's the disconnect that the court is is not really getting, and I'm hoping that these cases will bridge that for me because um at this point to Mr. Piacentis assertion, the court is not understanding the exact improper purpose as it pertains to a legal basis and I need that brief. And Mr. um attorney Piacenti, you can also provide a response if you choose to. You're not necessarily I'm not asking you to per se, but if you like to make a response, you can do that.

[00:46:30]Attorney Ewing, could you have the brief back to me within the next 2 weeks?

[00:46:36]>> Yes.

[00:46:37]>> Okay.

[00:46:38]>> All right. So, here's the good news. We have part two to this exact situation and case. We're going to check that one out next, of course. But as always, we're going to check out a few of the comments and see what the people had to say about this particular hearing so far. Top comment here says, "If there is no marriage license and you change your last name to use it to gain any type of assets, it becomes cut and dry fraud. Do you agree?" I believe so. I believe this is true. It should be true. Goes on to say, "This should be a criminal case, not a civil one." Next comment here says, "How does believing you're married entitle you to someone? This is basically I identify as married." Next comment here says, "She changed her last name to his. What a psycho stalker. I feel for her attorney." Another person here says, "I feel that she changed her last name with fraudulent intent. The proof of this is the fact she filed for divorce from him without being married and she did it in secret. It was an attempt to fool the court into believing that they were in fact married when they were not married. She was trying to get half of his assets in doing so. So, her name change was all in preparation of a fraud. As always, guys, always curious to know what do you think? Leave your comments down below. Let's get into part two. Imagine a woman claiming you are married to her all because she decided to fraudulently, allegedly, change her last name to yours while the both of you were dating. This was your girlfriend.

[00:48:21]>> Break the copy, it'll make you feel bad.

[00:48:23]>> And now that the relationship is over, she decides to divorce you knowing that she lives in a state, Texas, that respects common law. This is part two to a hearing we've been following. Title of this video is woman sues to split ex's assets as if they were married. Guys, before we actually watch the rest of this hearing, I do have a spoiler alert here because what isn't shown here is that on February 2025, the jury found the claims of this woman claiming to be married to him baseless.

[00:48:59]Um, this commenter here left this comment that says there was no marriage and she wasn't awarded a cent. Monica Vescovo, Dallas, Texas. And so, this was good news. A jury, um, found that they were not married at all. So, this is So, you may be wondering what's happening in this case. Now, they're trying to revisit the bill that allowed her to change her last name to his and potentially revisit that and have that denied so that she can no longer use his last name because they believe she used that last name fraudulently. All right, no more wasting time. Let's get into it.

[00:49:35]>> Ma'am, there was a jury trial, a three-day jury trial, and the jury determined that you are not married to Victor Vescovo.

[00:49:40]>> Yeah, because you slept with the judge.

[00:49:42]>> Ewing and Stephanie Mathern on behalf of Victor Vescovo.

[00:49:46]>> Hold on, did she just say, "Yeah, because you slept with the judge?"

[00:49:50]Oh, >> Thank you. Chance Seal on behalf of Monica Vescovo.

[00:49:53]>> All right. Thank you. Will those who intend to testify please stand and raise your right hands? Do you all swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give will be the truth and the whole truth?

[00:50:02]Thank you. We are set today on a bill of review filed by the moving in this case and prior to going on the record, there was some changes made to the pre-admitted exhibits.

[00:50:17]It's petitioner's exhibit 10 will not be included in that list. So, petitioner's exhibits 1 through 9 and 11 through 13 are admitted and respondent's exhibits 1 through 9 are admitted. Let me set you all's time here.

[00:50:32]>> All right.

[00:50:33]>> Counsel, could you pronounce your name again for me?

[00:50:35]>> I see.

[00:50:35]>> I Yachanti.

[00:50:36]>> I see Yachanti.

[00:50:38]>> I got it. Thank you. All right. You all will have 15 minutes a side. This will include any opening and closing statements should you all choose to make one as well as any examination.

[00:50:49]Um Attorney Ewing, at this time would you like to make an opening statement?

[00:50:54]>> Yes, I would your honor.

[00:50:55]>> Okay, you may proceed.

[00:50:56]>> Your honor, this bill of review concerns an adult name change order that was granted by Judge Cooks. My client, the moving, is Victor Vescovo, the name change applicant's ex-boyfriend. Monica, who was living with Victor Vescovo at the time, changed her name to Monica Vescovo without Mr. Vescovo's knowledge or consent. In the petition to change her name, Monica did not mention Victor Vescovo at all. Despite the fact that they were living together and despite the fact that we would learn later in 2023, she considered them to be married at that time. Nor did she mention Victor Vescovo at the hearing on her name change application. She said instead that her name was difficult to pronounce and that she wanted the last name of her father's descent. Although Vescovo is not her father's last name. On April 10th, 2023, Monica sued Victor for divorce using her then legal name Monica Vescovo, claiming she and Mr. Vescovo were married on June 10th, 2018, which was approximately 2 years before she filed the petition asking for his last name. After a 3-day jury trial at which Monica's lawyers continuously referred to her in front of the jury as Mrs. Vescovo, a jury unanimously found no informal marriage and the trial court entered a declaratory judgment that no marriage existed on February 3rd, 2025.

[00:52:19]Two months later, we filed this bill of review asking this court to reopen this matter, grant the bill of review, and deny Monica's request for a name change. Monica, since the final judgment, has continued to use the name Vescovo to falsely misrepresent that she is married to Mr. Vescovo, and we'd like the court to fix that, Your Honor. Thank you.

[00:52:40]>> Thank you.

[00:52:41]Counsel, would you like to make an opening statement?

[00:52:43]>> Yes.

[00:52:44]>> Go ahead.

[00:52:44]>> Um This case is not about the marriage case. That case was decided, it's on appeal. We don't know what the end result of that is going to be. This case is about whether someone can force their ex 4 and 1/2 years down the road, there's a 4-year statute of limitation, whether you can reopen a final judgment after all that time when someone has complied with the statutory requirements.

[00:53:11]Um there are at least four independent reasons he can't on one >> Amen.

[00:53:15]>> One is he has no standing. There's no legally protected interest um in him um in in him appearing in her name change case. There's no case that allows that.

[00:53:26]The In re Erickson case shows that not a spouse, not anyone is entitled to a citation. Unlike a child's name case where they can get site where they do have an entitlement to citation, there's none in an adult name change case. So, there's no standing. Because there's no standing, this This doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. Standing's an uh an uh part of subject matter jurisdiction. It's an indispensable and court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:53:49]The statute of limitations dimension, that's the third reason. We were past it and he can't use the discovery rule because there's a fourth reason. He's judicially estopped from saying that he didn't learn about this until June 2021 because he told the court in the marriage case a declaration that he gave under penalty of perjury, he knew about this the month after happened. It happened in October October 8th, 2020. So he knew by November 2020. That's more than 4 years ago.

[00:54:18]Um and though I don't know further than that, he can't show mirror choice defense because there was nothing he could do to prevent the name change if she complied with the statutory requirement.

[00:54:28]Um and he there's no there's a lot they want to say about fraud and there's a very important distinction here. What they're trying to say about her fraudulently obtaining the name change, which she didn't, that is irrelevant to this case because you have to show extrinsic fraud, not intrinsic fraud, which is what they're focusing on. Extrinsic fraud means there was fraud that kept him from participating. Well, if she had no obligation to inform him of this, there was no fraud in keeping him from participating. He just didn't have a right to do it. And >> Why would he not be obligated to know if the woman he's dating is changing her last name to his?

[00:55:05]>> And then um the last part of the bill of review requirement is unmixed negative.

[00:55:10]He has known about this for over 4 years and he has used standing for sure to use this name at times. He can't come now and say open up a final judgment and change it.

[00:55:20]>> Thank you, counsel. Attorney Ewing, you may call your first witness.

[00:55:23]>> I call Monica Viscovo.

[00:55:25]>> Okay. Ma'am, you may have a seat right here. Which notebook should she refer to?

[00:55:30]>> Um it states petitioner's on it.

[00:55:33]>> Okay.

[00:55:34]>> All right, this is about to get good.

[00:55:36]Right into the microphone.

[00:55:37]>> Please state your name.

[00:55:39]>> Monica Aliyeva Vyskocil.

[00:55:41]>> And on September 4th, 2020, you filed a petition with this court to change your name from Monica Aliyeva you to Monica Vyskocil, correct?

[00:55:49]>> Yes.

[00:55:50]>> Could you please turn to petitioners exhibit one and I'm going to ask you some questions about that exhibit.

[00:55:57]Um, first let me ask you, Vyskocil is the last name of my client Victor Vyskocil, correct?

[00:56:03]>> Um, sorry, miss a second.

[00:56:06]>> Well, you don't need to look at anything yet, ma'am. Is Vyskocil the last name of my client Victor Vyskocil?

[00:56:11]>> Yes.

[00:56:12]>> And you were living with Mr. Vyskocil at the time you filed this petition for name change, correct?

[00:56:17]>> Yes.

[00:56:18]>> In fact, you listed his address in the petition, right?

[00:56:20]>> Yes, that was my address.

[00:56:22]>> But you did not mention Mr. Vyskocil anywhere else or anywhere in your name change petition, correct?

[00:56:29]>> I'm sorry, what's your question?

[00:56:30]>> mention Mr. Vyskocil in your name change petition, correct?

[00:56:34]>> changing it for professional reasons.

[00:56:36]>> Objection, non-responsive.

[00:56:37]>> The same. Ma'am, the question was you didn't mention Mr. Vyskocil in your name change petition, correct?

[00:56:45]>> Um, yes.

[00:56:47]>> Could you please look at petitioners exhibit one which is your petition.

[00:56:52]And look at page one, you are asked the reason I where it says the reason I want to change my name is on page one, it's little C, 2C, do you see that?

[00:57:02]>> Um, yes.

[00:57:03]>> It says current last name is very difficult to pronounce. Also, I am in the process to obtain a real estate license and it will be beneficial to have an easy last name. Did I read that correctly?

[00:57:15]>> Yes.

[00:57:16]>> Uh, and additionally, if you can go to page three, you see Are you at page three? You see on page three where it says request for judgment?

[00:57:26]>> Uh, yes.

[00:57:27]>> And it says, I believe this name change is in my interest or benefit and in the interest of the public, correct?

[00:57:35]>> Yes, that's what the form says.

[00:57:36]>> And you listed your email address, which is Monica Alabeyou, correct?

[00:57:40]>> Yes.

[00:57:40]>> And you verified this and swore under oath that the facts were true and correct, correct?

[00:57:44]>> Yes.

[00:57:45]>> And then on October 8th of that year, you appeared before Judge Cooks to testify under oath in support of your request to change your name, right?

[00:57:53]>> Yes.

[00:57:54]>> And again, you said nothing to Judge Cooks about Victor Vescovo, correct?

[00:58:00]>> It was irrelevant, so yes, I guess.

[00:58:03]>> Yes or no. When you appeared before Judge Cooks and and testified under oath, you said nothing about Victor Vescovo, did you?

[00:58:10]>> Mhm. That wasn't the reason why I was changing my last name, so >> Yes or no. Did you mention Mr. Vescovo at all at the hearing before Judge Cooks?

[00:58:19]>> I know I did not. I also I I >> hearing >> I'm I'm so sorry, Your Honor.

[00:58:24]>> question >> Um you you have to wait for her to answer me.

[00:58:28]>> You have to wait for her to ask the next question.

[00:58:30]>> I I was wondering if she can like her tone is like so aggressive, and I'm going through a lot right now.

[00:58:36]And >> [laughter] >> Oh, no.

[00:58:40]Oh, this is going to be good. Her tone is so aggressive. I'm wondering if she could Ma'am, this is war.

[00:58:49]You're criminal, and you are facing the consequences. Of course, I'm I'm I'm I'm being extreme there, but let's be honest. This is fraud, and you're facing the consequences of your decision. She doesn't have to be nice to you. Engaged or soon-to-be married men, getting a pre-nup doesn't have to be confusing. At fathershaverights.com, we break everything down in plain simple English, so you feel in control from day one. Here's one of our five-star reviews from Logan. "I didn't know much about pre-nups before, but the way everything was explained made it easy to understand. It didn't feel overwhelming or super legal heavy. It was just real advice that actually made sense. I feel way more secure going into marriage now.

[00:59:30]Grab the guide for the price of a couple of dinner dates by clicking the pinned link in the comments and join the hundreds of future husbands securing their marriages the right way.

[00:59:38]>> She's not She just wants you to answer the question.

[00:59:42]>> I know.

[00:59:42]>> You have to wait for the next question, okay?

[00:59:45]>> Okay.

[00:59:46]>> Go ahead.

[00:59:47]>> In fact, after hearing in front of Judge Cooks, you said, "I think it's best for me to have my last name from my father's descent," didn't you?

[00:59:54]>> Yes.

[00:59:54]>> Meaning that the name Vescovo was the last name from your father's descent.

[00:59:59]Right?

[00:59:59]>> It's been mischaracterized. Um Vescovo is Italian and I have Italian heritage.

[01:00:05]>> Vescovo was not the last name of your father. Your father's last name >> say that. I did not say that.

[01:00:10]>> I did not say that.

[01:00:11]>> And we please look at um please turn to petitioner's exhibit two, ma'am, and turn to the page that says 170 on the bottom. It's the third or fourth page.

[01:00:23]>> Objection. Irrelevant. Um intrinsic She's going for intrinsic fraud. It's not relevant to whether he is entitled to a bill of review.

[01:00:31]>> Your Honor, the relevance is she just said she didn't say that and the pre-admitted exhibit shows she did. So, I would like to point that out. But, I can move on since it's pre-admitted.

[01:00:39]>> I guess the um the question the court has is what is it in relation to the elements of a bill of review?

[01:00:46]>> It's the reason it's relevant, Your Honor, is because she stated that Vescovo was not the name she wanted because she believed she was married to my client, but because she thought it was the name or she claimed it was the name of her family's descent. So, she basically lied >> Bro, this is crazy. There's no way she actually said that.

[01:01:02]>> to the court about the reason for the name change.

[01:01:05]>> Okay, but I guess my question is with the three elements of the bill of review, what is the relevance to >> fraud, Your Honor.

[01:01:14]>> But, that's intrinsic.

[01:01:15]>> Also goes to her credibility today in her testimony.

[01:01:18]>> Okay, um sustained.

[01:01:21]And Monica, after Judge Cook has granted your name change, you did not immediately tell Victor that you would legally changed your name to his, correct?

[01:01:28]>> That's incorrect.

[01:01:29]>> In fact, you continued to correspond with him the email Gmail address all of eight of you, didn't you?

[01:01:35]>> William, you say spontaneously.

[01:01:38]>> Objection, non-responsive. Ma'am >> The thing >> Looking at petitioner's exhibit >> four >> Can you see there the email between you and Mr. Vescovo dated December 10th, 2020 where you're using the email address Monica. Which exhibit?

[01:01:51]>> Four.

[01:01:52]>> I'll move on, Your Honor. On April 10th, 2023 Mr. Vescovo for divorce claiming you two had been married on June 10th, 2018, correct?

[01:02:02]>> Yes.

[01:02:03]>> Date you alleged that you were married to Mr. Vescovo was approximately 2 years before you filed the petition for name change in which you didn't even bother to mention his name. Is that right?

[01:02:13]>> You Can you please rephrase the question?

[01:02:15]>> June 10th, 2018, the date you alleged that you two were married was 2 years before you filed the petition for name change, correct?

[01:02:22]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[01:02:24]Um Rel- um what's the relevance?

[01:02:28]>> The relevance is fraud, Your Honor. She thought at the time she filed the petition for name change she was married to my client and she did not mention that to the court. Her omission was intentional and it was to obtain the name change without the court being able to inquire as to whether she was actually married or any ask any questions so that the court could perform its gatekeeping functions. She didn't tell the court why she If she If she had said to the court, "I'm getting the name change because I'm married to Mr. Vescovo, Victor Vescovo as of 2018", the court could have said, "Well, where is he? Have you know, have you talked to him? Why is he not presenting Why have you not presented me with an affidavit?"

[01:03:04]All of the things, but she prevented the court from being able to make that inquiry because she didn't say anything.

[01:03:09]>> Okay, but I guess my question is with the three elements of the bill of review, what is the relevance to >> fraud, Your Honor.

[01:03:18]>> But that's interesting.

[01:03:20]>> Also goes to her credibility today in her testimony.

[01:03:23]>> Okay, um, sustained.

[01:03:25]>> And Monica, Judge Cook granted your name change. You did not immediately tell Victor that you would legally change your name to his, correct?

[01:03:33]>> That's incorrect.

[01:03:34]>> In fact, you continued to correspond with him the email Gmail address olivea you, didn't you?

[01:03:40]>> Ma'am, you instantaneously >> Objection, non-responsive.

[01:03:43]>> Sustained.

[01:03:44]>> Looking at petitioner's exhibit Can you see there the email between you and Mr. Vescovo dated December 10th, 2020 where you're using the email address Monica >> Which exhibit?

[01:03:55]>> Four.

[01:03:56]I'll move on, Your Honor. On April 10th, 2023 Mr. Vescovo for divorce claiming you two had been married on June 10th, 2018, correct?

[01:04:06]>> Yes.

[01:04:07]>> Date you alleged that you were married to Mr. Vescovo was approximately 2 years before you filed a petition for name change in which you didn't even bother to mention his name. Is that right?

[01:04:17]>> You have Can you please rephrase the question?

[01:04:19]>> June 10th, 2018, the date you alleged that you two were married was 2 years before you filed the petition for name change, correct?

[01:04:27]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[01:04:28]Um Rele- um, what's the relevance?

[01:04:32]>> The relevance is fraud, Your Honor. She thought at the time she filed the petition for name change she was married to my client and she did not mention that to the court. Her omission was intentional and it was to obtain the name change without the court being able to inquire as to whether she was actually married or any ask any questions so that the court could perform its gatekeeping functions. She didn't tell the court why she thought If she If she had said to the court, "I'm getting the name change because I'm married to Mr. Vescovo, Victor Vescovo as of 2018", the court could have said, "Well, where is he? Have you know, have you talked to him? Why is he not presenting Why have you not presented me with an affidavit?" All of the things, but she prevented the court from being able to make that inquiry because she didn't say anything.

[01:05:14]>> All of that is intrinsic fraud and that goes to uh >> That's a legal determination, your honor, and I completely disagree.

[01:05:21]>> Response.

[01:05:22]>> It it it's intrinsic fraud and that's not it's it's extrinsic fraud. It doesn't go to whether she prevented him from participating. She's actually what she's saying that she had deceived the court. Well, by now because of the finality of judgment, 4 and 1/2 years later, she can't do that.

[01:05:36]>> Sustained.

[01:05:36]>> And you also alleged in the the petition for divorce that uh your name was Monica Vescovo, correct?

[01:05:45]>> I believe I filed under initials.

[01:05:48]>> Well, you were referred to as petitioner Monica Vescovo, correct?

[01:05:51]>> I believe so, yes.

[01:05:53]>> And then your attorneys were able to refer to you in the proceedings as Mrs. Vescovo, correct?

[01:05:58]>> It's not only the attorneys, it's everyone that knew that we were married.

[01:06:02]>> But you were able to use the name change that you obtained to call yourself Mrs. Vescovo for purposes of a divorce suit, correct?

[01:06:12]>> I was Mrs. Vescovo, so that was my title.

[01:06:15]>> Do you agree that referring to yourself as Mrs. Vescovo implied that you have Victor's last name because you're married to him?

[01:06:24]>> Not necessarily.

[01:06:26]>> Well, that's what you wanted to be implied, correct?

[01:06:28]>> That's incorrect.

[01:06:29]>> Ma'am, there was a jury trial, a three-day jury trial, and the jury determined that you are not married to Victor Vescovo.

[01:06:34]>> Not because you slept with the judge.

[01:06:36]>> Non-responsive.

[01:06:37]>> Sustained.

[01:06:39]>> And there was a final judgment entered that said that you are have no marriage whatsoever, declaratory judgment, with Mr. Vescovo. Do you understand that?

[01:06:48]>> Sustained.

[01:06:50]>> Ma'am, since the final judgment was entered, have you continued to tell people that you are married to Victor Vescovo?

[01:06:56]>> Of course.

[01:06:57]>> They relevance on this. They filed a a suit against her seeking a TRO. They got a TRO when she wasn't represented by counsel. When they got to the preliminary injunction hearing, uh the TRO was filed >> Objection, to the speaking objection, Your Honor, especially if it counts against my time.

[01:07:12]>> Um It was counting against his time. Go ahead, counsel.

[01:07:16]>> They already litigated this and they lost.

[01:07:18]So, if she she can say whatever she wants cuz we have the First Amendment.

[01:07:22]>> Sustain.

[01:07:24]Have you referred to yourself as Mrs. Viskovo since the final judgment was entered?

[01:07:30]>> Objection, relevance.

[01:07:32]>> Sustain. Since the final judgment was entered, ma'am, have you represented yourself as Mrs. Victor Viskovo?

[01:07:39]>> Objection, relevance.

[01:07:40]>> Sustain.

[01:07:42]Pass the witness.

[01:07:44]Okay, counsel.

[01:07:45]>> Why don't you take your seat?

[01:07:48]>> Because I was getting my real estate license and my last name Alibay was was mispronounced on my official documents.

[01:07:56]Um every time I traveled with Victor, I was um discriminated against. Um I was always randomly checked if I had bombs in my hands or whatever. So, um Victor's father was a realtor and um he was 100% on board um for me to change my last name to Viskovo.

[01:08:19]>> If you could look at um our exhibit folder there for respondent, um if you look at exhibit two, um could you tell me what this is?

[01:08:30]>> The first The first page?

[01:08:31]>> Yes.

[01:08:33]>> Um this is a correspondence with uh Texas Real Estate Commission um about my last name update.

[01:08:40]>> So, is it true or we've already litigated this? I'm sorry, go ahead. And so, what did you tell them was the reason?

[01:08:46]>> I wrote my last name is very difficult to pronounce and um it would have been very difficult for my clients to pronounce my name. So, >> And then this behind that page, that email, what is that?

[01:08:58]>> This is a In order to be a realtor, you have to take these courses.

[01:09:04]And um these were the six courses I had to complete in order to obtain >> What was the date that course, this first one that we see there?

[01:09:14]>> Um the first one started on August 2nd, 2020.

[01:09:18]>> And went to >> Um I think I believe the last course was September 18th, 2020.

[01:09:26]>> And then um Okay. And that that's the >> I'm so sorry. September 9th, 2020.

[01:09:32]>> That's all right.

[01:09:33]>> Okay. Anything else from this witness?

[01:09:36]>> I have nothing.

[01:09:37]>> Okay. Ma'am, you may return to your seat.

[01:09:39]>> Thank you, Your Honor.

[01:09:41]>> You're welcome. Um Attorney Ewing, you >> Witness >> Call Victor Vescovo, Your Honor.

[01:09:45]>> Okay. Sir, if you have a seat.

[01:09:47]>> I'm here.

[01:09:50]>> And for Tomcik, um Attorney Ewing, you have 5 minutes and 26 seconds. Attorney >> Pia Chenzi.

[01:09:57]>> Pia Chenzi, you have 9 minutes and 47 seconds.

[01:10:00]>> Please state your name.

[01:10:02]>> Victor Lance Vescovo.

[01:10:03]>> How do you know Monica?

[01:10:05]>> Uh we were together as boyfriend girlfriend for about 8 years.

[01:10:09]>> Did you know that uh Monica filed a petition to change her name to yours?

[01:10:14]>> No.

[01:10:14]>> Did you consent?

[01:10:15]>> No.

[01:10:16]>> Did you know about the name change hearing or that Judge made an order that day granting the name change?

[01:10:21]>> No.

[01:10:21]>> Did Monica tell you she had legally changed her name?

[01:10:24]>> No.

[01:10:24]>> Did you in a real estate transaction with Monica 3 months after she changed her name?

[01:10:29]>> Yes.

[01:10:30]>> Was her name listed as Monica Vescovo in any legal documents?

[01:10:33]>> No.

[01:10:34]>> How did her name appear in legal documents?

[01:10:36]>> Monica Alabeyu.

[01:10:38]>> When did you find out Monica had legally changed her name to Vescovo?

[01:10:41]>> Around June of 2021.

[01:10:44]>> How did you find out?

[01:10:45]>> Mail came to my address addressed to Monica Vescovo.

[01:10:49]>> Did you ask her why she had changed her name to Vescovo?

[01:10:51]>> Yes.

[01:10:52]>> What did she say?

[01:10:53]>> She said she wanted a more convenient name for real estate.

[01:10:58]>> Did Monica email you shortly after you found out acknowledging that you would found out?

[01:11:04]>> Yes.

[01:11:04]>> And if I if you could turn to petitioner's exhibit six, um is this the email a copy of the email that Monica sent you on June 18th, 2021?

[01:11:16]>> Yes.

[01:11:17]>> And when was this email sent in relation to you finding out about the name change?

[01:11:22]>> Shortly after, a couple days.

[01:11:24]>> Did you believe Monica's explanation for the name change?

[01:11:28]>> Yes.

[01:11:28]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[01:11:30]>> Um sustained. Was Monica's explanation for the name change consistent with what she stated in the petition?

[01:11:37]>> Yes.

[01:11:37]>> Was her explanation consistent with respondent's exhibit two that we were shown earlier?

[01:11:42]>> Yes.

[01:11:43]>> Did Monica ever tell you that she changed her name to Vescovo because she thought you were married?

[01:11:47]>> No.

[01:11:48]>> Did you maintain a friendship with Monica and professionally support her?

[01:11:53]Oh. Did you maintain Monica after learning of the name change?

[01:11:57]>> Yes, I did.

[01:11:58]>> Did you professionally support her?

[01:11:59]>> Very much, yes.

[01:12:00]>> Would you have done that if you knew she was falsely representing >> No, I would not.

[01:12:05]>> Was there a point at which you came to believe Monica had lied about her reasons for the name change?

[01:12:10]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[01:12:10]>> Sustain.

[01:12:12]When did you uh When on April 10th, 2023 did Monica sue you for divorce?

[01:12:19]>> Yes.

[01:12:20]>> And the petition is in evidence.

[01:12:22]Um did she claim in the petition you were married June 10th, 2018?

[01:12:27]>> Yes.

[01:12:27]>> Had she ever prior to you reading that petition told you that she thought you were married?

[01:12:31]>> No, she had not.

[01:12:32]>> Before you learned about the divorce suit, had she ever identified herself to your knowledge as Mrs. Vescovo?

[01:12:38]>> Not to my knowledge.

[01:12:39]>> Sustain.

[01:12:41]Are is that something you might have heard her say?

[01:12:43]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[01:12:45]>> Sustain. Did you file this bill of review two months after the final judgment in the divorce suit was entered?

[01:12:51]>> Yes.

[01:12:52]>> Did you file this bill of goes to the statute of limitations, Your Honor.

[01:12:56]Okay, overruled. Did you file this bill of review within 2 years of Monica filing the divorce suit?

[01:13:02]>> Yes.

[01:13:03]>> Notwithstanding the final judgment, do you Does Monica continue to use the name Vescovo?

[01:13:09]>> Yes.

[01:13:10]>> Do you object to that?

[01:13:11]>> Absolutely.

[01:13:12]>> Is it your opinion >> Hold on 1 second. Um let me read this back. Notwithstanding the final judgment, does Monica continue to use >> to both of those. If she continues to use it because it's her legal name.

[01:13:23]She's been using that name for 5 years.

[01:13:25]>> We understand that, Your Honor, but we're saying, in your opinion, does Monica's use of the name mislead the public about the jury verdict?

[01:13:33]>> Objection, relevance.

[01:13:34]>> Sustain.

[01:13:36]Why do you object to Monica having your last name? Why are you asking this court to re- to to to grant a bill of review and reconsider Monica's request for name change, Victor?

[01:13:46]>> Overruled.

[01:13:47]>> Because as >> [clears throat] >> after winning a trial clearly that she was not my wife, she continues to represent in public that she is my wife and the use of my last name gives credibility to that incorrect assertion.

[01:14:01]>> Makes sense. Um I I don't know if they're actually going to approve it. It makes sense.

[01:14:05]>> You think that that is something that this court should consider today that Judge Cook did not consider that Monica believed that she was married to you when she's requesting the name change.

[01:14:16]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[01:14:17]>> Hold on 1 second. Let me read that back.

[01:14:18]>> The law states what the court considers in this matter of analysis.

[01:14:21]>> Sustain. Pass the witness.

[01:14:23]>> When did you find out that Monica changed her name?

[01:14:26]>> June of 2021.

[01:14:28]>> And what did you tell the court in the uh marriage case that uh when you had found out that >> Can you be more specific?

[01:14:38]>> If You had a deck- Did you have a declaration in support of your original answer in the divorce case?

[01:14:44]>> Yes, I did.

[01:14:45]>> Okay. If you could go to respondent's um I think if they're in several one, that's is this your is this your answer?

[01:14:53]>> Yes, it is.

[01:14:54]>> Okay, if you could turn to um There's 10 pages of the of the answer and if you could go to the the declaration behind it.

[01:15:02]>> Okay, um there are 10 pages, really?

[01:15:04]>> Hold on a second. What happened?

[01:15:06]Okay, go ahead.

[01:15:07]>> Page what?

[01:15:08]>> Page 11. Page >> 11 I see it.

[01:15:10]I was looking for the page number.

[01:15:12]Right.

[01:15:12]>> Okay, I see it.

[01:15:14]>> 19 >> Yes.

[01:15:16]>> Could you read the first sentence?

[01:15:18]>> I did not learn about Monica's actual name change until approximately one month after it was approved by the court.

[01:15:25]>> And you understand it was approved by the court on October 8th, 2020?

[01:15:30]>> No, earlier in that affidavit, I actually stated I found out later, so the statement I made in paragraph 20 is simply a mistake.

[01:15:38]>> Okay, then let's look at paragraph 18.

[01:15:41]>> I think it was 18.

[01:15:42]>> Paragraph you're referring to?

[01:15:44]>> Let me think. Did you read this correct?

[01:15:46]The last statement?

[01:15:47]>> Did you read the read that paragraph?

[01:15:49]>> Sure. On January 19th, 2021, Monica closed on the Turtle Creek Condominium that I purchased for her. The Turtle Creek Condominium is deeded to Monica Alabayu, not to Monica Vescovo, even though the purchase occurred over three months after Monica fraudulently changed her last name to Vescovo. At the time I purchased the property for her, I did not know that she had changed her name.

[01:16:07]>> So, in paragraph 18, you're saying you did not on the January 19th, 2021.

[01:16:12]>> Yes.

[01:16:13]>> And in paragraph 20, you said you knew a month after it happened, right?

[01:16:17]>> Well, that's what it says, but that was a mistake. I thought it was a a year after.

[01:16:20]>> And you declared this under penalty of perjury, correct?

[01:16:24]>> Yeah, but I made a mistake.

[01:16:26]>> And your counsel submitted this to the court, correct?

[01:16:29]>> Yes.

[01:16:30]>> Did you review this before you signed it?

[01:16:32]>> Objection, Your Honor. Relevant?

[01:16:34]>> It's relevant to the statute of limitations and his credibility. He's got a declaration of intent within itself and this document he submitted that to the court. Now they want us to believe that he didn't see his mail for 7 months.

[01:16:45]>> Defendant has already said that it was a mistake. He's asked been asked and answered at this point.

[01:16:50]>> Sustain as to ask and answer.

[01:16:52]>> How often do you check your mail?

[01:16:56]>> Uh it's a non-locked mailbox on my property. I travel a great deal in 2021, so I often didn't get my mail. It was often left on my kitchen table, or I would retrieve it myself. Sometimes Monica would >> Maybe else retrieve it [clears throat] for you sometimes?

[01:17:12]>> Um I think on rare occasions a pet sitter might have done it if we were both unavailable, but usually Monica was in the house, especially when I wasn't there traveling.

[01:17:21]>> So I just looked this guy up. I mean this guy has a lot of media all over.

[01:17:28]And he's pretty um recognizable a huge digital footprint, and so I could see why she wants to make sure she keeps that last name in association to him.

[01:17:40]>> Yeah, during 2021?

[01:17:42]>> I think so.

[01:17:44]>> Who would get the mail when you traveled together?

[01:17:46]>> Other pet sitters.

[01:17:48]>> Um and so is your position that you never saw anything that was addressed to Monica Biscovo between October 2020 and June 2021?

[01:18:02]>> No, I was traveling a great deal on ocean expeditions, so I was not home that often. So Monica was there taking care of the house.

[01:18:11]>> Take a look at page um seven. I mean sorry, exhibit seven.

[01:18:15]For respondent?

[01:18:16]>> Yes.

[01:18:17]>> Um what is what is this?

[01:18:19]>> I don't know.

[01:18:20]>> What?

[01:18:21]What is that last name?

[01:18:23]Let me take a look.

[01:18:23]>> I set up an email account for Monica under vescovorealty.com.

[01:18:28]>> And what is her at her email address at vescovorealty.com?

[01:18:33]>> Well, this is September of 2021. I knew that she had changed her last name to mine at that point. So, it's Monica Elvescovo Realty.com.

[01:18:40]>> So, you acquiesced to her, you said Elvescovo in her email address, correct?

[01:18:45]>> Reluctantly, but we were still friends.

[01:18:47]I was trying to help her. My father was well-known in real estate circles in Dallas, so I thought I could help her.

[01:18:52]>> And did you help her name the domain names?

[01:18:55]>> Yes, I was trying to help her start her new career, so she could move on with her life.

[01:18:59]>> And what domain names were those?

[01:19:01]>> Elvescovo Realty.

[01:19:03]>> So, you let her use Elvescovo Realty, um, even though you wanted her to move on with her life, and so did you I guess you thought those things were compatible?

[01:19:12]>> Yeah, she People could have thought she was my cousin or some other relation. I have other cousins named Elvescovo, and I thought I could help her at the margin, so I agreed. I didn't know she was you know.

[01:19:22]>> So, why do you think it's appropriate now to come back four and a half years later and [clears throat] say, "Oh, I changed my mind"?

[01:19:29]>> Because now I realize she did it so she could sue me for divorce.

[01:19:33]Right.

[01:19:34]>> a lot of sense two and a half years in the bank.

[01:19:37]>> Yes, I wonder why that's so hard to believe.

[01:19:39]>> Okay.

[01:19:40]>> Anything else, counsel?

[01:19:41]>> No, Your Honor, thank you.

[01:19:43]>> All right. Sir, you may return to your seat. All right, you may call your next witness.

[01:19:47]>> I have no further witnesses, Your Honor, I rest.

[01:19:49]>> Okay. He He attended?

[01:19:51]>> Attended.

[01:19:52]>> Okay.

[01:19:53]Um, you may call your first witness.

[01:19:56]>> Um, we don't have anything else we need to say.

[01:19:59]>> Okay.

[01:20:00]Thank you. Um, the court is going to deny the bill of review. Do you have a proposed order?

[01:20:05]>> Um, I'll I'll submit it. I'm sorry, I I ran out of the house without it.

[01:20:10]>> If not, I can do a proposed >> All right. There we go. Let's check out some of these comments and see what the people have to say about that ruling.

[01:20:17]Top comment here says she absolutely did commit fraud and also lied under oath.

[01:20:22]Her attorney's argument is laughable, somebody else here added. She's a scammer. This was fraud. Another person here says, "Oh, honey, just because you change your last name to match his does not make you married. Sucks for you.

[01:20:35]Somebody else here added, "Women like this need to do jail time. Exhausting."

[01:20:39]Another person here says, "If there is no punishment for lying under oath, then why have oath part of it?" Ridiculous.

[01:20:47]Here's somebody else who says, "She thought she was sneaky, didn't she? I'm glad that man will finally be free from her." Here's somebody else who added, "When she is using the new last name to fraudulently claim they are married, he absolutely has standing." Here's somebody else who says, "What are they even arguing about? They were never married." Guys, listen. Of course, I'm curious to know what do you think of the situation and everything. I appreciate you for checking out another episode of Coffee Pod. 2 minutes, I'm out. Peace.

[01:21:20]Hey guys, as always, I appreciate you for checking out yet another episode of Coffee Pod. To my currently engaged or soon-to-be married men, if you need a pre-nup and would like a guide that shows you how to get a solid and legally binding pre-nup agreement, hit the link that's at the top of the comment section and access your guide at fathershaverights.com today.