Woman Demands to Split Ex Assets As If They Were Married

Ajouté : 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Ma'am, there was a jury trial, a 3-day jury trial, and the jury determined that you were not married to Victor Vescovo.

[00:00:05]>> Yeah, because you slept with the judge.

[00:00:07]>> Ewing and Stephanie Mathern on behalf of Victor Vescovo.

[00:00:11]>> Thank you.

[00:00:12]>> And Kichantey on behalf of Monica Vescovo.

[00:00:14]>> All right. Thank you. Will those who intend to testify please stand and raise your right hands?

[00:00:22]Do you all swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth and the whole truth?

[00:00:29]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.

[00:00:45]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.

[00:00:59]Okay, let me set you all's time here.

[00:01:12]Counsel, could you pronounce your name again for me?

[00:01:18]>> Kichantey.

[00:01:19]>> Kichantey.

[00:01:19]>> Kichantey.

[00:01:21]>> I got it. Thank you.

[00:01:26]All right, you all will have 15 minutes aside. This will include any opening and closing statements should you all choose to make one, as well as any examination.

[00:01:36]Um Attorney Ewing, at this time would you like to make an opening statement?

[00:01:41]>> Yes, I would, Your Honor.

[00:01:42]>> Okay, you may proceed.

[00:01:44]>> 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.

[00:02:25]She said instead that her name was difficult to pronounce, and that she wanted the last name of her father's descent, although Vescovo was 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.

[00:02:51]After a 3-day jury trial, at which Monica's lawyers continuously referred 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.

[00:03:08]2 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.

[00:03:28]>> Thank you.

[00:03:30]Counsel, would you like to make an opening statement?

[00:03:32]>> Yes.

[00:03:32]>> Go ahead.

[00:03:33]>> Um This case is uh 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.

[00:03:42]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.

[00:03:59]Um there are at least four independent reasons he cannot win. 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.

[00:04:14]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 citation, there's none in an adult name change case. So, there's no standing. Because there's no standing, this court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. Standing's an an a part of subject matter jurisdiction. It's an indispensable and court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:04:38]The statute of limitations I mentioned, that's a third reason. We're 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 um his declaration that he gave under penalty of perjury, knew about this the month after it happened. And it happened in October uh October 8th, 2020. So, he knew by November 2020. That's more than 4 years ago.

[00:05:07]Um and so Well, for the marriage, he can't show marital waste defense because there was nothing he could do to prevent the name change as she complied with the statutory requirements. 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 focused 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 then um the last part of the bill of review requirement is unmixed with negligence.

[00:05:51]He had known about this for over four years. He had he has used and encouraged her to use this name at times. He can't come now and say open up a final judgment and change it.

[00:06:02]>> Thank you, counsel. Attorney Ewing, you may call your first witness.

[00:06:05]>> I call Monica Vescovo.

[00:06:07]>> Okay. Ma'am, you may have a seat right here. Which notebook should she refer to?

[00:06:12]>> Um it states petitioner's on it.

[00:06:15]>> Okay.

[00:06:18]And ma'am, make sure you speak um right into the microphone.

[00:06:32]>> Please state your name.

[00:06:34]>> Monica Alibeyu Vescovo.

[00:06:36]>> And on September 4th, 2020, you filed a petition with this court to change your name from Monica Alibeyu to Monica Vescovo, correct?

[00:06:45]>> Yes.

[00:06:46]>> Could you please turn to petitioner's exhibit one?

[00:06:51]And I'm going to ask you some questions about that exhibit. Um first, let me ask you, Vescovo is the last name of my client Victor Vescovo, correct?

[00:07:02]>> Um sorry, I need a second.

[00:07:04]>> Well, you don't need to look at anything yet, ma'am. Is Vescovo the last name of my client Victor Vescovo?

[00:07:12]>> Yes.

[00:07:12]>> And you were living with Mr. Vescovo at the time you filed this petition for name change, correct?

[00:07:18]>> Yes.

[00:07:18]>> In fact, you listed his address in the petition, right?

[00:07:22]>> Yes, that was my address.

[00:07:24]>> But you did not mention Mr. Vescovo anywhere else or anywhere in your name change petition, correct?

[00:07:34]>> I'm sorry, what's your question?

[00:07:35]>> You didn't mention Mr. Vescovo in your name change petition, correct?

[00:07:41]>> I was changing it for professional reasons.

[00:07:43]>> Objection, non-responsive.

[00:07:45]>> The same. Ma'am, the question was you didn't mention Mr. Vescovo in your name change petition, correct?

[00:07:53]>> Um, yes.

[00:07:54]>> Could you please look at petitioner's exhibit one, which is your petition.

[00:07:59]And looking 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, two C. Do you see that?

[00:08:12]>> Uh, yes.

[00:08:15]>> Uh, 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?

[00:08:27]>> Yes.

[00:08:28]>> Uh, and additionally, if you can go to page three, you see Are you at page three?

[00:08:38]You see on page three where it says for judgment?

[00:08:44]>> Uh, yes.

[00:08:45]>> And it says, I believe this name change is in my interest or benefit and in the interest of the public, correct?

[00:08:52]>> Uh, yes, that's what the form says.

[00:08:54]>> And you listed your email address, which is Monica Alabayu, correct?

[00:08:58]>> Yes.

[00:08:59]>> And you verified this and swore under oath that the facts were true and correct, correct?

[00:09:04]>> Yes.

[00:09:05]>> And then on October 8th of that year, you appeared before Judge Cooks to testify under oath and support of your to change your name, right?

[00:09:16]>> Yes.

[00:09:17]>> And again, you said nothing to Judge Cooks about Victor Vescovo, correct?

[00:09:25]>> It was irrelevant, so yes, I guess.

[00:09:28]>> Yes or no, when you appeared before Judge Cooks and and testified under oath, you said nothing about Victor Vescovo, did you?

[00:09:38]>> That wasn't reason why I was changing my last name, so >> Yes or no, did you mention Mr. Viscovo at all at the hearing before Judge Cooks?

[00:09:48]>> I know I did not. I also I >> hearing >> I'm I'm so sorry, Your Honor.

[00:09:53]>> question >> Um >> You you have to wait for her >> approached him. It's me.

[00:09:57]>> You have to wait for her to ask the next question.

[00:09:59]>> I I was wondering if she can like her tone is like so aggressive and I'm going through a lot right now.

[00:10:05]>> And she's not She just wants you to answer the question.

[00:10:11]>> I know.

[00:10:11]>> You have to wait for the next question, okay?

[00:10:14]>> Okay.

[00:10:15]>> Go ahead.

[00:10:16]>> In fact, at the 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?

[00:10:26]>> Yes.

[00:10:26]>> You claimed that the name Viscovo was the last name from your father's descent.

[00:10:31]Right?

[00:10:33]>> It's been mischaracterized. Um um Viscovo's Italian and I have Italian heritage.

[00:10:38]>> Viscovo is not the last name of your father. Your father's last name is not Viscovo.

[00:10:43]>> I did not say that.

[00:10:45]>> Can 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.

[00:10:58]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[00:11:01]Um intrinsic She's going for intrinsic fraud, it's not relevant to whether he is entitled to a bill of review.

[00:11:07]>> 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 if since it's pre-admitted.

[00:11:16]>> I guess the um the question the court has is what is it in relation to the elements of a bill of review.

[00:11:22]>> The it's the reason it's relevant, Your Honor, is because she stated that Viscovo 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 descent. So, she basically lied to the court about the reason for the name change.

[00:11:38]>> Okay, but I guess my question is with the three elements of the bill of review, what is the relevance to >> Fraud, your honor.

[00:11:47]>> But that's interesting.

[00:11:48]>> It also goes to her credibility today in her testimony. [clears throat] >> Okay, um sustained.

[00:11:54]>> And Monica After Judge Cooks granted your name change, you did not immediately tell Victor that you would legally changed your name to his, correct?

[00:12:06]>> That's incorrect.

[00:12:08]>> In fact, you continued to correspond with him the email Gmail address alabeu, didn't you?

[00:12:15]>> We have you instantaneously.

[00:12:17]>> Objection, non-responsive.

[00:12:18]>> Sustained.

[00:12:19]>> Looking at petitioners work, 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?

[00:12:35]>> Four.

[00:12:37]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?

[00:12:48]>> Yes.

[00:12:49]>> Date you alleged that you were married to Mr. Vescovo was approximately two years before you filed the petition for name change in which you didn't even bother to mention his name. Is that right?

[00:13:02]>> You have Can you please rephrase the question?

[00:13:03]>> June 10th, 2018, the date you alleged that you two were married was two years before you filed the petition for name change, correct?

[00:13:11]>> Objection, relevance.

[00:13:12]Um Rel- um what's the relevance?

[00:13:16]>> 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? Had 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 from being able to make that inquiry because she didn't say anything.

[00:13:58]>> All of that is intrinsic fraud and that goes to uh >> That's a legal determination, Your Honor, and I completely disagree.

[00:14:07]>> Response.

[00:14:07]>> 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 She's saying that she deceived the court.

[00:14:16]Well, by not because of the finality of judgment, 1 and 1/2 years later, she can't do that.

[00:14:21]>> Sustain.

[00:14:24]>> And you also alleged in the the petition for divorce that um your name was Monica Vescovo, correct?

[00:14:33]>> I believe I filed under initials.

[00:14:35]>> Well, you were referred to as petitioner Monica Vescovo, correct?

[00:14:40]>> I believe so, yes.

[00:14:41]>> And then your attorneys were able to refer to you in the proceedings as Mrs. Vescovo, correct?

[00:14:48]>> It's not only the attorneys, it's everyone that knew that we were married.

[00:14:51]>> But you were able to use the name change that you obtained to call yourself Mrs. Vescovo for purposes of a divorce suit, correct?

[00:15:01]>> I was Mrs. Vescovo, so that was my title.

[00:15:05]>> Do you agree that referring to yourself as Mrs. Vescovo implied that you have Victor's last name because you're married to him?

[00:15:13]>> Mhm, not necessarily. [clears throat] >> Well, that's what you wanted to be implied, correct?

[00:15:19]>> That's incorrect.

[00:15:20]>> Ma'am, there was a jury trial, a three-day jury trial, and the jury determined that you are not married to Victor Vescovo, correct?

[00:15:26]>> Yeah, because he slept with the judge.

[00:15:27]>> Non-responsive.

[00:15:29]>> Sustain.

[00:15:30]>> And there was a final judgment entered that said that you are have no marriage whatsoever, declaratory judgment, with Mr. Vescovo.

[00:15:39]Do you understand that?

[00:15:41]>> Sustain.

[00:15:42]>> Ma'am, since the final judgment was entered, have you continued to tell people that you are married to Victor Vescovo?

[00:15:50]>> Objection. They They Relevance on this.

[00:15:52]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 dissolved.

[00:16:02]>> to the speaking objection, Your Honor, especially if it counts against my time.

[00:16:06]>> Um it was counted against his time. Go ahead, counsel.

[00:16:11]>> They already litigated this and they lost.

[00:16:14]So, if she she can say whatever she wants because we have the First Amendment.

[00:16:18]>> Sustain.

[00:16:19]>> Have you referred to yourself as Mrs. Vescovo since the final judgment was entered?

[00:16:25]>> Objection, relevance.

[00:16:27]>> Sustain.

[00:16:28]>> Since the final judgment was entered, ma'am, have you represented yourself as Mrs. Victor Vescovo?

[00:16:35]>> Objection, relevance.

[00:16:36]>> Sustain.

[00:16:38]>> Pass the witness.

[00:16:39]>> Okay, counsel.

[00:16:45]>> Why did you change your name?

[00:16:48]>> Because I was getting my real estate license, and my last name, Alibay, was was mispronounced on my official documents.

[00:16:57]Um every time I traveled with Victor, I was um discriminated against.

[00:17:02]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 Vescova.

[00:17:21]>> And 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?

[00:17:40]>> The first The first page?

[00:17:42]>> Yes.

[00:17:43]>> Um, this is a correspondence with uh, Texas Real Estate Commission, um, about my last name update.

[00:17:50]>> So, this is a true We've already admitted this or I'm sorry, go ahead.

[00:17:53]And so, what did you tell them was the reason?

[00:17:56]>> That my last name is very difficult to pronounce and um, would have been very difficult for my clients to pronounce my name.

[00:18:05]So.

[00:18:06]>> And then this behind that page, that email, what do you have?

[00:18:11]>> Uh, these are in order to be to renew, you have to take these courses.

[00:18:17]And um, these were the six courses I had to complete in order to >> So, what was the date of that course?

[00:18:26]This course one that I see there.

[00:18:28]>> First one started on August 2nd, 2020.

[00:18:32]>> And went to >> Um, I think I believe the last course was September 18th, 2020.

[00:18:41]>> And then um, okay.

[00:18:43]And that that >> Uh, I'm so sorry. September 9th, 2020.

[00:18:47]>> This is all capped.

[00:18:48]>> Okay. Anything else from this witness?

[00:18:53]>> I have nothing.

[00:18:54]>> Okay.

[00:18:55]Ma'am, you may return to your seat.

[00:18:57]>> Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:18:58]>> You're welcome. Um, attorney Ewing, you witness.

[00:19:01]>> Call Victor Vescovo, Your Honor.

[00:19:02]>> Okay. Sir, have you have a seat out there.

[00:19:16]>> And for time check, um, attorney Yuan, you have 5 minutes and 26 seconds.

[00:19:21]Attorney >> Piacenzi.

[00:19:24]>> Piacenzi, you have 9 minutes and 47 seconds.

[00:19:29]Please state your name.

[00:19:30]>> Victor Lance Pescovo.

[00:19:31]>> How do you know Monica?

[00:19:33]>> Uh, we were together as boyfriend, girlfriend for about 8 years.

[00:19:37]>> Did you know that, uh, Monica filed a petition to change her name to yours?

[00:19:42]>> No.

[00:19:42]>> Did you consent?

[00:19:43]>> No.

[00:19:44]>> Did you know about the name change hearing or that judge signed an order that day granting the name change?

[00:19:49]>> No.

[00:19:49]>> Did Monica tell you she had legally changed her name?

[00:19:52]>> No.

[00:19:53]>> Did you participate in a real estate transaction with Monica 3 months after she changed her name?

[00:19:59]>> Yes.

[00:19:59]>> With her name listed as Monica Vescovo in any legal documents?

[00:20:03]>> No.

[00:20:04]>> How did her name appear in legal documents?

[00:20:06]>> Monica Elebyu.

[00:20:07]>> When did you find out Monica had legally changed her name to Vescovo?

[00:20:11]>> Around June of 2021.

[00:20:13]>> How did you find out?

[00:20:15]>> Mail came to my address addressed to Monica Vescovo.

[00:20:18]>> Did you ask her why she had changed her name to Vescovo?

[00:20:21]>> Yes.

[00:20:21]>> What did she say?

[00:20:22]>> She said she wanted a more convenient name for real estate.

[00:20:28]>> Did Monica email you shortly after you found out acknowledging that you had found out?

[00:20:33]>> Yes.

[00:20:34]>> And if I if you could turn to petitioner's exhibit six.

[00:20:38]Um, is this the email a copy of the email that Monica sent you on June 18th, 2021?

[00:20:46]>> Yes.

[00:20:47]>> And when was this email sent in relation to you finding out about the name change?

[00:20:52]>> Shortly after a couple days.

[00:20:54]>> Did you believe Monica's explanation for the name change?

[00:20:57]>> Yes.

[00:20:58]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[00:20:59]>> Um, sustained.

[00:21:01]>> Was Monica's explanation for the name change consistent with what she stated in the petition?

[00:21:06]>> Yes.

[00:21:07]>> Was her explanation consistent with respondent's exhibit two that we were shown earlier?

[00:21:11]>> Yes.

[00:21:12]>> Did Monica ever tell you that she changed her name to Vescovo because she thought you were married?

[00:21:17]>> No.

[00:21:17]>> Did you maintain a friendship with Monica and professionally support her?

[00:21:23]Oh, did you maintain Monica after learning of the name change?

[00:21:28]>> Yes, I did.

[00:21:28]>> Did you professionally support her?

[00:21:30]>> Very much, yes.

[00:21:31]>> Would you have done that if you knew she was falsely representing >> No, I would not.

[00:21:36]>> Was there a point at which you came to believe Monica had lied about her reasons for the name change?

[00:21:40]>> Objection, relevance.

[00:21:41]>> Sustain.

[00:21:42]When did you uh When on April 10th, 2023 did Monica sue you for divorce?

[00:21:49]>> Yes.

[00:21:50]>> And the petition is in evidence.

[00:21:53]Um did she claim in the petition you were married June 10th, 2018?

[00:21:57]>> Yes.

[00:21:58]>> Had she ever prior to you reading that petition told you that she thought you were married?

[00:22:02]>> No, she had not.

[00:22:03]>> Before you learned about the divorce suit, had she ever identified herself to your knowledge as Mrs. Vescovo?

[00:22:08]>> Not to my knowledge.

[00:22:10]>> Sustain.

[00:22:11]Are is that something you might have heard her say?

[00:22:14]>> Objection, irrelevant.

[00:22:15]>> Sustain. Did you file this bill of review two months after the final judgment in the divorce suit was entered?

[00:22:22]>> Yes.

[00:22:22]>> Did you file this bill of It goes to the statute of limitations, Your Honor.

[00:22:27]>> Okay, overruled.

[00:22:28]>> Did you file this bill of review within two years of Monica filing the divorce suit?

[00:22:33]>> Yes.

[00:22:34]>> Notwithstanding the final judgment, do you Does Monica continue to use the name Vescovo?

[00:22:40]>> Yes.

[00:22:41]>> Do you object to that?

[00:22:42]>> Absolutely.

[00:22:43]>> Is it your opinion >> Hold on one second. Um let me read this back. Notwithstanding the final judgment, does Monica continue to use >> Objection to both of those if she continues to use it because it's her legal name.

[00:22:57]She's been using that name for five years.

[00:23:00]>> We understand that, Your Honor, but >> Sustain.

[00:23:03]In your opinion, does Monica's use of the name mislead the public about the jury verdict?

[00:23:12]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?

[00:23:24]>> Because as 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.

[00:23:39]>> Do you think that that is something that this court should consider today that Judge Cook did not consider? That that Monica believed that she was married to you when she's requesting the name change.

[00:23:51]>> Hold on 1 second. Let me read that back.

[00:23:57]>> The law affects what the court considers for this matter or not.

[00:24:00]>> Sustain. Pass the witness.

[00:24:04]>> When did you find out that Monica had changed her name?

[00:24:07]>> June of 2021.

[00:24:09]>> And what did you tell the court in the marriage case?

[00:24:14]That when you had found out.

[00:24:19]>> Can you be more specific?

[00:24:20]>> You had a declaration Did you have a declaration in support of your original answer in the divorce case?

[00:24:26]>> Yes, I did.

[00:24:27]>> Okay. If you could go to respondent's um Uh if there is number one, that's is this your Is this your answer?

[00:24:36]>> Yes, it is.

[00:24:37]>> 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.

[00:24:47]>> Okay.

[00:24:50]Um there are 10 pages for me.

[00:24:51]>> Hold on 1 second.

[00:24:55]What happened to you?

[00:25:00]Page what?

[00:25:01]>> Page what?

[00:25:02]>> Page 11, page >> 11 I was looking for the page number.

[00:25:06]Okay, I see it.

[00:25:07]>> Paragraph 20.

[00:25:12]>> Yes.

[00:25:13]>> Can you read the first sentence?

[00:25:16]>> I did not learn about Monica's actual name change until approximately 1 month after it was approved by the court.

[00:25:22]>> And you understand it was approved by the court on October 8th, 2020?

[00:25:27]>> No, earlier in that affidavit, I actually stated I found out later, so the statement I made in paragraph 20 is simply a mistake.

[00:25:37]>> Okay, then let's look at paragraph 18.

[00:25:39]>> I think it was 18.

[00:25:42]>> Paragraph you're referring to?

[00:25:44]>> Let me think. I >> [clears throat] >> Could you read us correct the last statement?

[00:25:53]>> Can you read that read that paragraph?

[00:25:55]>> Sure. On January 19th, 2021, Monica closed on the Turbo Creek condominium that I purchased for her. The Turbo Creek condominium is deeded to Monica Labayou, not to Monica Vescovo, even though the purchase occurred over 3 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.

[00:26:14]>> So, in paragraph 18, you're saying you didn't know that on January 19th, 2021?

[00:26:18]>> Yes.

[00:26:19]>> And in paragraph 20, you said you knew a month after it happened, right?

[00:26:23]>> Well, that's what it says, but that was a mistake. I thought it was a year after.

[00:26:27]>> And you declared this under penalty of perjury, correct?

[00:26:30]>> Yeah, but I made a mistake.

[00:26:32]>> And your counsel submitted this to the court, correct?

[00:26:35]>> Yes.

[00:26:36]>> Did you review this before you signed it?

[00:26:38]>> Objection, your honor. Relevant.

[00:26:40]>> It's relevant to the statute of limitations and his credibility. He's got a declaration inconsistent within itself. And his counsel submitted that to the court. Now, they want us to believe that he didn't see his mail for 7 months.

[00:26:52]>> Your honor, he's already said that it was a mistake. He's asked and asked and answered at this point.

[00:26:56]>> Sustain as to ask and answer.

[00:27:04]>> How um How often do you check your mail?

[00:27:10]Uh it's a non-locked mailbox at my property. I traveled 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.

[00:27:24]Sometimes Monica would >> Did anybody else retrieve it for you sometimes?

[00:27:28]>> 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.

[00:27:37]>> Yeah, during 2021 >> I think so.

[00:27:42]>> Who would get the mail when you traveled together?

[00:27:43]>> Uh the pet sitters.

[00:27:46]>> Um And so Is your position that you never saw anything that was addressed to Monica Vescovo between October 2020 and June 2021?

[00:28:00]>> 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.

[00:28:08]>> Take a look at page um seven. I mean, sorry, exhibit seven.

[00:28:13]For respondent.

[00:28:14]>> Yes. Um what What is this?

[00:28:17]>> I don't know.

[00:28:18]>> What?

[00:28:19]I'm asking you.

[00:28:21]You can take a look.

[00:28:24]>> I set up an email account for Monica under vescovorealty.com.

[00:28:29]>> And what is her at her email address at vescovorealty.com?

[00:28:33]>> Well, this is September 2021. I knew that she had changed her last name to mine at that point. So it's [email protected].

[00:28:41]>> You accurately listed her using vescovo in her email address, correct?

[00:28:45]>> Reluctantly, but we were still friends.

[00:28:47]I was trying to help her.

[00:28:50]My father was well known in real estate circles in Dallas, so I thought I could help her.

[00:28:54]>> And did you help her obtain any domain names?

[00:28:57]>> Yes, I was trying to help her start her new career, so she could move on with her life.

[00:29:01]>> And what domain names were those?

[00:29:03]>> Uh Vescovo Realty.

[00:29:05]>> [clears throat] >> So you let her use the Vescovo 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, right?

[00:29:14]>> Yes, she People could have thought she was my cousin or some other relation. I have other cousins named Vescovo, and I thought I could help her at the margins, so I agreed. I didn't know she was um >> So why do you think it's appropriate now to come forward and half years later and say, "Oh, I changed my mind"?

[00:29:31]>> Because now I realize she did it so she could sue me for divorce.

[00:29:36]>> And she filed it 2 and 1/2 years in advance?

[00:29:39]>> Oh, yes.

[00:29:45]>> Okay.

[00:29:46]Anything else, counsel?

[00:29:47]>> No, Your Honor. Thank you.

[00:29:49]>> All right.

[00:29:50]Sir, you may return to your seat.

[00:29:53]All right, you may call your next witness.

[00:29:55]>> I have no further witnesses, Your Honor.

[00:29:57]I rest.

[00:29:57]>> Okay.

[00:29:59]Um He He Attinty?

[00:30:03]>> Attinty.

[00:30:04]>> Okay. Um you may call your first witness.

[00:30:08]>> Um We don't have anything else we need to say.

[00:30:12]>> Okay.

[00:30:14]Thank you. Um the court is going to deny the bill of review.

[00:30:20]Do you have a proposed order?

[00:30:22]>> Um I'll I'll submit it. I'm sorry, I ran out of the house without it.

[00:30:26]>> If not, I can do a proposed I mean, I can do an order and submit it to you all. My coordinator will email it.

[00:30:33]>> Thank you.

[00:30:34]>> Thank you. You all may be excused.

[00:30:35]>> Thank you, Your Honor.