Kane County Circuit Court THOMAS M.

HARTWELL ACCEPTED: 10/9/2018 1:53 PM By: LB Env #2476491

1N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,KANE COUNTY,ILLINOIS

WILLIAM F. SCHMID,

Plaintiff,
v. No. 15 L 395

ROBERT J. KRUPP,THE LAW OFFICES

OF ROBERT J. KRUPP,P.C.,
WILLIAM A. FEDA and McNAMEE & 10/9/2018 11:25 AM
MAHONEY,LTD.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS'RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

PART 1 OF 2

Jeffrey H. Lipe — ARDC# 6185734

Jordan M. Tank — ARDC# 6304122
LIPE LYONS MURPHY NAHRSTADT & PONTIKIS LTD.
Attorneys for Defendants
230 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2260
Chicago, IL 60606
312-448-6230

{00268084}
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, KANE COUNTY,ILLINOIS

WILLIAM F. SCHMID,

Plaintiff,

►i~ No. 15 L 395

WILLIAM A. FEDA and McNAMEE &

MAHONEY, LTD.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Defendants William A. Feda ("Feda") and McNamee &Mahoney, Ltd. (collectively

"Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd.,

state the following for their Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider:

I. INTRODUCTION

This Court correctly granted Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims.

Defendants' Motion established there is no question of fact that: (1) the judgmental immunity

doctrine absolved them of liability for their alleged failure to hire experts to opine about Karla

Schmid's medical conditions and William Schmid's ability to find employment; and (2) Bill

Feda properly prepared for trial and presented Judge Pilmer with all of the evidence and

arguments he needed to make the correct decision.

Plaintiff's unorganized motion to reconsider makes the same incorrect legal arguments he

made in response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. He erroneously claims that

judgmental immunity and proximate cause must be decided by a jury because they always

involve questions of fact. This Court correctly found otherwise. Additionally, Plaintiff does not

cite any evidence that creates a question of fact as to judgmental immunity or proximate cause —

( 00268074}
his motion does not even have exhibits attached.

Plaintiff claims he could have created a question of fact if this Court had let him retain an

expert before deciding Defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, Plaintiff had three

years to conduct discovery, and never asked for leave to disclose an expert before responding to

Defendants' motion. Even now, Plaintiff still has not identified any expert who would provide

the opinions he needs, even though he claimed during the hearing on Defendants' motion that he

already had such an expert. Assuming Plaintiff has found an expert to support his case, he should

have disclosed the expert before he responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration should be denied.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court's attention newly

discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing, changes in existing

law, or errors in the court's application of the law. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL

1 14271, 9[ 36. The movant cannot attach new evidence to a motion to reconsider summary

judgment "in the absence of a reasonable explanation of why it was not available at the time of

the original hearing." Delgatto v. Brandon Assocs., Ltd., 131 Ill. 2d 183, 195 (1989). "Trial

courts should not permit litigants to stand mute, lose a motion, and then frantically gather

evidentiary material to show that the court erred in its ruling." Gardner v. Navistar bz"l Transp.

Corp., 213 Ill. App. 3d 242, 248 (4th Dist. 1991).

{00268074} 2
 III. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Response, and Defendants'

Reply

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of the

Motion

Defendants' motion for summary judgment with exhibits is attached as Exhibit 1, and

reply brief is attached as Exhibit 2. Defendants' motion cited expert testimony from Bill Feda

and Michael Doyen —both family law attorneys with decades of experience who have each tried

over 50 dissolution proceedings —that Defendants' representation of Schmid met the standard of

care.(Ex. 1 at 3, 4, 6-8).

Defendants' Motion first argued that Feda's decision not to retain employment and

medical experts was protected by the judgmental immunity doctrine. (Ex. 1 at 11). Plaintiff's

legal malpractice case against Defendants has focused on Defendants' alleged failure to properly

argue during the divorce proceedings that he could not support his wife, Karla, after the divorce

because he could not find a job, but Karla could support herself and was lying about her medical

conditions. (Ex. 1 at 11-12). Specifically, Schmid argued that Defendants should have hired

experts to opine that: (1) Schmid could not find work because the economy was bad; and (2)

Karla could have supported herself after the divorce because she did not have the medical

conditions she testified about.(Ex. L at 12).

Defendants argued that Feda properly determined that Schmid did not need an

employment expert. (Ex. 1 at 12). Defendants further pointed out that Schmid never raised the

issue during his divorce proceedings.(Ex. 1 at 12). Feda's opposing counsel, Doyen, agreed with

Feda's decision not to present testimony from an employment expert. (Ex. 1 at 12). As for the

medical expert, Feda was concerned that any expert he retained may have helped Karla by

(00268074} 3
finding that she was totally disabled and unable to work.(Ex. 1 at 12). Doyen again agreed with

Feda's decision.(Ex. 1 at 7-8). Defendants also argued that Plaintiff has failed to establish in this

case that Feda's decision not to hire the experts was a proximate cause of his alleged damages.

(Ex. 1 at 13-14).

Finally, Defendants argued there was no question of fact that they:(1) properly prepared

for trial; (2) prepared and provided Judge Pilmer with proposed findings of fact and a proposed

judgment;(3) prepared the necessary motion for reconsideration; and (4) diligently pursued the

appeal (Ex. 1 at 14-15).

2. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff's Response is attached as Exhibit 3. Plaintiff did not cite any expert testimony to

rebut the opinions of Doyen and Feda that Defendants' representation of him met the standard of

care. (See Ex. 3). Plaintiff argued that there was a question of fact as to judgmental immunity.

(Ex. 3 at 5-6). However, Plaintiff did not ask this Court for leave to retain an expert who could

give opinions that rebutted Defendants' argument that their conduct was protected by judgmental

immunity. (See Ex. 3). Rather, Plaintiff broadly claimed that whether judgmental immunity

applies is a question of fact that cannot be decided as a matter of law.(Ex. 3 at 6).

Plaintiff also claimed that the allegations in his complaint created a question of fact as to

whether Defendant's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of his damages. (Ex. 2 at 7-8).

He argued that proximate cause is always a question of fact.(Ex. 3 at 8, 13). He asked for leave

to file an amended complaint if this Court found that he had not pled enough facts to establish

proximate cause.(Ex. 3 at 9).

FinaIly, Plaintiff dismissed in a single sentence Defendants' arguments that there is no

question of fact that they:(1) properly prepared for trial;(2) prepared and provided Judge Pilmer

{00268074) 4
with proposed findings of fact and a proposed judgment;(3) prepared the necessary motion for

reconsideration; and (4) diligently pursued the appeal.(Ex. 3 at 13).

B. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

This Court granted Defendants' motion on July 12, 2018, after reading the briefs and

hearing argument. This Court found no evidence to support Plaintiff's allegations that

Defendants failed to: (1) prepare proposed findings of facts for the trial court;(2) provide Judge

Pilmer with a proposed judgment;(3) properly research maintenance awards and present Judge

Pilmer with the facts and arguments he needed to reach the right decision;(4) properly prepare

the necessary motion for reconsideration; and (5) diligently pursue the appeal. (Hearing Tr.,

attached as Ex. 4, at 22-23).

As for Defendants' argument that their decision not to hire experts is protected by the

judgmental immunity doctrine, this Court found that the doctrine applies, and that Plaintiff had

not presented any expert testimony to support his position that it does not apply.(Ex. 4 at 23-24).

This Court noted that Plaintiff did not mention needing more time to obtain expert testimony on

the issue until the hearing, and explained that Rule 191(b) should have been invoked sooner.(Ex.

4 at 25, 27). This Court also found that Plaintiff had not established that Defendants' alleged

negligence was a proximate cause of his damages, and questioned whether he would be able to

establish proximate cause even with expert testimony.(Ex.4 at 26).

~►~ ~ 'lid► -i-~l~Y 11

Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider makes two primary arguments: (1) judgmental immunity

and proximate cause are always questions of fact; and (2) this Court should have given him more

time to retain an expert.

Whether judgmental immunity applies is not always "a factual question." (Mtn. at 2). As

{ 00268074) 5
the First District explained in Nelson v. Quarles and Brady, LLP,"an attorney will generally be

immune from liability, as a matter of law, for acts or omissions during the conduct of litigation,

which are the result of an honest exercise of professional judgment." 2013 IL App (1st) 123122,

9[ 31. Here, this Court considered the expert opinions given by Feda and Doyen that Defendants'

conduct did not breach the standard of care, and Plaintiff did not offer any expert testimony to

the contrary. Thus, all of the evidence in the record, including expert opinions, supports

Defendants' argument that their decision not to present expert testimony during the dissolution

proceeding is protected by the judgmental immunity doctrine.

Plaintiff complains that this Court did not give him time to retain an expert before he

responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.l (Mtn. at 3). However, Plaintiff had

three years to conduct fact and expert discovery. This Court repeatedly gave Plaintiff more time

to finish discovery because his attorneys kept cancelling discovery depositions. After fact

discovery was over, this Court set a schedule for Defendants to file a motion for summary

judgment, and Plaintiff did not object to the order. (4/20/18 Order, attached as Ex. 5). And, as

this Court noted during the hearing on Defendants' motion, Plaintiff never asked for leave to

retain an expert before responding to the motion. (Ex. 4 at 25, 27). It is simply incredible that

Plaintiff is now blaming this Court for allegedly not giving him enough time to obtain the

discovery he needed to respond to Defendants' motion.

"Trial courts should not permit litigants to stand mute, lose a motion, and then frantically

gather evidentiary material to show that the court erred in its ruling." Gardner v. Navistar In "l

Transp. Corp., 213 Ill. App. 3d 242, 248 (4th Dist. 1991). A trial court should not allow a party

I Plaintiff also claims that Defendants' motion for summary judgment did not argue that he did
not have expert testimony to support his claims. (Mtn. at 4). This is unequivocally false;
Defendants made this argument numerous times in their reply brief, including in the brief's first
sentence.(See Ex. 2 at 1-5).

{00268074} 6
to attach new evidence to a motion to reconsider summary judgment "in the absence of a

reasonable explanation of why it was not available at the time of the original hearing." Delgatto

v. Brandon Assocs., Ltd., 131 Ill. 2d 183, 195 (1989). Accordingly, this Court did not err in its

application of existing law when it denied Plaintiff's 11th hour request to retain an expert.

Gardner, 213 Ill. App. 3d at 248 ("the trial court would have been justified in disregarding the

contents of that [expert] affidavit solely because all of that material had been available prior to

the hearing on the motion for summary judgment"); Horlacher v. Cohen, 2017 IL App (1st)

162712, y[y[ 81-86; Delgatto v. Brandon Assocs., Ltd., 131 Il1. 2d 183, 195 (1989); Artis v. Fibre

Metal Products 115 Ill. App. 3d 228, 231-32(1st Dist. 1983).

Plaintiff relies on Williams v Covenant Medical Center, 316 Ill. App. 3d 6$2 (4th Dist.

2000), in support of his argument that he should have been granted leave to obtain an expert. In

Williams, the Fourth District found the trial court erred in not considering an expert affidavit

attached to the plaintiff's motion to reconsider summary judgment, but that was because the

defendant's motion for summary judgment was premature. 316 I11. App. 3d 682, 694 (4th Dist.

2000). The parties had not completed fact discovery when the defendant filed the motion due to

the defendant's failure to produce all occurrence witnesses for their depositions. Id. Thus, the

plaintiff had a reasonable explanation for not attaching expert affidavits to their response to the

defendants' dispositive motion — he did not want the defendant to have the tactical advantage of

knowing what his expert would say before fact discovery was completed.

In this case, Plaintiff has no such explanation. Fact discovery was closed when

Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff did not ask for leave to disclose his

expert before responding to Defendants' motion. He therefore has no reasonable explanation for

why the expert testimony he claims he has was not available before he responded to Defendants'

{00268074} 7
 motion.

Plaintiff also claims, without citation to any authority, that it was not proper for this

Court to rely on Rule 213(fl(2) independent expert opinions when deciding Defendants' motion.

(Mtn. at 3). Defendants could not find any case law holding that independent expert opinions

should not be considered when deciding summary judgment. In fact, the Illinois Pattern Jury

Instructions on opinion testimony, Il'I 3.08 and 105.01, both discuss it without distinguishing

between independent and retained experts. See I.P.I. 3.08, 105.01. The professional negligence

instruction, 105.01, states that the trier of fact "must rely upon opinion testimony from qualified

witnesses," but does not say that a witness is qualified only if one party has paid them a large

sum of money. Indeed, federal courts have repeatedly noted for over 100 years that retained

experts —not independent experts —have credibility problems. Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. W.

Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370, 382 (7th Cir. 1986) ("It is thus one more illustration of the old

problem of expert witnesses who are `often the mere paid advocates or partisans of those who

employ and pay them, as much so as the attorneys who conduct the suit. There is hardly

anything, not palpably absurd on its face, that cannot now be proved by some so-called

"experts.""'(citing Keegan v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R., 76 Minn. 90, 95 (1899)); see Albers

v. Church ofNazarene, 698 F.2d 852, 858 (7th Cir.1983); Deltak, Inc. v. Advanced Systems, Inc.,

574 F.Supp. 400, 405 (N.D.Il1.1983), vacated on other grounds, 767 F.2d 357 (7th Cir.1985); L.

Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 Harv.L.Rev. 40,

53(1901).

Finally, Plaintiff argues that "[t]he resolution of a proximate cause issue is clearly a

factual question."(Mtn. at 2). Contrary to Plaintiff's claim, the Illinois Supreme Court has made

it clear that proximate cause can be decided as a matter of law. City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A.

{00268074} $
 Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351, 395 (2004)("proximate cause may be determined by the court as a matter

of law"). Plaintiff states that "there were multiple factual questions in existence," but he does not

explain what factual issues he is referring to, or attach any exhibits to his motion showing that

the issues in this case have conflicting facts. He claims that it was appropriate for him to rely on

the allegations in his Complaint to create a question of fact as to proximate cause, but that is not

appropriate when the motion for summary judgment cites 21 exhibits like Defendants' motion

for summary judgment in this case. Fitzpatrick v. Human Rights Comm'n, 267 Ill. App. 3d 386,

391 (4th 1994) ("[i]f the party supplies sworn facts which warrant judgment in its favor as a

matter of law, the opponent, in this case Fitzpatrick, may not rest on her pleadings to create a

genuine issue of fact.") Plaintiff has failed to show how this Court erred in granting Defendants

summary judgment. Consequently, his Motion to Reconsider should be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE Defendants William A. Feda and McNamee &Mahoney, Ltd. ask this

Court for an order that denies Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and grants any other relief this

Court deems reasonable and just.

Respectfully Submitted,

LIFE LYONS MIdRPHY NAHRSTADT & PONTIKIS LTD.

attorney for Defendants William A. Feda and

f~amee &Mahoney, Ltd.
Jeffrey H. Lipe
jhl@lipelyons.com
Jordan M.Tank
jmt@li~elyons.com
Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd.
230 West Monroe Street, Suite 2260
Chicago, IL 60606
(312)448-6230
Firm No. 49614

{00268074} 9
 Kane County Circuit Court THOMAS M. HARTWELL ACCEPTED: 5/17/2018 9:10 AM By: NS Env #1070276

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,KANE COUNTY,ILLINOIS

WILLIAM F. SCHMID,

Plaintiff,
v. No. 15 L 395 ~1~~• . ~f~~a~ ~:;~rc~i~ ~ca~~
~.~n~ ~~~a.r~~v, ll~~~
WILLIAM A. FEDA,and McNAMEE &
MAHONEY,LTD., 5/16/2018 3:08 PM

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS FEDA AND McNAMEE & MAHONEY'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4R SUMMA.RY DETERMINATIONS

Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(b) and (d), Defendants William A. Feda ("Feda") and

McNamee &Mahoney, Ltd. (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Lipe

Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd., move this Court for summary judgment or summary

determination on ~'laintiff Bill Schrnid's ("Plaintiff

' or "Schmid") claims. In support of their

Motion, Defendants state the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a legal malpractice lawsuit that arises out of a dissolution of marriage proceeding.

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, who represented him at the time of trial, because he

believes he was ordered to pay too much in maintenance and give up too much of the marital

assets. Under Illinois law, the trial judge (Judge Pilmer) had the discretion to decide how to

divide the marital debts and assets, and how much maintenance Plaintiff had to pay his ex-wife.

750 ILCS 5/503 and 5/504; hz re Marriage of Bf•ill, 2017 1L App (2d) 160604, 9[9[ 26, 56 ("the

amount of a maintenance award lies within the sound discretion of the trial court" and

"[d]ecisions concerning the distribution of marital property lie within the sound discretion of the

trial court"). Thus, in order for Plaintiff to prevail on his malpractice claim against Defendants,

{00244646} ~~~~~~~~~~~~'~ ~
~ ~~~~~I~
p

~~ ~:
 he has to prove that: (1) Judge Pilmer's decision was wrong;(2) Defendants were negligent; and

(3) if Defendants had not been negligent, Judge Pilmer would not have made the wrong decision.

Plaintiff cannot create a question of fact as to any of these conditions precedent to proving his

case against Defendants.

Plaintiff hired Feda to represent him just one week before the trial was scheduled to

begin. Three other attorneys had withdrawn their appearances for Plaintiff within the prior 18

months. During the six-day trial, Feda and the attorney for Schmid's ex-wife presented evidence

on all of the issues raised during the proceedings. After hearing the evidence, Judge Pilmer

entered the judgment that Plaintiff now alleges was a result of Defendants' negligence. The

judgment that Schmid now complains of fell within the parameters outlined by the Illinois

Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act,750 II,CS 5/101 et seq. ("Act").

Plaintiff's primary complaint in this lawsuit is that Defendants negligently failed to retain

experts to opine that: (1) he could not find a job in the coal industry because President Barack

Obama ruined the economy; and (2) Plaintiff's ex-wife was faking her medical conditions.

Plaintiff has also alleged that Feda did not provide Judge Pilmer with proposed findings of fact

and a proposed judgment to review before he decided the case, as well as certain other minor

issues, but discovery has shown that these allegations are simply untrue.

Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proving that Defendants were negligent, let alone

proving that Defendants' alleged negligence caused the trial judge to decide the case incorrectly,

especially since the judgement fell within the parameters of the Act. This Court should grant

Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim. Or, in the alternative, this Court should grant

Defendants a summary determination on the individual issues for which there is no question of

fact that Defendants did nothing wrong.

[00244646} 2
 II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

The relevant evidence comes from Plaintiff's deposition testimony in this case (Exs. A

and B); Feda's testimony (Ex. C); the testimony of Feda's opposing counsel, Michael Doyen

(Ex. D); the testimony of Schmid's appellate attorney, Co-Defendant Robert Krupp (Ex. E);

summaries prepared by Plaintiff of the testimony and his conversations with Feda (Exs. F-J); and

various documents filed with the trial court. There are no transcripts of the trial proceedings.

A. Relevant Background.

After 28 years of marriage, Plaintiff's ex-wife, Karla Schmid, petitioned the Circuit Court

of Kane County for divorce on October Z0, 2009.(Ex. A at 19). Schmid did not retain Feda until

January 12, 2012. (Retainer agreement, attached as Ex. K). Between the petition's filing and

Feda's appearance, Plaintiff was represented by three other attorneys.(Ex. A at 30-32).

Feda has handled 300-400 divorce cases over the course of his 43-year career. (Ex. C at

4-5, 9). He has probably tried at least 60 divorce cases.(Ex. C at 9). Doyen has practiced law for

32 years. (Ex. D at 5). He has handled over 600 divorce cases, and has also tried about 50 or 60

of them.(Ex. D at 7-8).

When Feda appeared for Schmid the trial was scheduled to begin on January 18, 2012,

but he got it continued to February 7, 2012.(Ex. A at 32-33). The trial proceedings occurred on

six days over the course of nine months, with the attorneys giving closing arguments on October

3, 2012.(Ex. A at 109). Plaintiff, Feda, and Doyen all testified that Feda presented evidence on

every issue in the case, and challenged all of the evidence presented by Karla.(Ex. A at 78-135;

Ex. C at 73-74; Ex. D at 42-44). This is further established by Plaintiff's own summaries of the

trial proceedings.(See Exs. F-J). Doyen even complained in his deposition that the trial "dragged

on" because of all the evidence Feda presented.(Ex. D at 42-43).

{00244646} 3
 Judge Pilmer issued his judgment on November 15, 2012.(Judgment, attached as Ex. L).

The judgment ordered Plaintiff to pay Karla maintenance in the amount of $1,500 per month or

40% of his gross income from employment, whichever was greater. (Ex. L at 6-7, 9[ B). The

judgment also ordered the assets and debts to be divided so that Schmid and Karla each received

about half.(See Ex. L; Ex. D at 89). Doyen testified that was "in that range you would expect for

a marriage this long."(Ex. D at 93). Doyen opined to a reasonable degree of certainty that Feda's

representation of Schmid during the proceedings complied with the standard of care. (Ex. D at

68).

A. Feda's trial preparation.

Feda testified that he was fully prepared to try the case. (Ex. C at 10). Despite the short

period of time between his appearance and the trial, he had time to acclimate himself to the file.

(Ex. C at 10). Feda met with Schmid to prepare him for his testimony and to go over documents.

(Ex. C at 12-13). Feda also told Schmid to gather documents that supported the arguments he

wanted to make.(Ex. C at 15-16, 20).

B. Schmid and Karla's ability to obtain employment.

Schmid testified that he was his family's primary breadwinner during his 28-year

marriage to Karla. (Ex. A at 24). He provided his wife and two daughters with a place to live,

food to eat, and the money required to buy anything they needed.(Ex. A at 24).

Schmid has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Michigan Technological

University and has spent his career working in the coal-fired power industry.(Ex. A at 9-19). He

has worked as a project coordinator, construction coordinator, and construction manager.(Ex. A

at 12-19). He works on aproject-by-project basis, so his job naturally resulted in periods of

unemployment. (Ex. A at 9-19; Ex. C at 18; Ex. D at 34-35). When Schmid was working full-

{00244646} 4
 time on a project he made well over $200,000 per year.(Ex. D at 34-35).

Aside from two years of unemployment from June 2002 to August 2004, the only time

Schmid was unemployed for a significant period of time was during the divorce proceedings.

(Ex. A at 14-19). When Karla filed for divorce in October 2009, Schmid was working for

Dynegy.(Ex. A at 17-18). He continued to work for Dynegy until Ma~•ch 2010.(Ex. A at 18). He

started his next job as a technical recruiter for Randstad in November 2010, and worked there

until approximately May 2011.(Ex. A at 18). His next full time job was with Wood Group from

March 2015 to May 2015.(Ex. A at 18-19). He then worked for Exelon from May 2015 to June

2015.(Ex. A at 19). Following Exelon, he worked for Morris-Shea Bridge from August 2015 to

February 2017.(Ex. A at 19).

Feda testified that Plaintiff's regular employment before and after the divorce

proceedings, but sudden inability to find a job during the divorce proceedings, was both

suspicious and common for individuals like Schmid:

Well, in cases such as Mr. Schznid's, it's not uncommon for whoever was the
breadwinner in a marriage to sometimes suspiciously be unemployed at the time
of trial and miraculously after they're divorced they find employment again.

(Ex. C at 17). Schmid even told Karla he would engage in such tactics during their marriage.

During the divorce proceedings, Karla testified that Schmid told her that "if she ever dared to

divorce him he wouldn't work and [he] wouldn't give her anything." (Ex. A at 104}. Judge

Pilmer specifically found this statement credible, especially in light of Schmid's admission

during the same proceeding that he "might have made a statement to that effect one time in a fit

of rage."(Ex. L at 6, yj 14; Ex. A at 104). Judge Pilmer further found that Schmid's attempts to

secure full-time employment during the previous year were "half-hearted," and that Schmid was

able to earn substantial income from future employment.(Ex. L at 6,9[q[ 12, 14).

(00244646} 5
 During the dissolution trial, Schmid testified that he could not find a job because he had

to "devote substantial time to preparing documents for his divorce case." {Ex. L at 6, 9[ 14). But

now,in this case, Schmid has changed his theory and is claiming that Feda should have retained

an expert to opine that his unemployment "was due to working in that field and the economic

conditions that were in the country at the time and especially President Obama and Al Gore's

war on the coal industry and the effect that it had on coal-fired power generation plant

construction." (Ex. A at 128). Feda, on the other hand, did not think it was important to have an

expert testify on that issue. (Ex. C at 19). He also does not recall it ever coming up in his

discussions with Schmid, who never mentioned that he wanted an employment expert.(Ex. C at

18-19). Schmid also does not recall asking Feda to retain an employment expert.(Ex. A at 133-

34}. Doyen said it would have been suicide to offer the expert opinion Schmid wanted.(Ex. D at

66). Even Schmid admitted during his deposition in this case that he does not know if offering

such testimony would have been a good thing.(Ex. A at 129).

Karla did not have a college degree. (Ex. A at 20). During the last 15 years of her

marriage to Schmid she worked outside the home a total of six weeks, in 2004, making $15 per

hour. (Ex. A at 23-24). When Karla filed for divorce she created and signed an affidavit that

outlined her average monthly expenses: $3,522. (Aff. of Expenses, attached as Ex. M; Ex. D at

25).

C. Karla's medical conditions.

During the dissolution proceedings, it was Karla's position that Schmid had to pay her

maintenance because he was the family's primary breadwinner and she did not work outside the

home. (Ex. D at 20-23). Schmid, however, was "adamant that he didn't think he had to pay any

spousal support."(Ex. C at 14). Schmid took the position that unless Karla could prove she was

{00244646} 6
 disabled, she had an obligation to seek employment, and if she did not, income should be

imputed to her. (Ex. D at 22). Doyen testified that, even if Ka~•la had applied for disability,

because of her limited work history she would have qualified only for supplemental security

income, and that would have been reduced to zero because of Schmid's ability to pay her

maintenance.(Ex. D at 23).

Because Schmid raised Karla's medical conditions, Doyen presented evidence on the

issue at trial. (Ex. D at 24). Karla testified that she had Crohn's disease, Sweet's Syndrome,

kidney stones, cysts, ulcerated skin lesions, eye and dental problems, and depression. (Ex. A at

24-28; Ex. D at 17-19; Ex. C at 20-21; Ex. G at 2). Karla did not have a medical expert testify

about her medical conditions at trial. (Ex. C at 2I). Feda objected to Karla's testimony because

she was not qualified to opine about her medical conditions, but Judge Pilmer overruled Feda's

objection. (Ex. C at 21-22). Feda therefore cross-examined Karla about her medical conditions.

(Ex. G at 4).

Even though Schmid wanted to challenge Karla about her medical conditions, he testified

that he knew Karla was going to several doctors before she filed for divorce, and has no reason

to believe that she did not have the medical conditions she testified about. (Ex. A at 27-28).

Schmid further admitted that he does not know if any medical doctor world say that Karla does

not have the medical conditions she testified about.(Ex. A at 131).

Feda testified that retaining a medical doctor to offer opinions about Karla was a bad idea

because Karla did not disclose a medical doctor as a witness and Feda was concerned that any

doctor he retained might conclude that Karla was totally disabled and unable to work.(Ex. C at

23). Doyen went further and testified that he believes the judgment against Schmid would have

been even worse if Feda had offered opinions from a medical expert "because [Schmid] would

{00244646} 7
 have been punished."(Ex. D at 65-66).

In this case, Plaintiff has not conducted any discovery to determine the nature or extent of

any medical conditions Karla may have had at the time of the divorce proceedings. Aside from

Karla's testimony during the divorce proceedings, there is no evidence in the record about her

medical conditions.

D. Karla's dissipation claim.

Judge Pilmer found that Schmid dissipated $20,900.(Ex. L at 5, 9[ 10(c)). In short, Karla

claimed that Schmid wrongfully used assets accumulated during the marriage on things not

related to the marriage. (Ex. C at 20). Feda testified, and Schmid admitted, that before the

hearing Feda told him that he needed to account for every penny he spent.(Ex. C at 20; Ex. A at

36). When Feda was asked if Schmid did account for every penny he said "not really."(Ex. C at

20).

Doyen testified that he used Schmid's own documents to prove that Schmid dissipated

$20,900. (Ex. D at 34-36). Doyen explained that Schmid's job as an engineer resulted in him

living on worksites for long periods of time, so he received aper-diem to cover his living

expenses.(Ex. D at 34). But instead of using the per-diem for his living expenses, Plaintiff drove

an RV to the worksites and lived in it, which allowed him to save a large portion of the per diem.

(Ex. D at 34-35). According to Doyen, Schmid then:

started doing things that made it even more complicated to trace [his spending]
because he would take out large cash advances on credit cards and move -- and
what we eventually figured out is he was trying to chase, you know, zero percent
for 12 month type cards or whatever so he was always moving money on the
credit cards and then he would make large payments on credit cards and we would
have a hard time discovering exactly how much he was getting per diem because
it didn't always show up as the full amount on his paycheck stubs...

(Ex. D at 35). Schmid tried to account for his spending by creating spreadsheets. (Ex. D at 35).

{00244646) $
 But as Feda and Doyen testified, the spreadsheets did not actually account for all of Schmid's

spending.(Ex. C at 20; Ex. D at 35). Doyen testified that he used Schmid's own spreadsheets to

prove that Schmid had dissipated $20,900.(Ex. D at 35-36).

E. Schmid's gold coins.

Schmid believes Karla stole his gold coins. (Ex. B at 29). During the trial, Schmid

testified that Karla had his gold coins, while Karla testified that she did not have them.(Ex. B at

22-23; Ex. D at 49). Feda addressed the gold coins in his proposed judgment, but Judge Pilmer's

judgment did not mention them.(Compare Proposed J., attached as Exs. N and O,at 7, 9C 10, with

Ex. L).

F. Feda's proposed judgment, motion to reconsider, and withdrawal as Schmid's

attorney.

After each side's case-in-chief concluded, Judge Pilmer ordered the parties to submit

proposed judgments before he rendered his decision. (Ex. D at 52-53}. Submitting proposed

judgments is not a standard court procedure, but it is one that Judge Pilmer asked the attorneys to

follow.(Ex. D at 52-53). The proposed judgments did not have to be filed with the court.(Ex. D

at 54).

Feda's assistant emailed a copy of his proposed judgment to Judge Pilmer twice: once as

a PDF and once as a Word document. (See Exs. N and O). Both Feda and Doyen testified that

Feda submitted his proposed judgment to Judge Pilmer.(Ex. C at 72; Ex. D at 54). The proposed

judgment also contained proposed findings of fact. (See Exs. N and O). Additionally, Schmid

testified that Feda "essentially" read his written proposed judgment during closing arguments.

(Ex. A at 110).

Schmid was unhappy with Judge Pilmer's ruling so Feda moved for reconsideration.(Ex.

C at 74). Feda's motion to reconsider re-made all of the arguments that he made during closing

{00244646} 9
 arguments.(Ex. C at 74-75; see Mtn. to Reconsider, attached as Ex. P). The motion was granted

in part; Judge Pilmer modified the judgment to allow Schmid to petition the court at a later date

for a reduced maintenance obligation. (1/24113 Order, attached as Ex. Q). Feria then timely filed

a notice of appeal at Schmid's request.(Ex. A at 114; Notice of Appeal, attached as Ex. R). The

notice of appeal identified all of the errors that Schmid wanted assigned.(Ex. A at 114-15).

Schmid retained Co-Defendant Robert Krupp to prosecute the appeal and, after Krupp

filed his appearance with the appellate court, Feria then withdrew as Plaintiff's attorney. (Ex. A

at 36-37; 6/14/13 Order, attached as Ex. S). The appeal was ultimately dismissed for want of

prosecution because Krupp and Schmid agreed to seek further relief from the trial court instead

of the appellate court.(Ex. E at 20-21, 28-29).

III. PLEADINGS

Plaintiff alleges that Feria was negligent and McNamee &Mahoney is vicariously liable

for his negligence. (See Compl., attached as Ex. T, at 1-9). Plaintiff alleges that Feria was

negligent because he:

1. Failed to properly prepare for trial;

2. Failed to conduct the necessary discovery in order to ascertain the extent of Karla's
medical condition and ability to work;

3. Failed to present the necessary evidence to demonstrate that Schmid was making a
conscious effort to obtain work but was unable to do so because of his age and
economic conditions;

4. Failed to prepare proposed findings of fact for the trial court;

5. Failed to prepare and provide Judge Pilmer with a proposed judgment;

6. Failed to properly research maintenance awards and present Judge Pilmer with the
facts and arguments he needed to reach the right decision;

7. Failed to properly prepare the necessary motion for reconsideration; and

{00244646) 10
 8. Failed to diligently pursue the appeal that he had been hired to do.

(Ex. T at 7-8). Defendants filed an answer that denied all allegations of negligence. (,See Answer,

attached as Ex. U).

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment.

"Summary judgment is appropriate where `the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on

file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."' Robidoux v. Oliphaiat,

201 Il1.2d 324, 335 (2002), citing 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c). Summary judgment for a defendant is

appropriate where a plaintiff fails to establish an element of the cause of action against the

defendant. Pytze v. Wit»aer, 129 Il1.2d 351, 358 (1989). Summary judgment is an important tool

in the administration of justice and should be encouraged. Wooding v. L&J Press Corp., 99 III.

App. 3d 382, 385 (lst Dist. 1981).

B. Essential Elements of a Legal Malpractice Action.

To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, Plaintiff must plead and prove that: (1) an

attorney-client relationship existed; (2) the defendant attorney owed the client a duty of care

which arose from that relationship; (3) the defendant attorney breached that duty; and (4) as a

praxirnate result of the breach, the client suffered actual injury. Northern Illi~aois Emergency

physicians v. Lar2dau, Ornaha~ia & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill.2d 294, 306(2005).

. ARGUMENT

A. Defendants cannot be liable because Feda did not retain employment and medical
experts.

1. Feda's decision not to retain the experts is protected by the judgmental

immunity doctrine.
The primary focus of Plaintiff's case is that Feda should have done a better job of arguing

{oa2a45a6) 1i
 to Judge Pilmer that he could not support Karla after the divorce because he could not find a job,

but Karla could support herself and was lying about her medical conditions. Schmid alleges

Defendants should have hired experts to opine that: (X) Schmid could not find work because the

economy was bad; and (2) Karla could have supported herself after the divorce because she did

not have the medical conditions she testified about.

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because Feda made a tactical

decision not to hire the experts, and his decision is protected by the doctrine of judgmental

immunity. "[A]ttorneys do not breach their duty to clients, as a matter of law, when they make

informed, good-faith tactical decisions." Nelso~a v. Quarles aiad Brady, LLP, 2013 IL App (1st)

123122, ~[ 31 (citing J. Mark Cooney, Benchi~zg the Mo~zday—Moriaing Quarterback: The

"Attorney Judgf~zent" Defense to Legal—Malpractice Claifns, 52 Wayne L.Rev. 1051, 1052

(2006)). In other words, attorneys are not professionally liable for mere errors of judgment.

Smiley v. Manchester•Insurance & hzdem~zity Co., 71 Il1.2d 306, 313 (1978).

The evidence in this case shows that Feda's decision not to hire experts is at most a

"mere error of judgment." Id. First, regarding the employment expert, Feda testified that he did

not think it was important to have an expert testify on that issue.(Ex. C at 19). Nor did it come

up during his discussions with Schmid, who admitted that he did not raise the issue during the

divorce proceedings. (Ex. C at 18-19; Ex. A at 133-34). Doyen opined that Feda made the right

decision in not offering the expert opinions Schmid now claims he wanted; Doyen believes it

would have been "suicide" for Schmid's case.(Ex. D at 66).

Regarding the medical expert, Feda explained that he had a very good reason for not

retaining one: his own expert may have determined that Karla was totally disabled and unable to

work. (Ex. C at 23). Doyen agreed with this decision too, as he believes any expert testimony

{00244646} 12
 about Karla's medical conditions also would have harmed Schmid's case.(Ex. D at 65-66).

There are clearly strong reasons for Feda not retaining the experts Schmid now claims he

wanted Feda to retain. Feda made a thorough, well-reasoned strategy decision based on his years

of experience. And Illinois case law is clear that even if Feda's decision was incorrect —and

there is no evidence in the case that it was — it cannot form the basis of Plaintiff's legal

malpractice claim. See Nelsoiz, 2013 IL, App (1st) 123122, y[ 31. Therefore, Defendants should be

granted summary judgment.

2. Even if this Caurt finds that Feda should have retained the experts, Plaintiff
cannot prove that not having their opinions was a proximate cause of Judge
Pilmer's judgment.

The fact that an attorney may have breached his duty of care is not, in itself, sufficient to

sustain the client's legal malpractice cause of action. Tri-G, hzc. v. Burke, Bosselr~aara &Weaver,

222 Il1.2d 218 (2006). A legal malpractice plaintiff is required to prove the case-within-a-case,

which means he must prove the underlying action and what his recovery would have been in that

prior action without the alleged malpractice. Fox v. Berks, 334 Ill.App.3d SIS (lst Dist. 2002).

Here, Schmid cannot satisfy this case-within-the-case element of his claims.

Schmid wanted an ennployment expert to opine that he could not find work because of the

economy. However, the undisputed evidence in this case shows that he found several full time

jobs after the judgment was entered. (Ex. A at 17-19). This proves that Schmid could end work

despite the economy, and disproves the entire premise of the expert opinion he now claims he

wanted Feda to offer. Indeed, during the divorce trial, Schmid offered a different excuse: that he

could not find a job because of all the time he allegedly had to spend preparing documents for

the dissolution proceedings.(Ex. L at 6, 9[ 14). Schmid even admitted that he never told Feda he

wanted an employment expert to offer opinions during the divorce vial.(Ex. C at 18-19; Ex. A at

{0024466] 13
 133-34).

Schmid also now claims that a medical expert could have opined that Karla did not have

the medical conditions she testified about. In order to prove the case-within-a-case element of

this claim, he must first prove that Karia did not have the medical conditions she testified about.

However, Plaintiff has not conducted any discovery into Karla's medical condition in this case. It

is therefore impossible for any expert his legal malpractice attorneys might retain to testify that a

medical expert hired by Feda in the divorce case could have opined that Karla did not have the

medical conditions she testified about. Even Schmid acknowledged that Karla was going to

doctors, and he cannot not say that Karla was lying about her medical conditions.(Ex. A at 131).

Consequently, the only evidence in the record is Karla's testimony that she had those medical

conditions. (Ex. A at 24-28; Ex. D at 17-19; Ex. C at 20-21; Ex. G at 2). It is therefore

impossible for Plaintiff to meet his burden of proving that a medical expert retained by Feda

could have opined that Karla was faking her medical conditions and capable of working.

Finally, even if Plaintiff can find an expert to give opinions on the economy and Kar1a's

medical condition, it is impossible for hinn to prove that presenting those opinions at trial would

have decreased the amount of maintenance Judge Pilmer ordered him to pay Karla. As Doyen

testified, the expert opinions Schmid wanted were so outrageous that offering them would have

been "suicide" and resulted in Schmid being "punished" by the trial judge. (Ex. D at 65-66).

Plaintiff has failed to establish that Feda could have reduced the amount of maintenance he was

ordered to pay by offering expert opinions. Accordingly, Defendants should be granted summary

judgment.

B. There is no question of fact that Defendants did not breach the standard of care
with respect to Schmid's other claims.

Aside from experts, Schmid's Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to: (1) properly

{00244646} 14
 prepare for trial; (2) prepare and provide Judge Pilmer with proposed findings of fact and a

proposed judgment; (3) prepare the necessary motion for reconsideration; and (4) diligently

pursue the appeal.(Compl. at 7-8).

The undisputed evidence shows that Feda properly prepared for trial. Feda testified that

he was fully prepared to try the case because he had time to both acclimate himself to the file and

to meet with Schmid. (Ex. C at 10, 12-13). Moreover, even though Feda was hired only one

week before the trial was scheduled to begin, Judge Pilmer continued the first day of trial for an

additional two weeks, and the remaining five trial days occurred over the course of six months.

(Ex. A at 32-33, 109; Exs. F-J). During the trial, Feda presented evidence on every issue in the

case, and challenged all of the evidence presented by Karla. (Ex. A at 78-135; Ex. C at 73-74;

Ex. D at 42-44). There is simply no evidence that Feda was not prepared for the trial.

Additionally, the undisputed evidence shows that Feda prepared and provided Judge

Pilmer with the proposed judgment {which contained proposed findings of fact) and motion to

reconsider.(Ex. C at 72, 74-75; Ex. D at 54; Exs. N and O; Ex. Ex. P). The undisputed evidence

further shows that Feda timely filed the notice of appeal and did not stop prosecuting it until

Schmid hired Krupp to be his appellate attorney.(Ex. A at 36-37, 114-15; Ex. S).

Aside from the allegations in the Complaint, during discovery Plaintiff's counsel has

raised two additional issues: the location of Schmid's gold coins and the outcome of Kaila's

dissipation claim. There is no question of fact that Feda's handling of the gold coin issue was

appropriate. During the trial Schmid testified that Karla had them, while Karla testified that she

did not have them.(Ex. B at 22-23; Ex. D at 49). Aside from their testimony, the only thing left

for Feda to do was argue the issue at the conclusion of the trial and the undisputed evidence

shows that he did.(See Exs. N and O at 7, 91 1Q). That Judge Pilmer believed Karla over Schmid

{00244646) 15
 is not evidence that Feda's trial presentation was negligent.

Regarding Karla's dissipation clainn, the burden was on Plaintiff to "account for every

penny he spent" at the hearing.(Ex. C at 20; Ex. A at 36). But Schmid did not account for all of

his spending: Doyen proved that Schmid dissipated $20,900 using Schmid's own documents.

(Ex. C at 20; Ex. D at 35-36). There is no question of fact that Feda did all he could to represent

Schmid during the proceedings, so Defendants should be granted summary judgment on

Plaintiff's claims.

VI. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE Defendants William A. Feda and McNamee &Mahoney, Ltd. pray this

Court for an order that:

A. Grants this Motion and enters summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against
Plaintiff on all of his claims pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(b), or, in the alternative,
grants this Motion in part and enters summary determination in favor of Defendants
and against Plaintiff on the individuals claims he made pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-
lOQS(d):

B. Finds that the order entered is final and appealable pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 304(x); and

C. Grants Defendants any other relief this Court deems reasonable and just.

Respectfully Submitted,
LIl'E LYONS MURPHY NAHRSTADT PONTIKIS LTD.

By: ✓' `~
An ~ rney for Defendants William A. Feda and
M amee &Mahoney,Ltd.
Jeffrey H. Lipe
jhl C~lipelyons.com
Jordan M. Tank
jmt@lipelyons.com
Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd.
230 West Monroe Street, Suite 2260
Chicago,IL 60606
(312) 448-6230
Firm No.49614

{00244646) 16
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' 1 APPEARANCES (CONTZNUE~):

2 IN THE CIRN 2T GOURT OF THE I 2

3 TWENTY-SECOND JUDTCIAI CIRCUIT '~. 3 LIPE LYONS MURPHY NAHRSTADT & PONTIKIS, LTD.

4 MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS ~' 4 BY: MR. JORDAN M. TANK

S WILLIAM F. SGHMID, ) j S 230 West Monroe Street

6 alaintiff, ) '~, 6 Suite 2260

7 vs. ) ~I 7 Chicago, Illinois 60606

8 ROBERT J. KRUPP, THE LAW } Court No. 14 L 332 ~ 8 312.448.6233

9 OFFICES OF ROBERT 7. KRUPP, ) i 9 jmt@lipelyons.com

10 PC, WILLIAM A. FEDA and ) ;10 Representing the Defendants,

11 MCNAMEE & MAHONEY, LTD., ) 11 William A. Feda and

12 Defendants. ) X12 tncNamee & MdhOtl2y, Ltd.

13 The deposition Of WILLIAM F. SCHMID, :' 13 INDEX

14 taken l❑ th0 above-entitled cause, lT2fOP8 '; 14 Wltt1255: WILLIAM F. SCHMID

15 SHERRIE 1. SEGALL, a notary public of Cook County, 15 ~ PAGES

16 Illinois, on Friday, the 17th day of February, ':16 Examination by ntr. Tank 5
17 2017, at the hour of 1:07 p.m., at Suite 2260, 230 17 exHleiTs
18 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to I18 W. Schmid exhibit No. 1 33
19 notice. '19 W. Schmid Exhibit No. 2 38
20 (Proceedings concluded at 4:05 p.m.) 20 w. Schmid exhibit No. 3 39
21 aeported by: Sherrie L. Segall, CSR, RPR !21 W. Schmid EXhibit No. 4 44
22 License No: 084-002193 !22 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 5 45
23 I, 23 w. Schmid exhibit No. 6 49
24 I24 w. Schmid exhibit No. 7 52

~ i 3

1 APPEARANCES: 1 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)

2 GAUTHIER & GOOCH 2 w. Schmid Exhibit Na. S 53

3 BY: ~1R. MICHAEL J. GAUTHIER 3 W. Schmid Exhibit No. 9 62

4 134 North Lasalle Street 4 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 10 63
S Suite 1135 5 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 11 71
6 Chicago, Illinois 60602 ': 6 w. Schmid exhibit Ho. 12 74
7 312.878.1504 '; 7 w. Schmid exhibit No. 13 8Z
8 mgauthier@gauthierandgooch.com '; 8 w. Schmid exhibit No. 14 g3
9 ~ 9 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 15 g5
10 Representing the plaintiff; !10 w. Schmid exhibit No. 16 101
11 'il w. Schmid Exhibit No. 17 105
12 LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD J. KOZEL '. 12 W. Schmid Exhibit No. 18 107
13 BY: MR. DAVID A. SORENSEN '13 W. Schmid Exhibit No. 19 108
14 333 South Wabash Avenue I14 tv. Schmid Exhibit No. 20 109
15 25th Floor il5 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 21 110
16 Chicago, Illinois 60604 !16 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 22 112
17 312.822.3350 !17 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 23 114
18 david.sorensen@cna.com '18 w. Schmid group Exhibit No. 24 115
19 19 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 25 118
20 2epresenting the Defendants, 20 w. Schmid Exhibit No. 26 120
~ 21 Robert ~. tcrupp and The yaw 21 w. Schmid exhibit No. 27 121
22 Office of aobert 7. Krupp, aG; ;22 w, Schmid exhibit No. 28 122
23 23 W. Schmid Exhibit No. 29 125
i
Z4 hmid Exhibit No. 30 130
EXHIBIT 4
O McCork a 'ces, Inc. 1..4
Chica ~ 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 MR. TANK: Go ahead. Swear him in. 1 MR. TANK: Back on the record. For the

2 WFIEREUPON: 2 record, the witness gave us the last four digits of

3 WILLIAM F. SCF~IID, 3 his social security number.
4 the deponent herein, called as a witness, having 4 BY MR. TANK:
5 been first duly sworn, deposeth and saith as 5 Q. Where do you currently live?
6 follows: 6 A. 1670 Partridge bane, Unit Number 7,
7 DWMINATION 7 Arlington Heights, Illinois.
8 l5Y'.1~:7~~1:~:,E !: 8 Q. who do you live there with?
9 NtILLIAM F. SCf~IID, ': 9 A. My mother.
10 the deponent herein, called as a witness, having ': 10 Q. and when did you start living with her?
11 been first duly sworn, deposeth and saith as ! 11 A. That would have been about January 21st,
follows: ! 12 this year.
13 EX1aMINATION ' 13 q, where were you living before that?
14 BY MR. TANK: 14 A. In Sulphur, Louisiana.
15 Q. Sir, please state your full name for the ': 15 Q. What xas the address?
16 record and spell your last name. ': 16 A. 1201 Ravia Road.
17 A. William Schmid, S-c-h-m-i-d. i 17 Q, R-a-v-i-a?
18 Q. Mr. scl~nid, before we get into the actual 18 A. Yes.
19 questions, z'd like to go over just a couple of ! 19 Q. Do you rane~nber the ZIP code?
20 quick ground rules. That way this deposition goes t 20 A, 70663.
21 smoothly. ' 21 Q. How long did you live there?
22 First, if z ask a question and you '; 22 a. approximately 18 months.
1 23 don't understand it, go ahead and let me know, and 23 Q. Were you working?
24 i'll be happy to rephrase it. zf z ask a question i 24 a. ves. 7'
5

and you answer it, we'll have to ass~ne that you ' 1 Q. Did you live there with someone else?
understood it. oo you understand? 2 A. N0.
A. Yes. 3 Q. where did you live before Sulphur,
Q. okay. yet me finish my question before 4 Louisiana? ',
you answer, and I'll wait until you finish your S a. at my home, 116 North Fifth Street, west ',
answer before i ask my next question. That way our 6 Dundee, Illinois 60118. I
court reporter here isn't trying to type both of us 7 Q. And was that your marital home with
down at the same time. understood? ' 8 ►cart a?
A. Yes. 9 A. Yes.
Q. Finally, if I ask a question, your answer 10 q. Why did you move out of that home? Did
needs to be out loud, in verbal form. rt needs to '; 11 you sell it?
be yes, no, I don't know, or something like that. 12 A. N0.
=f you say uh-huh or uh-uh or you shrug your i 13 Q. okay. why did you move out of that home?
shoulders or shake your head, our court reporter ' 14 A. To go to work in Louisiana.
can't type that down. Understand? 'i 15 Q. oo you still orm that home?
A. Yes. ;' 16 a. My name is still on the title. My wife
Q. All right. Let's get some quick 17 was given sole possession or whatever by the Court
background information from you. what's your date 18 in October of last year.
of birth? 19 q. October 2016?
A. December 8th, 1955. 20 A. ves.
~1t. T~K: off the record for a second. 21 Q. pet's go back to the background
(WNEREUPO~J a discussion was 22 questions. Have you ever been convicted of a
held off the Record, and the 23 felony?
deposition continued as follays:) 24 A. No.
6I 8

O McCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 5. .8

Chicago, Illinois <312) 263-0052
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 q. Have you ever been convicted of any ',. 1 A. Professional engineering.

2 crimes involving dishonesty? 2 Q. The one that you -- there's a -- t think
3 A. N0. 3 there's an exam you have to take in order to start
4 Q. Serve in the military? 4 your PE mentorship, is that right?
5 A. N0. ': 5 A. an engineer in training.
6 Q. pet's talk about your education for a 6 Q. z can't re~ner~er the name. But when you
7 moment. You graduated from high school, right? 7 got your four-year degree, did you take any sort of
8 A. Yes. '; 8 comprehensive exam that engineers sanetimes take?
9 Q. what year did you graduate? 9 a. No.
10 A. 1973. ' 10 Q. Okay. Are you a PE?
11 Q. what high school? 11 a. No, I'm not.
12 A. Arlington High school. 12 Q. Aside fran your engineering coursework,
13 Q. what did you do after high school? 13 have you taken any specific trade school classes?
14 A. I went to college. 14 A. N0.
15 Q. what college? '~ 15 Q. pSHa, something like that?
16 A. Michigan Technological university. 16 A. Yes. I am OSHA 30.
17 Q. zs that the one that's way up north? 17 Q. The safety courses?
18 A. Yes. 18 A. oSH.4 30 is safety training, yes.
19 Q. All right. And when did you start, and 19 Q. Okay. Anything else, ANSI, something
20 when did you finish? ' 20 like that?
21 a. 2 started September 1973, and I fi Wished 21 q. In 2015 I had to be ACI concrete
22 in htay or Tune 1979. 1 22 technician, grade 1 certified in order to start my
23 Q. all right. oid you get a four-year ! 23 new job.
24 degree? ' 24 Q. Any other sort of specialized fornial
11

1 a. Yes. z have a four-year degree. j 1 training or education you've had that you can think
2 Q. And what was your four-year degree in? 2 of?
3 a. a bachelor of science, civil engineering. 3 A. N0.
4 Q. was there a minor involved? 4 Q. What was your first full-time job after
5 A. Yes. i 5 college?
6 Q. That question sounded bad. yid you get a 6 ,4. That would have been with Custodis
7 minor? 7 Construction Company.
8 MR. Gau7~NIER: That sounds worse. 8 Q. is that with a K or a C?
9 BY MR. TANK: 9 a. with a C, c-u-s-t-o-d-i-s.
10 Q. Yeah. 10 Q. when did you start working for then, and
11 ,a. zt's a bachelor of science, civil 11 when did you stop?
12 engineering, with option Classes in construction 1 12 A. 7uly 1978. And the last time i worked
13 engineering. That's the current day equivalent of l3 for them on a full-time basis was six years later.
14 a construction management degree. 14 Q. So '84 roughly? If you don't re~nernber
15 ~. okay. ' 15 the exact dates, that's --
16 a. There -- 16 A. Roughly.
17 Q. z'm sorry. ~o ahead. ~ 17 Q. -- okay.
1s a. And z also have a bachelor of science, '; 18 A. And z went back to work for them a short
19 engineering administration. 19 time on a slipform project, i think, in 1994 maybe.
20 Q. Did you go on to get a master's degree? 20 Q. okay. And you were just employed with
21 A. N0. 21 than during the year of 1994?
22 Q. what's the test that engineers can take 22 A. dust for three months or so.
23 after they get their four-year degree that's like a 23 Q. okay. And what did you do for then? vid
24 co~rehensive exam? 24 you work as a civil engineer?
10 12
McCorkle litigation services, Inc. 9..12
Chicago, =llinais (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 A. No. z worked as a project coordinator 1 A. Yes. Through Brian Cooley I was

2 and a construction coordinator. 2 introduced to the people that were building the
3 Q. so you had supervisory responsibilities? i 3 plant for Dynegy.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. okay. and hav long did you work for
5 q. After custodis Construction, who did you 5 Cooley &associates, slash, oynegy?
6 work for? 6 A. that was just a project basis for the
7 A. Peabody Continental Heine. 7 Rocky Road plant. zt was just from February of
8 Q. And how long did you work for them? ', 8 1999 to, I believe, May of 1999.
9 a. approximately six years. 9 Q. who did you ►irk for after that?
10 Q. who did you work for after that? 10 A. I went to irk for Commornvealth Dynamics,
11 A. z went to v+rork on a project basis for 11 the last time in )une of 1999 --
12 Commonwealth Dynamics. 12 Q. What did you --
13 Q. What kind of projects? 13 A. -- for about --
14 a. The same chimney projects that Custodis '14 Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
15 and Peabody Continental Heine were involved with. '15 A. -- for about four weeks.
16 q. when you say "chimney," can you explain 16 Q. who did you irk for after that?
17 that? z understand it's not like a residential '17 A. I went back to work for ~ynegy.
18 chimney. !18 Q. How long did you work for there?
19 A. Industrial chimneys. ''19 a. about two-and-a-half years on various
20 Q. zs this the kind of chimney that would be I20 projects.
21 used in a -- like a concrete plant, like a kiln, or 21 Q. so that takes us to around 'd2, '03. who
2Z what is it? !22 did you start working for then?
23 a. Yes. Chimneys for the coal-fired power 23 A. That should be about tune of 2002, z
24 generation plants. !24 think, is the right year.
13 '. 151

1 q. so commonwealth Dynamics, how long did 1 Q. okay. who did you start corking for
2 you work for them? 2 then?
3 A. I worked for them on maybe about seven i 3 a. Tune of 2002, I was unemployed until
4 different projects between -- whatever the 12 years '~ 4 august of 2004, I went to work for
5 works out to be. And 1999 was the last time that 1 5 Brown-Minneapolis Tank.
6 worked for commornvealth
rn Dynamics. i 6 Q. Hrnv long did you irk for there?
7 Q. And what kind of projects are these? Are i 7 a. Approximately one tenth.
8 you building a new plant? are you updating a 8 Q. Did you complete the project you wire
9 plant? 9 working on?
10 A. up until Commonwealth
r we Dynamics, it x
!10 A. They hired me as a construction manager.
11 was a project basis, just building a chimney at a ; 11 They were a steel tank construction company. And
12 plant -- 12 at that time the steel prices were skyrocketing,
13 Q. Okay. 13 and they were looking to get into the concrete
14 A. -- either a new plant or an existing 14 water tank business, and they didn't come up with
15 plant. 15 any projects. so they terminated my employment.
16 Q. Who did you start working for in 1999? 16 Q. so you had a contract with them to work
17 A. Dynegy -- or -- that's a difficult 17 for a certain period of time?
18 question. I was actually working for an entity ;18 a. No, z didn't have a contract. z was just
' 19 called Cooley & associates. '19 a -- a hired employee.
20 Q. zs that a consulting firm? +20 Q. All right. And after a month you lost
21 A. that's a small construction fi rm. '21 your job?
22 Q. end while you worked for Cooley & 22 A. Yes. They didn't have any concrete water
23 associates and did all of the work that you '23 tanks to build.
24 performed, was it performed for Dynegy projects? 24 Q. who did you work for after that?
14 16
Mccorkle Litigation services, znc. 13. .16
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 A. z went to work for a company called 1 Q. qny full-time employment since then?
2 Danny's Construction Company Incorporated, DCCi. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. How long did you irk for them? 3 Q. and what was that? Was that the
4 A. Approximately 14 months. i started 4 Louisiana project?
5 September of 2004. 5 A. No. I left wood Group to go to work for
6 Q. All right. so that takes us to the 6 Exelon on a project near Callas.
7 beginning of 2005? 7 Q. All right. And when did you start
8 A. 14 months should be until November of 8 working for them, and when did you stop?
9 2005. 9 A. I started the beginning of May 2015 and
10 q. who did you work for next? I 10 stopped the end of Tune 2015.
11 a. z went to work for Stanley Consultants. ll Q. Who did you inork for after that?
12 Q. stow long did you work for thin? 12 a. z was unemployed for the month of 7uly
13 a. Approximately 11-and-a-half months on a 13 2015, and then I started with Morris-Shea aridge in
14 project for East Kentucky Power. 14 August of 2015.
15 Q. when did that start, and when did it 1 15 Q. How long did that last?
16 stop? ': 16 a. Approximately 18 months.
17 a. I was hired, z believe, about February of ( 17 Q. That's the Louisiana project?
18 2005, and i was sent to Kansas City for an OSHA 30 18 q. ves.
19 class. and t started on the project site in 19 Q. All right. So I think we covered it all
20 tcentucky -- oh, t think it was the end of April 20 there. tow let's talk about your marriage to
Z1 2006. 21 Karla. You married on October 17, 1981, is that
22 Q. who did you work for after that? ':22 right?
23 a. z went back to work for pynegy. ' 23 A. Either the 17th or the 18th.
24 4. and how long did you work for then that 24 Q. okay. you had three children during the
17 19
1 time? 1 marriage?
2 a. z worked from about April of 2007 until 2 A. Two.
3 March of 2010. 3 Q. two children. ='m sorry. 5o that Kas
4 Q. All right. and then when did you get 4 ,omelia and is it Elizabeth?
5 your next full-time job? 5 A. Yes.
6 A. That would have been November of 2010. 6 Q. What is Amelia's date of birth?
7 Q. who did you work for then, and how long '; 7 A. November 1$th, 1992 --
8 did you work for them? 8 Q. And elizabeth?
9 A. i was working fora technical recruiter. 9 a. -- approximately. Elizabeth would be
10 zt was either Randstad or they had just recently 10 approximately September 10th, 1989.
11 changed names. and it was on a project for it Q. zn terms of Karla's education, what is
12 American Electric Power. 12 your understanding of the extent of her education?
13 Q. And how long were you on that project? 13 A. she was enrolled in nursing at Michigan
' 14 a. Approximately six months. ' 14 Technological university while I was there.
15 Q. So that's May of 20ll, sound right? 15 q. yid she graduate?
16 A. Yes. 16 A. No, she did not.
17 Q. when did you get your new full-time job? ' 17 Q. And how many years did she spend there?
18 A. The next full-time job would have been ! 18 A. I think all together, two years.
19 with wood Group on a project near Detroit starting '. 19 Q. Aside from those two years of college, as
20 in the beginning of March 2015. 20 far as you know, did she have any other kind of
21 Q. tow long did that project last? 21 fornial education?
22 a. That employment lasted -- 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Or employment. '; 23 Q. what kind of education?
24 a. -- tNro months. ` 24 a. she went to a teaching hospital in
1$ 20
McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 17..20
Chicago, zllinais (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 Detroit, and she has a certification in some kind 1 Q. So after she had Elizabeth, she continued
2 of respiratory therapy. And then afterwards she ' 2 to work?
3 was self-taught and certified in -- I don't know '~ 3 A. Yes.
4 exactly what it's called. eut she went from -- 4 q. Was she full time?
5 from putting people through a stress test on a ! 5 A. Yes.
6 treadmill. after she got certified, she +Mould i 6 Q. And at some point she stopped v~rking
7 write a report from a stress test for the doctor. ~ 7 full time, right?
8 Q. okay. Any other fornial education you can 8 A. Yes.
9 think of? 9 Q. when did that happen?
10 a. Other than the certifications, no. '10 A. 1996.
11 Q. okay. At any point in time during your '11 Q. yid she have any full-time jobs during
12 marriage, did Karla have a full-time job? 1Z your marriage after that?
13 A. Yes. ': 13 a. ves.
14 Q. when is the fi rst time that she had a 14 Q. when?
15 full-time job during your marriage? 15 A. in 2004 right before I started to work
16 a. when she came to Chicago in -- oh, it '~ 16 for DCCz.
17 might have been the end of 1979, and she got a job 'i 17 Q. who did she Hork for and how long did she
18 at Holy Family Hospital. !. 18 work for thin?
19 Q. So she had that job when you got married I19 a,. she worked for some kind of service out
20 in 1981? '20 of Buffalo grove. She was doing the same thing,
21 A. Yes. ', 21 writing reports for stress tests. at that time
22 Q. all right. and when did she stop working -22 instead of doing the tests in the hospital, they
23 at that job? ' 23 were being done off site by this type of service.
24 A. Right after we bought the house in West !24 And she was writing the reports at this office in
21 ' 23

1 Dundee, and z think that might have been 1986. 1 Buffalo grove, z believe it was.
2 Q. why did she stop working? 2 Q. okay. ►aow long did she work for them?
3 a. she claimed it was too far to drive. 3 A. z think it was about six weeks.
4 Q. Did you two have a conversation about her ~ 4 Q. ~o you recall what she was making per
5 not ►~rorking before she stopped? 5 hour, per week, per month?
6 A. No -- 6 A. .approximately $15 an hour.
7 Q. okay. 7 Q. yid she have any other full-time
8 a. -- not that time. 8 employment during your marriage?
9 Q. Did she -- so did she just cane home and i 9 A. Not that z can think of right naN.
10 say, "I quit my job"? 10 Q. would it be fair to say that during your
11 A. Yes. ' 11 marriage to Karla, you were the primary
1Z Q. Did you tell her that you wanted her to ~ 12 breadwinner?
13 see if she could find another job? 13 A. Yes.
X 14 a. ves. 14 Q. You supported your family financially?
15 Q. And what did she say? ':15 A. Yes.
16 A. She returned to work at part-time jobs i16 Q. You provided xarla and your daughters
17 around west Dundee, working various -- she was a '17 with a place to live?
18 receptionist at an animal hospital fora while, and , 18 A. Yes.
19 she was a designer at Chris Pottery for a while. 19 Q. You provided them with food to eat?
20 Q. Your first child, Elizabeth, was born in '20 A. Yes.
21 1989. when Elizabeth was born, did Karla stop '21 Q. You provided them with any money they
22 working? 22 used to buy whatever they may have needed?
23 a. By that time she was back to ~rork at Holy i23 a. ves.
24 Family Hospital. ;24 Q. curing the divorce trial, Karla testified
22 24
MCCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 21. .24
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 that she had several medical conditions, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. one of then was crohn's Disease?
4 a. ves.
5 Q. when did Karla first tell you that she
6 had crohn's Disease?
7 a. When we first met, in college.
8 Q. ao you have -- i understand you're not a
9 doctor. sut do you have an understanding, as a
10 layperson, as to what the symptans are of Crohn's
11 Disease?
12 A. z knaN what Karla has told me about
13 crohn's Disease.
14 Q. okay. what did Karla tell you about
15 Crohn's Disease?
16 A. That she had a bowel resection, and that
17 means she has watery stools because she doesn't
18 absorb water from her excrement.
19 Q. okay.
20 a. and she can't eat things like lettuce.
21 Q. During your marriage, did you see that
22 bear out? so, for example, did you see her not eat
23 lettuce? yid you see her or did she tell you that
24 she was having watery barrel movements throughout
25
1 Q. That was just for that one
2 hospitalization?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Regarding the Crohn's Disease in
5 particular, have you ever been present with tcarla
6 during one of her visits with her doctors when the
7 doctor said, "You have Crohn's Disease"?
8 a. Na.
9 Q. okay. You also don't have any
10 inforn~ation indicating that tcarla does not have
ll Grohn's Disease?
12 A. i only went to a doctor one time after --
13 after Karla found out about an affair and sometime
14 around that she filed for divorce. z don't
15 remember if it was before or after she filed for
16 divorce.
17 Q. You don't have any information showing
18 that Karla does not have Crohn's Disease?
19 A. N0, z don't have any information that she
20 does not have crohn's Disease, nor do z have any
21 information that she does have Crohn's Disease.
22 Q. okay. Aside Fran the crohn's Disease,
23 you mentioned the kidney stones and the cysts.
24 when she testified at trial about her medical
m

1 your marriage? 1 conditions, what other medical conditions did she

2 A. She did not eat lettuce, and z don't know 2 list?
3 what her bo~vel movements were like. she never had 3 A. z can't remember what she said at trial.
4 any flare-ups from the crohn's Disease. 4 out I knrnv she had been telling me that the doctors
5 Q. as far as you know while you rrrere married 5 diagnosed her with either -- she changed it from
6 to Karla, did she ever see any doctor about the 6 either Sweet's Syndrome to wegener's Disease or
7 Crohn's Disease? 7 vice versa.
8 a. she had several doctors, and z have no 8 Q. She told you she had those conditions
9 idea what she discussed with her doctors. 9 befiore she filed for divorce?
10 Q. So -- 10 A. Y25.
11 A. She -- 11 q. And as with the crohn's Disease, you
12 Q. -- if one of those doctors had, in fact, don't have any infrorn~ation fran a doctor that she
13 diagnosed her with Crohn's Disease, you wouldn't be 13 does have it and you also don't have any
14 privy to that information aside from what Karla has 14 inforniation from a doctor indicating that she
15 told you? 15 doesn'fi have it, right?
16 a, Karla was admitted to -- z think it was 16 A. Yes.
17 st. ]De's Hospital or the other hospital in Elgin X17 Q. Any other medical conditions that Karla
18 one time around 1992, which she just woke up during 18 told you about having during your marriage?
19 the middle of the night and told me, "Take me to 19 ,4. Before we were married, she told me that
20 the hospital." 20 she had, z guess, an appendectomy. She had a scar
21 and with what she had told me about '21 from an appendectomy.
22 Crohn's Disease, z had no idea what it was. She '! 22 Q. Appendectomy? okay. Anything else?
23 eventually told me she was diagnosed with cysts on 23 A. Not that I'm aware of.
24 her ovaries and a kidney stone. ~~24 Q. Karla filed her petition for divorce on
26 28
MCCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 25..28
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 October 20th, 2009. Does that sound right to you? 1 A. No, he did not.
2 A. Yes. 2 Q. As far as you know, did Von Keudell
3 Q. yid you find out before she actually 3 retain a medical expert?
4 filed the petition that she was, in fact, going to 4 A. Not to my knowledge.
5 file for divorce? i 5 Q. And as far as you know, did von Keudell
6 A. N0. 6 conduct any discovery to determine the extent of
7 Q. okay. Had you two talked about getting 7 Karla's ability to vunrk?
8 divorced at any point in time during your marriage? 8 A. N0.
9 a. No. 9 Q. The new attorney was Lawrence Manassa,
10 Q. were you surprised that she filed for !: 10 is that right?
11 divorce? 11 A. Yes.
A. Yes. ' 12 Q. According to the records z have, he was
13 Q. tiow did you find out that she filed for 'i 13 your attorney from Tune 22nd of 2010 until
14 divorce? 14 August 25th of 2010. noes that sound right to you?
15 a. when I was served with papers. X 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. were you in the chicagoland area when 16 Q. as far as you know, did Manassa conduct
17 that happened, or were you traveling for work? :17 discovery to determine the extent of Karla's
18 A. I was working in 2eisel, Texas, at the 18 medical condition?
19 time. 19 A. N0.
20 Q. After Karla filed for divorce, did she !20 Q. as far as you know, did t~anassa retain a
21 ever give you a reason or reasons for why she filed 21 medical expert?
22 for divorce, not in front of the judge or while 22 A. ND.
23 attorneys were present, but just in conversations 23 Q. As far as you know, did raanassa conduct
24 you two had? '24 discovery to determine the extent of Karla's
29 31

1 A. She never spoke to me about wanting a ability to work?

2 divorce or why she wanted a divorce. A. No.
3 Q. And that's true both before and after she Q. after t~anassa you hired Frank ciampoli.
4 filed the petition? goes that sound right to you?
5 a. ves. A. Yes.
6 Q. so you -- you then hired attorneys to Q. He was your attorney from August 25th of
7 represent you, and you went through a series of 2010 until 7anuary 13 of 2012. Does that sound
8 attorneys, correct? right to you?
9 A. No. We -- I requested that we go to A. Yes.
10 counseling before z hired an attorney. Q. So he was the attorney you had
ll Q. But you did hire an attorney at some immediately before Bill Feda?
12 point? A. Y25.
13 A. Yes. Q. As far as you knav, did siampoli conduct
14 Q. And his name was Nils von Keudell? =s discovery to determine the event of Karla's
15 that how you pronounce it? medical condition?
16 A. Yes. A. No.
17 Q. All right. And he was your attorney Q. As far as you know, did ~iampoli retain a
18 unti1 Tune of 2010. Does that sound right to you? medical expert?
19 a. ves. A. N0.
2Q Q. yid von Keudeil -- as far as you know, Q. as far as you know, did ~iampoli conduct
21 did von Keudell ever conduct any discovery to find discovery to determine the extent of Karla's
22 out the extent of Karla's medical condition? ability to wnrk?
23 A. No. A. N0.
24 q. No, you don't know, or no, he did not? Q. okay. So you hired Feda the fi rst week
30 32
McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 29..32
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 of 7anuary. Does that sound right, of 2012? i 1 counsel will abide by..." ~o you see where ='m at?
2 A. Yes. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And at that time when you hired him, your ~ 3 Q. okay. It says, "That counsel will abide
4 divorce proceedings were set for trial on 4 by the client's decision concerning the objectives
5 7anuary 18 of 2012, correct? 5 of representation." yid z read that correctly?
6 A. That sounds about right, yes. ` 6 a. ves.
7 Q. All right. and hir. Feda was able to get 7 Q. =s it your understanding when you hired
8 an extension until February 7th. That's when the ~ 8 Bill Feda that you could tell him what you wanted
9 trial actually started, right? 9 him to accomplish, but you couldn't tell him
10 A. Yes. ''10 exactly how he needed to do it, is that correct?
11 q. That was still only about a month after '11 A. Yes.
12 you hired him, right? ' 1Z Q. all right. If you go to paragraph 3,
13 a. Yes. '13 corr~nication, the second sentence starts, "the
14 q. Okay. You had a written engagement '14 client shall be truthful." oo you see where z'm
15 agreement with Bi71 Feda, basically a contract? '15 at?
16 A. I believe sa i 16 a. ves.
17 MR. TANK: All right. I will show you '~17 Q. That sentence reads, "7he client shall be
18 what we'll mark as exhibit 1. ! 18 truthful in all discussions with the counsel and
19 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Fachibit !19 provide all inforniation or documentation required
20 No. 1 was marked for 20 to enable the counsel to provide competent
21 identification.) ':21 representation." oid z read that correctly?
22 MR. TANK: All right. For the record, ':22 A. Yes.
23 Exhibit 1 is the written engagement agreement ;23 Q. When you first met with Mr. Feda to
1 24 between Mr. Schmid and Mr. Feda. i24 discuss his representation, did he tell you that
33 , 35

1 BY MR. TANK: ], you needed to provide him with all docunents?

2 Q. sir, does that look familiar to you? 2 A. I don't recall exactly what was said.
3 Have you seen it before? 3 Q. Even if you don't rimer the specific
4 a. Yes. 4 ►cards that were used, do you retail htr. Feda
5 Q. At the bottom of the first page, is that 5 telling you that you needed to provide him with all
6 your signature? i; 6 documents that he needed?
7 A. Yes. 7 ,4. z remember Mr. Feda telling me that I
8 Q. All right. If you look at the second ! 8 needed to show where every penny was spent for the
9 paragraph where it starts, I agree to pay my i 9 charge of dissipation.
10 aforesaid attorneys, do you see where I'm talking ' 10 4. And did you, in fact, provide Mr. Feda
11 about? 11 with all of the doc~nents that he needed?
12 A. Yes. X12 A. Yes.
13 Q. okay. zf you look at the second half of ' 13 Q. You can put that ~vay.
14 that sentence it says, all additional fees and '';14 (WHEREUPON a discussion was
15 court costs shall be subsequently determined, 15 held off the kecord, and the
16 charged and paid by me. Did I read that correctly? '16 deposition continued as follays:)
17 A. Yes. 17 BY MR. TANK:
18 Q. when it says "paid by me," that's 18 Q. So after Mr. Feda, you hired Mr. tcrupp?
19 referring to you? You agreed to pay those, is that ';19 A. Yes.
20 right? ;20 Q. okay. You hired him and he was your
21 A. Yes. i 21 attorney from April 30th of 2013 to duly 10 of
22 Q. Can you turn to the second page, please, 22 2014. [goes that sound right to you?
23 second paragraph where it says representation. 23 a. ves.
24 halfway davn there's a sentence that starts, "That .24 Q. And you hired Mr. Krupp to prosecute the
34 36
Mccorkle Litigation Services, znc. 33. .36
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 appeal of the judgment that was entered in the !, 1 Q. okay. The bottan of the second to the
2 divorce case. Does that sound right to you? 2 last page, she states that her total monthly
3 A. and also to finish out the divorce. 1 3 e~enses at that time were $3,522.80, right?
4 Q. And after Mr. Krupp you hired 7effrey M. 4 a. ves.
5 ~eving's ofFice, right? 5 Q. And then on the last page, that's her
6 a. Yes. 6 signature?
7 Q. what was the name of the attorney from 7 a. ves, I believe so.
8 his office? ~o you reca77? 8 MR. TANK: all right. we're all done
9 A. William ornvling. '; 9 with that one. Exhibit 3.
10 Q. Is it D-o-w-l-i-n-g? '10 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
11 A. I'm not sure of the spelling. I think 'i11 No. 3 was marked for
12 there is a w in there. 12 identification.)
13 q. ,as far as you know, did Leving's office !13 MR. GAUTHZER: Thanks.
14 ask for leave to conduct discovery to deternrine the X14 BY MR. TANK:
15 extent of Karla's medical condition? !15 ~. For the record, ~chibit 3 is Verified
16 A. z don't remember. !16 Petition for order of Protection that was filed
17 q. As far as you know, did ~eving's office '17 with Kane County Court on April 9 of 2010.
18 ask far leave to retain a medical expert? 18 Mr. Schmid, have you ever seen this document
19 a. z don't remember. '19 before?
20 q. As far as you know, did Leving's office 20 a. ves.
21 ask for leave to conduct discovery to determine the 21 q. And do you recall this actually
22 extent of Karla's ability to work? Z2 happening, xarla asked the court for an order of
23 A. z don't remember, but z don't think so '23 protection that kept you away fran her, your
24 for all of those items. '24 daughter, .anelia, and your have and anelia's
37 39
1 MR. Tat~c: all right bet's mark this as 1 school?
2 Exhibit 2 for the record. This is Karla's 2 a. ves.
3 affidavit of estimated average monthly expenses. 3 Q. If you'll turn to the second page,
4 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 4 please. The bottan half of the page is a narrative
5 No. 2 was marked for 5 that someone wrote. Karla wrote that you harassed
6 identification.) 6 her verbally, that you pounded on your daughter's
7 BY MR. TlaNK: 7 car for ten minutes; that after the daughter left,
8 Q. Mr. scl~nid, have you seen that document 8 you went back into the hare. You pushed Karla into
9 before? % 9 a cabinet. you then pushed past her on some
10 a. This is one of several that she `10 stairs, causing her to fall down. that's what the
11 submitted. ll document says, right?
12 Q. 5o you do recall seeing this? i12 A. Yes.
13 A. Yes. 13 4. aid you harass Karla verbally on April 9
14 Q. All right. And this is Karla's -- it's 14 of 2010? Is what she said true, is what r'm
15 your understanding that this is Karla's 15 asking?
16 representation to you and the Court as to what her 16 (WHEREUPON d disCussio~ wd5
17 average monthly expenses are -- or were? '17 held off the Record, and the
18 A. Yes. 18 deposition continued as follays:)
19 Q. and it goes through things like shelter, ;19 (Record read.)
20 utilities, home maintenance, food, personal items, ZO BY MR. TANK:
21 transportation, health needs, recreation, '21 Q. Let me -- I'll go ahead and reask that so
22 charitable contributions, children's expenses and !~2 it's cleaner. Excuse me.
23 other expenses, is that right? '23 yid you harass Karla verbally on
24 a. ves. !24 April 9, 2010?
38 j 40
~3 McCorkle litigation Services, znc. 37..40
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02j17/2017

1 A. z believe we had an argument that day. 1 a„y gray?

2 4. All right. and so things got heated, is 2 A. She touched me.
3 that fair to say? 3 Q. okay. What did she do?
4 A. No. 4 A. She tried to prevent me from going up the
5 Q. yid you raise your voice? 5 stairs to my bedroom.
6 A. Yes. 6 Q. And what happened when she touched you?
7 Q. It says petitioner's daughter, Amelia in 7 yid she fall down the stairs?
8 other ►cards, tried to leave the house to go to 8 A. N0.
9 dance practice. You walked to the back of the car 9 Q. so at no point in time that night did I
10 and began to bang on the back window of the car for 10 Karla actually fall down the stairs?
11 apprnximately ten minutes, is that true? 11 A. No.
1Z A. N0. 12 Q. At no point in time did she fall into a
13 Q. okay. Did Amelia go out and get into a 13 cabinet?
14 ~a~ . ~ i~+ A. N0.
15 A. Yes, she did. ;15 4. at no point in time did you push her in
16 Q. yid you follow her out into the driveway? ! 16 any way with your sl~ulder?
17 a. ves, z did. j 17 A. 2 did go around her by turning my
18 Q. nid you bang on the car at all in any '18 shoulder into her.
19 ~Y~ ' 19 Q. where were you when that happened? Were
20 a. z tapped on the back window because they ~„ ZO you on the stairs?
21 were tinted to make sure that she knew z was behind Z1 a,. z was in the kitchen trying to get to the
22 the car, and z asked her to open the back window so 22 stairs.
23 that z could remove a bag full of books that was in 23 Q. when you turned your shoulder to go past
24 the back of the Explorer. !, 24 her, did your shoulder hit her?
41 43

1 Q. okay. why did you ask her to do that ' 1 A. it probably would have made contact with
2 from the back of the car? why didn't you just ask 2 her since she was trying to prevent me from going
3 her to do that from the driver's side window? 3 upstairs. ',
4 A. Because the books were in the back of the 4 Q. so, yes, your shoulder touched Karla?
5 car, and there was an electric latch to open the 5 a. ves.
6 back winday. 6 q. after it touched Karla, did she fall back
7 Q. couldn't you have asked her from the 7 or fall over in any way?
8 driver's side door to do that, and then walk to the I 8 A. N0.
9 back to open it? 9 Q. She didn't lose her balance at all?
10 a. z could have, yes. ';10 A. No.
11 Q. okay. so Amelia left, is that true, and !11 Q. zt's your understanding that after Karla
12 then you went back into the house? 'i1Z filed that petition, the court actually entered an
13 A. Yes. 13 order granting it, is that true?
14 Q. okay. Karla says you pushed her into a 14 A. Yes.
15 cabinet, is that true? 15 MR. TANK: Let's mark this as -- what
16 A. No. ' 16 exhibit is that, 3? are we on 4 now?
17 q. =t also says that you pushed her with ' 17 MR. GAUTNIER: It'S 3.
18 your shoulder, is that true? 18 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
19 a. No. 19 No. 4 was marked for
20 Q. It also says that you pushed past her on '20 identifi cation.)
21 the stairs, causing her to fall, is that true? 21 BY MR. TANK:
22 A. N0. 22 Q. i'll show you Dchibit 4. For the record,
23 Q. At any point in time while you were in 23 Dchibit 4 is the order of protection. oo you
24 the house after anelia left, did you touch Karla in ~24 recall seeing this order of protection before?
42 44
McCorkle litigation services, Inc. 41. .44
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 A. Yes. 1 Q. ~o you recall when back around p,pril of

2 Q. And this is the order that granted ' 7 2010, you deposited money into the joint checking
3 Karla's motion for a temporary restraining order? 1 3 account?
4 That's your understanding as to what that is? 4 a. I deposited on average $3,000 a month up
5 A. Yes. 5 until all of my funds were put into chapski trust.
6 Q. And because this order of protection was ' 6 Q. so as best you can recall, when was the
7 entered, you aren't allowed to live in the marital 7 last time you deposited funds into that joint
8 residence and you weren't allowed to go to Amelia's ' 8 checking account before this petition was filed?
9 school, is that right? ', 9 A. Probably March of 2010,
10 A. Yes. '10 Q. and when did you typically deposit the
11 Q. You weren't allowed to contact Karla or ;ll funds into the account? would it have been at the
12 ~unelia? 12 beginning of the month, the middle, the end?
13 a. Yes. 13 a. z don't recall when the -- they weren't
14 MR. TANK: Now we're on Exhibit 5. 14 on a set schedule.
15 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 15 Q. There wasn't an autanatic withdrawal or
16 No. 5 was marked for 16 transfer process?
17 identification.) ~';17 A. N0.
18 BY MR. TANK: '18 Q. At any point in time before Karla filed
19 Q. For the record, Exhibit 5 is the April 19 this petition, did she ask you to transfer money
20 28, 2010, emergency petition for preliminary ;20 into the account?
21 injunction and for access to marital funds. This '21 A. she was always telling me to transfer
22 was a document that was filed with the court by '22 money into the account.
23 Karla or her attorneys, is that right? ;23 Q. In April of 2010 before she filed this
24 A. Yes. 24 petition, did she ask you to transfer money into
45 47

1 Q. Have you seen this document before? ' 1 the account?

2 A. Yes. 2 A. z don't recall if she asked or not.
3 Q. If you go down to paragraph 2, it says, ': 3 Q. yid you at any point in time in April of
4 defendant, meaning you, unilaterally chose to use ! 4 2010 tell Karla that you ire not going to transfer
5 $40,000 from the checking account to pay off the i 5 money into the account?
6 existing home equity line of credit on the marital 6 A. I don't recall exactly what I vrould have
7 residence and to close the home equity line 7 told her, but I was told by my attorney that half
8 account. yid z read that correctly? ~" 8 of the -- my funds would be transferred to Chapski
9 a. Yes. g trust, and in court all of ray funds were
10 Q. Is that a true statement? oid you do '10 transferred.
11 those things? ; 11 Q. we'll get to that.
12 A. Yes. !12 a. So z didn't have any funds to transfer
13 Q. Paragraph 3 says, the only marital bank 13 after --
14 account that plaintifF has access to is a joint 14 4. I`m asking before this was filed though.
15 checking account. Is that a true statement? 15 At any point in time in April of 2010 before this
~, 16 a. ves. ' 16 was filed, do you recall telling Karla that you
17 Q. zt then goes on to say, defendant, 17 were not going to transfer funds into the joint
18 meaning you, refuses to deposit any monies into it. 18 checking account?
19 Is that true? Were you refusing to put money into '19 a. No. z was paying the household bills at
20 the joint checking account? 20 that time.
21 A. That is not true. 21 MR. TANK: we're all done with that one.
22 Q. Did you actually deposit money into the i22 pet's go to E~chibit 6. For the record, this is a
23 joint checking account? '23 May 20, 2010, amended petition for rule to show
24 A. Yes. 24 cause.
46
~ Mccorkle Litigation Services, znc. 45..48
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 (WHEREUPON W. SChm1d EXhlblt j 1 this lawsuit, the legal malpractice lawsuit,

2 No. 6 was marked for 2 you are seeking as damages from the defendant
3 identification.) 3 $20,900 in funds that the divorce judge
4 BY MR. TANK: ; 4 found you dissipated. Does that sound right to
5 Q. zf you have an emergency and you need to '~ 5 you?
6 take it, let us know. That's fine. No, you don't 6 A. Yes. But the time period is not --
7 need to take it? ', 7 Q. That's what z was getting at. The
8 a. No. Thanks. g transactions that have been involved in these
9 Q. For the record E~chibit 6 is the May 20, 9 petitions, is this the money that the judge found
10 2010, amended petition for rule to show cause filed '; 10 you dissipated?
11 by Karla or her attorneys. 5i r, have you seen this '11 A. N0.
12 document before? '12 Q. okay.
13 A. Yes. ' 13 A. The dissipation was a specific 15-month
14 Q, so paragraph 1 says on April 28 the Court ~14 time period from November 2010 to, I think,
15 ordered you to turn over all funds remaining fran X15 February 2012, whatever the 15 months would be.
16 the 78,000 that was in the checking account as of '16 That corresponded with my start of employment with
17 April 1, 2010. Did I read that correctly? '17 AEP in November of 2010.
18 a. ves. '18 Q. Gotcha. You can put that one aside.
19 Q. Paragraph 2 says 13 days after the order 19 a. Can I say something about this
20 was entered, defendant delivered a check in the '20 X5,000?
21 amount of $16,736.69. Did 1 read that correctly? ~~i21 Q. Your attorney can, yes. So once I'm done
22 A. Yes. ;'22 asking questions, your attorney will be able to ask
Z3 Q. Is that true? You delivered a check only 123 you questions. You guys can clear that up if he
24 in the amount of $16,736.69? 24 wants to say something.
49 51
1 A. z don't recall the exact amount, but z 1 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
2 did have an accounting and z did have a check. 2 No. 7 was marked for
3 q. So you recall handing over a check. You 3 identification.)
4 just don't recall how Bch it was? 4 BY MR. TANK:
S a. z don't recall the exact amount. ': 5 Q. Exhibit 7, for the record, this is an
6 Q. So paragraph 3 it says, after 6 order that was entered on ]une 15, 2010.
7 the order was entered, 5,000 was paid on your ' 7 Mr. Scl~nid, did you ever see this order during the
8 personal credit card bill, is that true? yid you ! 8 divorce proceeding?
9 do that'? g A. ves.
10 a. Yes. ' 10 Q. This is the order that was entered after
11 Q, okay. I'm all done with that copy -- 'll the hearing on plaintiff's petition for rule to
12 actually you knav what, we're not for a second. So 12 show cause, supplanental petition for preliminary
13 if the court found that on April 1 of 2010, this 13 injunction. Were you present at this hearing?
14 checking account had $78,000, you paid half of that I14 A. Yes.
15 to the home line of credit, so that leaves $38,000, x!15 Q. All right. The order says, the Court
16 right? 16 hearing evidence and argument and being advised in
17 A. Yes. 17 the premises. when you were at this hearing, did
18 Q. And so then assuming it's true that the '18 you testify on behalf of yourself to explain the
19 check you handed over was $16,736.69, that would 19 situation?
20 mean that there was about 529,900 that didn't get '20 A. N0.
21 turned over, is that right? i21 q. what evidence was presented in that
22 A. i would have to look at my accounting of '22 hearing, do you recall?
23 it to give you exact numbers. Z3 A. z had my full accounting, and nothing was
24 Q. So what I'm getting at here is in 24 presented by my attorney. And when I asked the
50 52
~~ McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 49..52
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 judge for me to explain with my accounting, I 1 accounts. yid x read that correctly?
2 wasn't allowed to say anything. `; 2 a. you read it correctly, yes.
3 Q. was that judge Pilmer at the time? 3 Q. Are the allegations in paragraph 5
4 a. No. That was -- 4 correct?
5 Q. it was Kostelny? 5 a. No.
6 A. judge Kostelny. 6 Q. what is your explanation for why the u of
7 Q. judge xostelny. t'm sorry. And this 7 M tuition was not paid?
8 happened in Tune 15, 2010. So that was about a 8 n. Amelia was enrolled at out-of-state
9 year-and-a-half before you hired Mr. Feda, right? 9 tuition rates with a total bill of approximately
14 a. ves. 10 $24,000 for the first semester instead of $24,000 ',
11 Q. After the hearing the judge ordered you ! 11 for the first year, and Karla did not file FAFsa, ~
12 to turn over the funds that were identified in i ll forms or whatever the university of Michigan forms
13 Karla's petitions, right? ! 13 are, and she did not notify the University of
14 A. Yes. 14 Michigan that I needed to file the forms as the
15 (WHEREUPON 1V. Schmid Exhibit 15 noncustodial parent due to my unemployment and
16 No. 8 was marked for 16 other daughter in college at the same time.
17 identification.) 17 Q. Did you ever contact the university of
18 1 31ui~l•~►1C~ 18 Michigan to find out if fihe proper steps had been
19 Q. Now we are on Exhibit 8. Thank you. ! 19 taken for the tuition to be paid?
20 'this is the September 10, 2010, petition for rule "! 20 a. Numerous times.
21 to show cause filed by Karla and her attorneys. ' 21 Q. And what did u of M tell you?
22 Have you seen this docwnent before? ' 22 a. that Amelia
me was -- her bill was $24,000
23 A. Yes. ~". 23 for the term and that they had not received any
24 Q. So this document, first in paragraph 1, ! 24 FAFSA application fran Karla or notification that i
53 55

references an order entered that states the funds i 1 required the FAFsa applications for special
held in 529 and E5A accounts for Elizabeth and j 2 circumstances.
Amelia shall be utilized by defendant to pay the 3 Q. oid you ask the university of Michigan to
2010 fall sc~r~ester expenses for Amelia and 4 send you those forms so you could fill than out
elizabeth, correct? That's what the document says? 5 yourself?
A. Yes. 6 a. They could not send them to me. they had
Q. If you turn to the second page, paragraph `' 7 to be requested by Amelia.
3 says Amelia was enrolled to attend the university 8 Q. yid you make any attempt to contact
of Michigan? =t says that, right? ~! 9 Amelia, either by yourself or through your
A. ves. 10 attorneys, to tell her that she needed to send you
Q. Then it says Karla provided you with all 11 the forms?
necessary inforniation in order to make timely 1 12 A. Yes.
payments to U of ht for ,4melia's first semester's ;' 13 Q. And as far as you know, what was gmelia's
studies? yid z read that correctly? '• 14 response?
a. what -- i 15 A. they never did grant permission to the
Q. Paragraph 4. 2'm just going through and 16 university of Michigan to send me the forms.
asking if z read that correctly, that Karla gave 17 q. yid Amelia actually respond to -- did you
you the inforniation you needed to make timely 18 contact her, or did your attorneys contact her?
payments to U of M. 19 A. r contacted Karla and Evnelia by email.
A. Yes. That's what it says, but there's i: 20 Q. And did they write back to you?
another court order. " 21 A. Yes.
Q. I'll get to that. Paragraph 5, it says ' 22 q. And did they write back and say, we'17
you failed and refused to pay the amounts due to 23 get on it right away, or did they write back and
u of M despite having access to the 529 and ~ 24 say, we're not going to do it?
54 56

J
~.~ McCorkle Litigation services, znc.
Chicago, zllinais (312) 263-0052
53..56
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 A, z don't remember what the response was, 1 daughters in college, I would receive additional
2 but they used funds from these court orders; 2 aid for the second daughter in college.
3 namely, my tax refund money, and at this time it 3 Q. nid anyone from the University of
4 was Amelia's college savings accounts. 4 Michigan's financial aid office tell you that?
5 Q. so they paid for it with that money? 5 A. z spoke to university of Michigan
6 A. ves, instead of applying for grants and 6 financial aid office, and they told me that they
7 scholarships and loans. 7 basically cannot tell me what the aid would be
8 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 8 until the forms are filed and that Amelia has to
9 Amelia actually would have obtained grants or '; 9 request the forms.
10 scholarships if she vuould have applied for them? ;10 Q. So you have no inforn~ation that you can
11 a. Yes. i11 give to me to prove that if Amelia had, in fact,
12 Q. What inforn~ation do you have to suggest '12 applied for the grants and loans and student aid,
13 that's true? !13 she actually would have received it?
14 A. when z talked to nmelia about her plans ;14 A. No, because z was never allowed to fill
15 for college, which was the night of the -- from the 15 out the forms.
16 order of protection, Amelia said she wanted to j16 Q. so you have no information to prove
17 attend Michigan technological university in the 17 that's true?
18 physical therapy curriculum. And when i asked her 18 a. Right.
19 how she expected me to pay out of state tuition for 19 q. And if ~unelia didn't get the grants and
20 Michigan Tech, she said that she would get in-state '20 loans and student aid, her college tuition had to
21 rates because her parents attended Michigan Tech. 21 be paid sanehow, right?
22 And when I checked with Michigan ;;22 A. Yes.
23 Tech financial aid office, z was told that Amelia 23 Q. And that's what happened? Karla used
24 ~nuld be given in-state tuition rates to Michigan j24 money to pay for her college tuition, right?
57 . 59

1 Tech because z was a graduate of Michigan Tech, and 'i, 1 A. Yes. she was given ta~c return money and
2 that she would be eligible for a 55,000 -- z 2 college savings.
3 believe it would have been a Pell Grant. And he 3 Q. and that was money that the judge ordered
4 said that she would be up -- Amelia would be ! 4 that she receive?
5 eligible for more aid based on Elizabeth being in S A. z don't know how that's interpreted. z
6 school at the same time. 6 think the 7uly 27th, 2010 -- I don't remember if
7 Q. But Amelia didn't go to hti chigan tech, 7 it's a court order or an agreed order.
8 correct? g Q. aut there was something that happened in
9 a. Correct. She went to University of 9 court that said Karla was entitled to receive sane
10 Michigan. 10 money fran the tax returns and the ESA and 529
ll Q. So what inforn~ation do you have showing ! 11 accounts, right?
12 that Amelia would have raceived grants or student 12 A. zf it's an agreed order or in a court
13 aid or loans if she had applied for thin? 13 order that I'm talking about, z was pro se at the
14 A. After the 7uly Z7th court order, 'I 14 time, and Attorney Doyen presented something
15 Elizabeth and z filled out the FAFS,4 forms for 15 different. And when z explained to the judge that
16 Drake University, and Elizabeth received a !, 16 z need the ta~c returns to be signed by Karla so
17 $5,000 -- I believe it was a Pell Grant, in ' 17 that I can apply -- so that i can file FaFSA and
18 addition to her $10,000 a year scholarship. 18 apply for scholarships and loans, the judge said
19 p. lust because Elizabeth received soiree 19 that certainly Attorney Doyen said that z ~rould not
20 funding from another school, it doesn't necessarily i20 be eligible for fi nancial aid because of my income
21 mean that Amelia would have received funding to go ~21 level. and judge Kostelny said certainly there's
22 to university of Michigan. Do you agree with that? (22 some way to word the court order so that
23 A. I believe what the financial aid officer '23 scholarships and loans can be applied for, and
24 from Michigan Tech told me is that with two '24 that's the way that it was --
58 .~
McCorkle ~itigatian Services, Inc. 57..60
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 Q. ao you have any reason to believe that !; 1 A. Yes.

2 Karla was not entitled to the ta~c return money and `:. 2 Q. accuse me. It says, "Court would
3 the 529 and -- was it ESA account money that she 1 3 indicate that if you were willing to be obligated
4 used to pay for Amelia's
me college? 4 to pay Amelia's education, she would reduce the
5 A. Yes. 5 maintenance that would probably be payable to your
6 q. And what is your reason for believing she 6 wife to, $2,500 per month. This would be pern~anent
7 was not entitled to that money? 7 maintenance until you retire." vid z read that
8 a. Because she did not allow me to file the ~ 8 correctly?
9 FAFSA forms. g A. Yes.
10 Q. so there are tea parts to what you're Ii 10 Q. at the time judge Kostelny eras the judge
11 talking about. There's the part that says Karla is ill that was overseeing these proceedings, correct?
12 entitled to the money from the tax returns and the 12 A. Yes.
13 ESA and 529, and then there's the part that says 13 Q. So on November 18, 2010, which is a
14 Karla has to file for the grants and student aids, 14 year-and-a-half before the trial started, the
15 right? You agree there are two separate parts to 15 presiding judge told you that she would award 2,500
16 that? 16 in maintenance per month pern~anent, correct?
17 A. Yes. ' 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. and so then you would agree that based on 18 MR. TANK: A11 done with that.
19 the first part that says Karla is entitled to the ! 19 Exhibit 10.
20 ta~c return money and entitled to the 529 and ESA 120 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
21 money, that she was, in fact, entitled to receive `21 No. 10 was marked for
22 that money? ': 22 identification.)
23 A. z don't know how to answer that question. 23 BY MR. TANK:
24 Q. Fair enough. I'll shay you ~chibit 9. i 24 Q. For the record, Exhibit 10 is another
61 631

1 This is a letter from Frank ~iampoli, your letter fran Frank Giampoli dated March 7, 20ll.
2 attorney, dated Nov~er 18 -- Have you seen a copy of this letter before, sir?
3 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit A. Yes.
4 No. 9 was marked for Q. =t was mailed to you, right?
S identification.) A. Yes.
6 BY MR. TANK: Q. Head down to the very last paragraph and
7 Q. z gave you the wrong one. From your the last sentence in that paragraph that begins
8 attorney, Frank Giampoli, dated Nove~er 18, X010, with "However." oo you see where I'm at?
9 the first sentence says, ~ conducted a pretrial A. Yes.
10 conference in front of judge Kostelny, right? Q. it says, "However, I think that 2 can get
11 A. Yes. this rase settled at $90,000 if u~ agree to all
12 Q. zt's your understanding that a pretrial other terms." yid z read that correctly?
13 conference is basically a settlement conference a. Yes.
14 where you talk about the case and try to reach a Q. And then it looks like your handwriting
15 resolution. zs that your understanding? is on there. underneath the part that says, "that
16 A. Yes. I can get this case settled," you wrote, "you
17 Q, rf you go down to the last paragraph, in settle." what do you mean by writing that?
18 the middle there's a sentence that begins, "court a. That was just my interpretation of
19 would indicate..." oo you see where z`m at? Attorney Giampoli's wording.
20 ,4. which -- Q. Meaning that when he wrote that, even
21 Q. fast paragraph. though he wrote, "I can get this case settled,"
22 a. okay. what he meant is that you, htr. Schmid, could get
23 Q. In the middle there's a sentence that the case settled for that amount?
24 begins, "Court t~uld indicate..."? a. ves.
62 64
McCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 61..64
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 Q. So you were just writing that dam as a '! 1 Q. and that was for six weeks, and she made
2 note to yourself as to what it meant? ' 2 S15 an hour?
3 a. Yes. 3 a. ves.
4 Q. So at that time, March 7, 2012, which is ! 4 Q. So if Karla had not filed for divorce and
5 about a year before the trial started, Mr. Giampoli 5 you had continued to be married to her and your
6 was telling you that he thought he could settle the 6 daughters werrt to college, then you probably would
7 case for $90, 0 if you agreed to certain terms, 7 have been on the hook for paying all of their
8 right? ' 8 college expenses, right?
9 A. Yes. And that's what my notes were, that 9 a. z would have filed FAFSA and applied for
10 he could settle the case if z agreed to pay all of '10 scholarships and grants and loans.
11 the other terms. '11 Q. And if your daughters did not receive
12 Q. so on the second page, it outlines the ';12
x scholarships, grants and loans, then you would have
13 terms, right? ;13 been responsible for paying for college expenses
14 a. Yes. 14 and tuition, right?
15 Q. And one of the terms was that the marital 15 A. z would not have sent Amelia to
16 assets would be divided 50/50 as long as you pay '16 university of Michigan at out-of-state rates if it
17 maintenance and educational expenses in the future, '17 wasn't for the divorce.
18 right? 18 Q. Well, that was her choice, right?
19 A. That's what it says. 19 A. That was Karla's and anelia's choice to
20 Q. Right. At that time did you feel it 20 go to university of Michigan. what anelia
21 would be fair if the marital assets were divided '21 expressed to me was she wanted to go to Michigan
22 50/50 between you and Karla? 22 Technological University at in-state rates, and z
23 A. Yes, to that part of the question. 23 urould have applied for additional grants,
24 Q. yid you believe it u~uld be fair if you '24 scholarships and loans.
65 67

1 paid educational expenses in the future? 1 Q. so you didn't think it was fair that you
2 a. rro. 2 were going to have to pay money towards your
3 Q. Why did you rwt think that would be fair? ~ 3 daughter's college expenses?
4 a. Because there were college expenses for 4 A. z didn't think it was fair to pay cash
5 both daughters that z paid for, and z thought those S money when z was unemployed and not file for
6 expenses should be divided 50/50 and Karla`s i 6 grants, scholarships and loans.
7 portion taken off of what z owed her for the house i 7 Q. one of the other conditions of the
8 is what z had discussed with attorney ~iampoli. ' 8 settlement v~ould have been you paying Karla
9 Q. Throughout your entire marriage, T 9 maintenance, right?
10 believe you said earlier you were the primary '10 A. Yes.
11 breadwinner, right? 11 Q. and at that time Karla was asking for
12 a. Up until Karla quit working in 1996, yes. ill 53,500 a month, and Kostelny recairnended a
13 Q. You mean after she quit working? ': 13 settlanent of $2,500 a month, right?
14 A. I was the primary breachvinner after she ! 14 A. Yes.
15 quit working, yes. "! 15 Q. And then it goes on. tow I'm on the
16 Q. so from 1996 until Karla filed for 16 second page, second full paragraph do►+mm. The very
17 divorce in 2010, you were the primary breadwinner? ' 17 last sentence that Mr. Giampoli wrote to you was,
18 You paid for the home. You paid for the food, i 18 fudge Gilmer believed that the support should be at '
' 19 right? 19 somewhere between 3,~0 and 3,500 per month, right?
20 A. Yes. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And Karla was not working during that 21 Q. and judge Pilmer was the judge who
22 period of time full time, right? :i 2Z resided over the trial in the divorce case, right?
23 a. Except for a brief period in 2004 when '23 A. Yes.
24 she returned back to work when z was unemployed. X24 Q. so a year before the case +,vent to trial,
66 68
MCCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 65. .68
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 judge Gilmer was telling you that he was going to 1 But no, z did not want to settle under these
2 make you pay between $3,000 and $3,540 a month, 2 terms.
3 right? 3 Q. okay. we're all done with that one.
4 A. That's what it says. 1 4 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
5 Q. rf you go farther down, the second to ', 5 No. ll was marked for
6 last paragraph that starts, "Please consider the 6 identification.)
7 points that I am making here." Do you see where i 7 BY MR. TANK:
8 I'm at? 8 Q. Here is Exhibit
xh ll. For the record, this
9 a. Yes. 9 is Krupp 674 to 677. on the top it says "Pretrial
10 Q. The last sentence of that paragraph says, X 10 Conference." Mr. Schmid, it's my understanding
11 "Remember, the court could order maintenance up to ll this is a document you created, right?
12 the 50 percent of your gross incase in your case." 12 A. Yes.
13 oid I read that correctly? i 13 q. And this is something that you referred
14 A. That's what it says. ', 14 to as -- this document and other similar documents
15 Q. Despite what this letter says, you chose ' 15 as bystander report, is that right?
16 not to settle with Karla, right? •:. 16 A. Yes.
17 A. This letter does not explain what would '! 17 Q. This particular bystander report was
18 happen at times of unemployment. : 18 prepared for, according to the document, a pretrial
19 Q. My point is: You didn't settle with I 19 conference that was held on March 4 of 2011 before
20 Karla, you chose to go to trial? i~ 20 fudge Pilmer, is that right?
21 a. z could not settle for terms like this ! 21 A. can z explain the bystander report?
22 when my occupation has a lot of unemployment in it. '! 22 Q. Sure. I'm going to -- I think I'm going
23 Q. Even when the judge who is going to ! 23 to ask you a series of questions, z think, that
24 preside over your trial is telling you, if you ' 24 will allow you to explain it. okay?
69 71

1 don't settle for these more favorable terms, I'm 1 A. Okay.

2 going to make you pay more money, you still didn't 2 Q, so my fi rst question is: You created
3 want to settle the case? 3 this document, right?
4 A. The original letter says what was -- what 4 A. Yes.
5 would probably be due tcarla. there was no mention 5 Q, hfy second question is: When did you
6 of Karla's claim of disability and her previous 6 create it?
7 work experience. 7 A. Sometime after hiring attorney Krupp.
8 MR. TANK: Can you please read my 8 Q. Did you prepare it because you wanted to,
9 question back? 9 or did you prepare it because Krupp asked you to?
10 (WHEREUPON said Record was read 10 a. aecause Krupp asked me to.
11 as requested.) ' 11 Q. so is this basically your way of
12 BY MR. TANK: 12 summarizing as accurately as possible what happened
13 Q. lust answer that question. Yes or no? 13 during the March 4 of 20ll pretrial conference
14 ,4. Could you repeat the -- 14 before judge Pilmer?
15 MR. TANK: Sure. Could you read it back 15 A. Yes.
16 again, please? 16 Q. If you go to page 676. it's the third
17 ~E wrrNEss: t don't knaN if the answer 17 page. So if you look at nurr~er 11, it says, i
18 is yes or no. '1 18 think I can get this case settled at $90,000. That
19 MR. TANK: Fair enough. ~o ahead. ! 19 is you reciting what Mr. ~iampoli told you in the
20 (WHEREUPON said Record was read ~ 20 letter he wrote to you?
21 as requested.) i 21 A. Yes.
22 BY N~2. TANK: ~ 22 q. and that's true for all of these terms on
23 Q. ,answer that question. ' 23 this page, specifically ll through 23? That is you
24 ,4. t'm still not sure what the answer is ' 24 taking out portions of the letter that Mr. ~iampoli
70 72
~} McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 69..72
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 wrote to you and putting then in this document? identification.)

2 A. Yes. BY MR. TANK.
3 Q. so this is a true and accurate depiction Q. For the record, ~chibit 12 is
4 of what that letter states, that you put it on your Mr. sctunid's bystander report for dissipation of
5 ou~m document? marital assets. 71~at's what it says at the top,
6 A. It's supposed to be, yes. right?
7 Q. if you go to page 677, so the new page, A. Yes.
8 nu~er 35, you wrote, "zf we go to trial, i Est Q. so it looks like there were a series of
9 indicate to you that z believe the judge would set trials where evidence was presented on the
10 support in the form of maintenance at closer to dissipation claim that Karla made, right?
11 $3,50Q." So that was you taking that portion of A. Could z say something about the previous
12 Giampali letter's out, putting it into your own one?
13 document, right? Q. Is it an explanation of sanething we
14 A. Yes. already talked about, or is it something in
15 Q. Then 36, you wrote from Mr. ~iampoli's addition to that?
16 letter, "and there is a great risk to going to A. zt's the bystander report.
17 trial in your case," right? Q. sure. co ahead.
18 a. ves. A. this one doesn't say bystander report.
19 Q. At 40 you wrote, "Reme~er, the Court This one does say bystander report.
20 could order maintenance up to 50 percent of your Q. So if it's a bystander report, you
21 gross income in your case," right? specifically wrote it at the top. otherwise, it's
22 A. That's what it says, yes. just your notes?
23 Q. So you didn't just copy and paste the A. Yes.
24 entire letter into this document. You picked out Q. what is your understanding of the
73 751
1 the portions that you believed were important to difference between just taking notes and a
2 your case, right? bystander report?
3 A. well, z didn't have any electronic copy A. z used the term "bystander report"
4 of the letter, so this was hand typed. zt wasn't incorrectly on this document.
5 cut and paste. Q. okay. why is it incorrect in your mind?
6 Q. gut you chose to hand type into this A. z believe the correct terminology would
7 document the portions of the letter that you be Attorney Krupp was supposed to write the
8 thought were important to your case? bystander report from my recollections of what
4 A. Yes. happened at the trial. So this should read William
10 Q. And sane of the things that you Schmid recollections, not bystander report.
11 specifically felt u~re important were the fact that Q. okay.
12 judge Gilmer, the presiding judge for your trial, a,. and this -- this document is notes of
13 told you a year before the trial that he was going previous correspondence and court orders. This was
14 to make you pay between $3,000 and $3,500 a month not trial. This was just my typed notes of many
15 in maintenance if it went to trial, right? documents.
16 A. Yes. Q. and when you say "this document," you're
17 Q. And one of the things that you thought referring to Exhibit ll?
18 was important was Attorney Giampoli telling you A. Yes.
19 that the court could order you to pay up to Q. so going back to Exhibit 12, this is a
20 50 percent of your gross income, right? document you prepared that's -- accurately states
21 A. Yes. your recollection of what happened during these
22 MR. TANK: Now we are on 12. trial events, right, and court appearances?
23 (WfiEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit A. Yeah. I'm not sure if 12-27-11 was a
24 No. 12 was marked for trial or just a court --
74 76
MCCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 73..76
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 Q. -- court appearance. okay. The reason 1 A. Yes, up until this court order.
2 why you prepared this document is because it was 2 Q. And that was the inforniation that you
3 your understanding that Mr. Krupp vas going to take 3 wanted presented to the judge so he would know what
4 these documents, turn them into something called a 4 you did with all of that money, right?
5 bystander report that he would then submit in 5 A. Yes.
6 support of your appeal, right? 6 Q. Md siampoli had a hearing in front of
7 A. Yes. 7 judge Gilmer, and it's your understanding that
8 Q. And because you knew that Mr. Krupp was 8 Giampoli presented that evidence to the judge?
9 going to turn these documents into bystander 9 a. z was not allowed in the courtroom, so z
10 reports that were going to be submitted in support 10 don't -- all z know is what is written here.
ll of your appeal, you made sure that everything you ' 11 Q. yid ~iampoli tell you that he presented
12 put in these reports were accurate, correct? 12 that evidence to the judge?
13 ,4. Yes. 13 a. Yes.
14 Q. So if you didn't reme~er sanething 14 Q. Why were you rrot allowed in the
15 happening, r noticed that in these what you called 15 courtroom?
16 or wrote were bystander reports, you specifically 16 A. z don't know why.
17 say, I don't rern~nber what was said here, right? ' 17 Q, oid you try to go into the courtroom and
18 a. ves. ' 18 judge Pilmer told you you had to leave?
19 Q. otherwise, if you wrote something down ~" 19 A. No. Attorney Giampoli did not let me in
i
20 here, you wrote it down because you specifically ' 20 the courtroom.
21 remember that is what happened? I 21 q. so it wasn't in the court order. zt was
22 A. Yes. 22 just Giampoli telling you he didn't want you in
23 Q. And you were able to transcribe that down 23 there?
24 into this document accurately, right? 24 A. Yes.
77 79

1 A. ves. 1 Q. Got it. There is a next section dated

2 Q. And that's true for all of the documents 2 7anuary 3rd, 2012. was this another hearing?
3 you prepared that are labeled "Bystander Report" at 3 A. No. This was just a petition or whatever
4 the top, right? '; 4 you call it, notice of filing, notice of claim of
5 ,4. Yes. S dissipation.
6 Q. Let's look at the front page of 6 q. So that's your summary of a document that
7 Exhibit 12, halfway down. =t says "eystander 7 was filed with the court?
8 Report co 12-27-ll," right? 8 A. Yes.
9 a. ves. 9 Q. All right. past page. This is a report
10 Q. what happened on 12-27-ll? was this a 10 for ]anuary 13th, 2012, right?
11 hearing on the notice of dissipation? ': 11 A. Yes.
12 A. Yes. ' 12 q. At the top, "~" in all capital letters,
13 Q. You wrote, "z prepared a spreadsheet and 13 what does that stand for?
14 made four copies before the court date." what 14 A. Pardon?
15 information was contained on the spreadsheet? :; 15 MR. Gattn-iIER: Right at the top, the
16 ,4. All of my expenditures for my employment ~! 16 third paragraph.
17 with ADP. 17 BY MR. TANK:
18 Q. And your employment with a~P, that was ' 18 Q. Sure. yet me show you here. i just want
19 the time period that was covered by Karla's claim '! 19 to know what that means, "BOB."
20 for dissipation, right? ' 20 a. ,4t the beginning of the third paragraph?
21 A. Yes. 21 Q. Yes. I'm sorry.
22 Q. so the spreadsheets you prepared ►Kere Z2 A. Bob. Attorney Bob Krupp.
23 your accounting of ali of your expenses during that 23 Q. oh, Bob Krupp. so you wrote "SOB."
BO
24 time period, right? X 24 You're calling this out to Krupp. "My first
78 i 80
McCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 77. .gp
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 conversation with Feda included the cam~nt: you 1 Q. what information is contained in this
2 need to show where every penny was spent for the 2 spreadsheet?
3 claim of dissipation." That was sanething Feda 3 ,4. This looks like the bottom portion of a
4 said to you, right? 4 larger spreadsheet. It's only rows 96 to 139, and
5 a. ves. '; 5 it's the -- starting January 2010, I believe
6 Q. aecause Feda told you that, you then 6 Defense Exhibit 8 runs from sanetime in 2005.
7 prepared a ne~v spreadsheet, right? 7 Q. ,411 right. =s this a complete copy of
8 A. Yes. ~' 8 Defense Exhibit 8?
9 Q. And there eventually was atrial where 9 A. z believe so, yes.
10 evidence was presented on the claim of dissipation, ' 10 MR. TANK: Let's mark that 14.
11 right? ', ll (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
12 a. z can't recall what was presented, but ' 1Z No. 14 was marked for
13 there is a spreadsheet in evidence, so however you ! 13 identification.)
14 term that. 14 BY MR. TANK:
15 q. 5o it's your understanding that somehav '15 Q. Let's see if there's a spot I can put
16 the spreadsheet that you prepared that explains '; 16 this without covering anything up. so for the
17 what all your expenses were ended up in evidence? 17 record, Defense -- or excuse me -- ~chibit 14 in
18 a. ves. 'i 18 this case is a copy of Defense Exhibit 8 that was
19 Q. At the bottom of this second to last '. 19 introduced into evidence at the divorce trial,
20 paragraph, you wrote, after trial attorney Feda 20 right?
21 conrnented to me that Attorney Doyen, Karla's X 21 A. ves. this oversized sheet was.
22 attorney, told fudge Pilmer that you do not have i 22 Q. Yeah. ~chibit 14?
23 any living expenses while working because he parks 23 A. Yes.
24 his trailer at the job site. Karla's attorney told 24 Q. and what is Exhibit 14? zs that a
81 83

1 fudge Gilmer that, right? 1 spreadsheet that details your expenses?

2 a. That's what attorney Feda relayed to me. 2 a. ves. zt's three forms of expenditures:
3 Q. okay. You don't know if that's true or 3 credit cards, checks and a~ cash withdrawals.
4 not? that's just your understanding as to what was 4 Q. and that document ended up as evidence in
5 said? 5 the court file, right?
6 a. That's my recollection of what attorney 6 A. Yes.
7 Feda said to me. 7 Q. And do you specifically reme~er that
8 (WIiEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 8 document being introduced as evidence during the
9 No. 13 was marked for ' 9 trial?
10 identification.) 10 A. Yes. zt's in the court evidence file.
11 BY MR. TANK: , 11 Q. ao you specifically re~nert~er Mr. Feda
12 Q. Exhibit 13 now. For the record, this is 12 asking you questions about that spreadsheet and
13 a spreadsheet. at the top it says oef Ex 8. 13 asking you to explain it to the judge?
14 Mr. sct~nid, what is this document? ' 14 ,4. z don't recall. It would be in my
15 ,4. It's my Defense Exhibit 8. ', 15 bystander reports.
16 Q. Is this the spreadsheet you prepared for 16 Q. okay. so for the details about what
17 the dissipation claim? ' 17 happened at trial, we'll have to refer to your
18 .4. No. it's an oversized spreadsheet that 18 bystander reports, right?
19 there are -- that I did provide copies of. 19 a. Yes.
20 Q. Right. 20 Q. These were prepared closer in time to
21 A. this is printed off the tomputer without ' 21 when the trial happened, and they contain
22 proper format. 22 accurate recollections of what happened at trial,
23 Q. gut you know what this is though? 23 right?
24 A. Yes. ' 24 a. They contain my recollections, yes.
i
84
~3 t~ccorkle Litigation Services, Inc. 81..84
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 1 Q. so how did Karla steal marital funds?

2 No. 15 was marked for '; 2 a. when z left to go to -- to the job site
3 identification.) 3 for east Kentucky Power, Karla removed
4 BY MR. TANK: i 4 approximately $6,000 from a joint international
5 Q. Here we are, Exhibit 15. This is your 5 investor account and opened what she calls her gift
6 bystander report for -- thanks. Mr. Schmid, this 6 account at First wnerican Bank. and she wire
7 is your bystander report for trial dates February 7 7 transferred 56,0 from the international
8 and B of 2012, right? 8 investors' account, and she transferred
9 a. ves. 9 approximately $4,000 from a First American Bank
10 Q. so at this time Mr. Feda is your 10 joint savings account. And she opened her gift
ll attorney, right? 11 account on the same day.
12 A. Yes. ' 12 And at that time she had also gone
13 Q. and this is the actual trial for the 13 to a lawyer in the neighborhood and had notes
14 divorce proceeding? 14 written on the home equity line of credit. It
15 A. Yes. 15 wasn't the application. zt was the actual loan
16 Q. okay. You said on February 7 Doyen 16 papers that she would need to sign in order for me
17 introduced evidence or had Karla on the witness 17 to have the loan in my name. and she wrote on
18 stand for verbal testimony all day? 1- 18 there, will William know about this before he
X 19 A. Yes. 19 leaves for tcentucky?
ZO Q. February 8 Doyen introduced evidence. ', 20 Q. when did you find out that she had done
21 Feda asked his questions of tcarla and started 21 all of these things?
22 questioning you late in the day, right? I 22 a. ~ knew about the -- about the loan in
23 A. Yes. 23 April when z returned to work and she wouldn't --
24 Q. So if you go doNm to it~n nu~er 4, do 24 wouldn't approve it. And the transfer of 56,000, I
$5 87

1 you see where I'm at, the sentence that begins, 1 can't recall right now when I knew about it. I
2 "wi7liam then asked"? 2 originally thought it was gift money from her
3 A. Yes. 3 father.
4 Q. It says, William then asked about going 4 Q. yid you find out about it in 2006 --
5 back to at least 2006 when Karla began stealing 5 A. No.
6 marital funds as previously discussed. what 6 Q. -- or was it in 2007, 2008?
7 specifically are you referring to? Haw did Karla 7 A. It would have been after 2010.
8 steal marital funds? 8 Q. 5o this was after the divorce petition
9 a. well, this was a discussion before the 9 had already been filed?
10 trial started where attorney Feda and Attorney 10 A. Yes.
11 Doyen were discussing the -- whatever it is, the li q, when you found out about the issue with
12 grounds for divorce. 12 the loan in 2006, you didn't choose to file for
13 Q. okay. And you believe that starting in 13 divorce, right?
14 2006, Karla was stealing marital funds? 14 A. No, I did not file for divorce in 2006.
15 A. In April 2006 -- I don't remember the 15 Q. so at the time that she had this money,
16 exact date, but it was approximately April 20th, 16 you were still married, right?
17 after z had gotten a job offer for east Kentucky 17 A. Yes.
18 Pox~r, z went to First American sank and was given 18 q. And it was you who tried to take out a
19 a -- z qualified for a hundred thousand dollar home 19 line of credit that only you would have access to,
20 equity line of credit, which z wanted to put in my 20 right?
21 own name, only my own name, so that Karla would not 21 A. Yes.
22 have access to it since it was only an 11-tenth job 22 Q. You wrote on here, "Feda threatened to
23 that z was going out on, and z was -- Elizabeth 23 drop my case if I did not agree with his terms"?
24 v~rould have been starting college. 24 A. Yes.
86 88
McCorkle Litigation Services, znc. 85..88
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 Q. what specifically did Feda say to you, if because he recamiended that the paper should, in
2 you recall? fact, say irreconcilable differences?
3 A. That if z didn't agree to the grounds for A. Yes.
4 divorce, he would drop my case. Q. Beneath that you say three plaintiff
5 Q. And what ►vere the grounds for divorce? items were introduced into evidence, Plaintiff's
6 A. the grounds are whatever -- ~lnat's in the Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 relating to your v~rk history
7 judgment. and income and expenses, right, all prior to 201Q,
8 q. 7~e irreconcilable differences? those were e~ibits that were introduced, you
9 A. Yes. wrote?
10 Q. and you didn't believe at that time that A. Yes.
11 there ►+mre irreconcilable differences? Q. So evidence related to your work history,
iZ A. When Karla filed for divorce, I did not incane and expenses were all introduced into
13 think there were irreconcilable differences. z evidence on February 7th, 2012, right?
14 wanted to go to counseling. We did go to one A. Those three items were introduced on
15 session together. Karla went to a number of February '12.
16 sessions by herself. Q. Yes.
17 Q. zn 2012 after Karla filed for divorce A. Yes.
18 after she got a temporary restraining order taken Q. You then say Plaintiff's ~chibit 34
19 out against you, after she accused you of stealing introduced on April 19th of 2012, that exhibit was
20 money, after you believed she was stealing money; introduced into evidence, right?
21 and then you v~ere going to trial in the divorce A. z wrote that there because the -- Karla's
22 case, you did not think there were irreconcilable social security Disability application was not
23 differences? submitted until February 22nd, but she talked about
24 a. at the time of trial, yes, there were items on the disability application at trial on
89 '~Sil

1 irreconcilable differences, but the stealing of 1 February 7th.

2 funds and the conniving for me to have an affair 'i 2 q. okay. so she introduced evidence on
3 should have been the grounds for divorce, not 3 February 7th about the Social security Disability
4 irreconcilable differences, stealing money. and 4 application, right?
S none of that was explained in the grounds for 5 ,4. No. That was not introduced until --
6 divorce. 6 Q. Not the actual application. lust her
7 Q. you would rather the papers say that you 7 talking about it.
8 v~re conniving to have an affair than simply saying '~ 8 A. Yes. she only talked about it on
9 there were irreconcilable differences? 9 February 7th.
10 a. z don't kn~v how to answer that. that's 10 Q, okay. Beneath that you write, "in the
11 sanething for the lawyers. '. 11 context of health history and prescription
12 Q. And in this case what Mr. Feda was 12 medications and other medications/suppl~nents." so
13 telling you at the time is that what the papers 13 this is part of the trial where tcarla testified
14 should say is that there were irreconcilable ',: 14 about her medical conditions and history, right?
15 differences, right? 15 A. Yes.
16 A. ves. 16 Q. She introduced evidence on those issues,
17 Q. And it sounds like there was a 17 right?
18 disagreement between you two about whether that 18 a. z don't know without referring to the --
19 should be said? 19 Q. what`s written in this document?
20 A. Yes. ;' 20 a. well, what's in the evidence folder.
21 q. out you ultimately agree that was for the ' 21 Q. yid Feda -- did Mr. Feda object to Karla
22 attorneys to decide, right? 22 talking about her medical conditions and history?
23 A. Yes. ', 23 A. Not that z remember.
24 q. And ultimately you agreed with Mr. Feda 24 Q. okay. You don't s~cifically rerr~nber
.~ 92
MCCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 89. .92
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 everything that happened at trial though, right? 1 the prescription medications that she is required
2 A. N0. 2 to take and then she listed a series of drugs,
3 Q. okay. so it's possible that Mr. Feda did 3 right?
4 object to that evidence and you just don't reme~er 4 a. ves.
5 it? 5 Q. so she testified to those things
6 A. Yes, that`s possible. 6 verbally?
7 Q. zf Mr. Feda testifies that he did, in 7 A. Yes.
8 fact, object to the introduction of that evidence, 8 Q. Okay. If you turn to the next page, it
9 you don't have any evidence to disprove that? 9 will say 682 in the bottan right. At fihe top you
10 A. Could you repeat that? 10 write, in the conte~ of housework, Karla testified
11 Q. sure. =f Mr. Feda testifies during his 11 that she dad 95 percent of her housework since you
12 deposition that when Karla started talking about 12 usually worked out of state. you wrote that danm
13 her medical history and conditions, he objected to 13 there?
14 that evidence being presented, you don't have any 14 A. Yes.
15 information to prove that's not true? 15 Q. And is that a true statement in general?
16 a. z believe z have written here someplace 16 zs it true that she did about 95 percent of the
17 Attorney Feda's questioning of Karla. I don't 17 housework around the hare?
18 remember if he objected to Karla's verbal 18 A. when z was working out of state and not
19 testimony. 19 home, yes, she was doing all of the housework at
20 Q. As v~ sit here today in this deposition, 20 home.
21 you don't have anything you can shav me to prove 21 q. Farther down the page, we have the
22 that Mr. Feda did not object to that? 22 portion for the February 8, 2012, trial. Do you
23 A. N0. 23 see where I'm at?
24 q. If you can turn to page 681, so it's the 24 A. Yes.
93 95

1 second page in this exhibit. at the top you wrote, 1 Q. Karla was still on the witness stand, and
2 Doyen asked Karla to describe her Crohn's Disease 2 aayen introduced 22 exhibits related to tcarla's
3 symptoms/treatments and others symptans/treatments. 3 health issues, work history, incase and expenses,
4 you then wrote that Karla replied, 1, gallbladder; i 4 is that right?
5 2, crohn's Disease; 3, ulcerated skin lesions; 4, 5 A. Yes.
6 thyroid; 5, eye probiems; 6, depression and 7, i 6 Q. So when you say Plaintiff's Exhibit 4
7 dental. You wrote these on here because when you 7 through 26, these are actual documents that Doyen
8 prepared this report, you specifically remembered 8 introduced into evidence, right?
9 Karla talking about those medical conditions at the 9 A. Yes.
10 trial, right? '„ 10 Q. And then underneath that, you say, "start
11 a. No. These would have corm from her !; 11 of Feda questions for Karla." so this was Feda's
12 disability application that z saw later. 12 cross-examination of Karla, right?
13 Q. So was this evidence actually presented 13 A. Yes.
14 at trial though? 14 Q. he asked her questions about how she
15 A. This would have been her verbal 15 determined the value of your marital home, right?
16 testimony. 16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Right. That's what t want to know. she 17 q. he asked her if she had asocial security
18 testified about that? 18 Disability report to sulxnit into evidence, and she
19 a. ves, with only verbal testimony. 19 said no?
20 Q. Right. 71~at's all I want to know. It 20 a. ves.
21 was verbal, but she testified to these seven 21 q. He asked her, can you describe your
22 conditions? 22 disability for the Court, and she replied, t do not
23 A. Yes. 23 have a technical disability; my disability is
24 Q. after nurt~er 7 Doyen asked Karla to name 24 general in nature, right?
94 96
t~ccorkle Litigation Services, znc. 93..96
~'' Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 A. Yes. 1 looking for work, she said, z was a hanemaker for

2 Q. This is testimony she gave at trial? ! 2 26 years, and my husband provided all the money,
3 a,. Yes, sir. 3 right?
4 Q. Feda asked Karla, "~o you have any 4 a. Yes.
5 medical testimony that you can provide today from 5 Q. That's all evidence that -- verbal
6 your medical doctor that confirms your alleged '; 6 testimony evidence that was introduced at trial,
7 disability", he asked her that question? ': 7 right?
8 a. Yes, i 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And Karla essentially said, no, she 9 4. He asked her why she stopped working in
10 didn't have any medical testimony from a doctor. 10 2004 and again in 1996?
11 she also didn't have any medical records that she !11 A. Yes.
12 could show'? That's right? 12 Q. ,and then we got to the point where you
13 A. That's my recollection. That's written s 13 were asked to take the stand, and you testified on
14 here, yes. '; 14 your anm behalf, right?
15 q. And that`s all evidence that Mr. Feda '15 a. ves.
16 elicited from Karla on cross-examination, right? ; 16 Q. And Mr. Feda asked you questions, so you
17 A. zf that's the lawyer way to describe it. 17 could explain your att~npts to find a job, right?
18 There was no -- it was just verbal description from 18 A. Yes.
19 Karla. '!19 Q. and you e~lained what work you do, and
20 Q. okay. '20 what you did to try to find a ne~v job, right?
21 a. She did not have anything written from a ~i21 A. ves.
22 doctor, and she did not have the Social security 22 Q. And you had prepared spreadsheets on that
23 Disability determination. She just had the 23 as well, right?
24 application with her own information, no doctor's 24 A. Yes, Defense Exhibit 8.
97

1 information included with the Social security ' 1 Q. And according to this statement that you
2 Disability application. i z prepared here, you presented that spreadsheet to
3 Q. ,4nd that's all information that came out I 3 the judge and htr. Feda had to explain to the judge
4 while Mr. Feda was asking her questions, right? 4 the information that was contained on the
5 a. what's written here is tivhat is my 5 spreadsheet?
6 recollection of Feda's questions and Karla's 6 a. could you repeat that?
7 response. !; 7 Q. sure. you showed the spreadsheet to the
8 Q. and when you say "what's written here," 8 judge, and Mr. Feda had you explain the spreadsheet
9 you're referring to Exhibit 15, right? 9 to him, right?
10 A. Yes. ' 10 A. z believe what I have written here is
11 Q. All right. Turn the page, please. Nav !11 accurate.
12 at the bottan right, it says Krupp 684. At the top 12 Q. okay. So you explained, the vast
13 of the page where you wrote, in the context of 13 majority of rt~y applications are made
14 becoming employed or providing a work search, 14 electronically. =t's not possible for you to keep
15 Mr. Feda asked Karla questions about her attanpts l5 track of everything, but you did your best to do
1 16 to find a jab, right? ;16 that on the spreadsheet, right?
17 A. Yes. ' ll A. My work search was not on a spreadsheet.
18 Q. she testified that she didn't have a work '18 My employment history and unemployment times v~ere
19 search to submit into evidence? 19 on a spreadsheet.
20 A. Yes. 20 Q. okay. m ternis of your actual work
21 Q. she testified that she hasn't been ,Z1 search, you didn't have any documents to present
22 submitting employment applications? 22 into evidence?
23 A. Yes. X 23 A. I had a basketful of documents in court
24 Q. And when asked why she hadn't been '24 with me.
100
~3 Mccorkle litigation services, znc. 97..100
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 wil1iam F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 Q. were ttmse shown to judge Pilmer? 1 that amount?

2 A. N0. 2 A. No. z sent tcarla an accounting of my job
3 Q. Did you give verbal testimony explaining 3 search expenses. I believe that was an interview
4 what you had done to try to find a job? 4 that z invited myself to in Madison, Wisconsin.
5 a. ves. 5 Q. And Karla testified about the fact
6 Q. And the questions that are contained on 6 that -- at trial Karla testified about the fact
7 this page, Krupp 685, and then on to the next page, ; 7 that she received a check only for 53.64, right?
8 Krupp 686, these are questions that Mr. Feda asked 8 A. Yes.
9 you; and these are answers that you gave about your 9 Q. Karla testified that she gave you some
10 work search efforts? 10 inforntiation about a potential job lead, right?
11 a. ves. 11 A. Could you repeat that?
12 Q. All right. we're all done with that. 12 Q. pet's go on to the next one, page 4.
13 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid F~chibit ' 13 This page talks about questions Karla was asked
14 No. 16 was marked for ! 14 where she testified that you told her before she
15 identifi cation,) i 15 filed for divorce that if she did file for divorce,
16 BY MR. TANK: ' 16 you wouldn't pay her anything, is that right?
17 Q. athibit 16. This is a bystander report ', 17 a. could you --
18 that you prepared for the last half hour of X 18 Q. sure. During the April 19, 2012, trial,
19 February 8, 2012, and trial that occurred on ! 19 tcarla testified about a time when you told her that
20 April 19, 2012, right? 20 if she filed for divorce, you told her you wouldn't
Z1 A. Yes. 21 pay her anything?
22 Q. Turn to page 3, please, which on the 22 A. Yes.
23 bottom right-hand corner is Krupp 689. It l~ks 23 Q. oid that actually happen? yid you tell
Z4 like on April 19, Doyen asked Karla questions ~' 24 her that?
101 103

1 again. He specifically asked about you not paying 1 A. No.

2 maintenance. Before this trial you were ordered to ; 2 Q. You never told Karla that?
3 pay Karla temporary maintenance, right? 'i 3 A. z did not tell her that exactly.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. okay. what exactly did you tell her?
5 Q. And it worked out to $193 a week? 5 n. z believe that's written here someplace.
6 A. Yes. 6 Q. okay. Down at the bottom of page 4, this
7 Q. And there was one day when you sent her a 7 is Karla's attorney asking you questions.
8 check for $3.54? 8 A. Yes.
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. He asked you specifically about
10 Q. Did you make payments every week that you 'i 10 William -- you told Karla that if she ever dared to
11 were supposed to make them? !, 11 divorce her (verbatim), you wouldn't work and you
„~
12 a. Not after the February 7th court date ~ wouldn't give her anything and you responded, "z
13 and -- l3 might have made a statement to that effect one time
14 Q. February 7, 20]2? 14 in a fit of rage"?
15 A. Yes. ,4nd not the week that I sent her !, 15 a. ves.
16 $3.64. 16 Q. You testified that part of the reason why
17 Q. Before you sent her the check for only 17 you weren't able to find a job is because you had
18 $3.64, did you go into court and try to e~lain to 18 to devote a substantial amount of time preparing
19 the judge why you could rwt, in fact, pay that 19 documents fror divorce. oo you recall giving that
20 amount? 20 testimony?
21 A. Before February 7th or whatever -- , 21 A. what page are we on?
22 Q. aefore you mailed the check for $3.64, 22 Q. Page 6, halfway down.
23 did you go into court and explain to the judge that 23 a. And what was the question?
24 there was a good reason for why you couldn't pay 24 Q. You testified that you devoted a
102 104
~3 McCorkle ~i~tigation Services, Inc. 1Q1..104
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 substantial amount of time to preparing documents 1 A. Yes.

2 for the divorce? i 2 Q. All right. ~o you recall fudge Pilmer
3 a. 1 don't remember the word "substantial." 3 ordering that the marital residence be listed for
4 Q. Here on page 6, you wrote, doyen 4 sale?
5 question, ►mould you say you devoted substantial 5 A. I don't recall without looking at all of
6 amount of time in preparing documents for divorce? 6 the court documents, but judge Kostelny -- one of
7 William response, yes. That`s what that says? 7 the court orders, the house was supposed to be
8 a. ves. 8 listed for sale, and judge Pilmer probably ordered
9 MR. T~K: we're all done with that. i 9 that it be listed for sale sometime too, yes.
10 Here is Exhibit 17. i 10 (WHEREUPON w. Schmid Exhibit
11 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 11 No. 18 was marked for
u No. 17 was marked for ' 12 identification.)
13 identifi cation.) ' 13 BY MR. TANK:
14 8Y MR. TANK: , 14 Q. All right. Dchibit 18, it says an
15 Q. what is this? X 15 April 19, 2012, court order, right?
16 a. This is an index that z put together for 16 q. Yes.
17 the court exhibit folders. 17 Q. Have you seen this before?
18 Q. so you reviewed the court exhibit 18 A. Yes.
19 folders, and you made a list of what was in then? ! 19 Q. All right. Paragraph 2, ordered that the
20 A. Yes. 20 marital residence shall be listed for sale with a
21 Q. And that's what this ~chibit 17 is? 21 Realtor and a list price agreed upon between the
22 A. Yes. 22 parties, right?
23 Q. And when did you revie~v the court exhibit 23 ,4. Yes.
24 folders? 24 Q. was the marital residence actually ever
105 107

1 A. After I retained Attorney Krupp and the 1 listed for sale?

2 appeal was started. 2 A. No.
3 Q. And that was sti11 relatively close to 3 Q. Why not?
4 when the trial actually occurred, right? 4 A. Because z want to buy Karla out of her
S A. Yes. S interest in the house, and z want to retain my
6 Q. so when you revi~ued the court file that 6 home.
7 had the exhibits in it, the trial itself and the 7 Q. You agree that sometimes in life, we
8 docwnnents
e that were contained within then were 8 don`t always get to do what we want to do, right?
9 still fresh in your manory, right? 9 A. sometimes, yes.
10 A. Yes. 'x 10 Q. So in this case the judge ordered that
11 Q. And that's when you prepared this list of 11 the marital house be listed, and you didn't want to
12 all the exhibits that were presented at trial? '! 12 do that, right?
13 A. Yes. i 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. so this list that you prepared is a true ', 14 Q. And you did not follow the judge's order,
15 and accurate accounting of the exhibits that were 15 right?
16 introduced at trial? 16 A. Yes.
17 a. there was one exhibit folder that had a 17 (WHEREUPON a recess was taken,
18 bunch of exhibits in it that were not listed on the 18 and the deposition continued as
19 folder. z don't know if that's termed a group X 19 follows:)
ZO exhibit or what. But z went into detail with my 20 (WHEREUrx~ W. Schmid Exhibit
21 description of what was in the evidence folder. 21 No. 19 was marked as of
22 Q. ,and that's contained in this document. 22 February 17, 2017.)
23 =t's a detailed description of exhibits that ire 23 BY MR. TANK:
24 in the folder? 24 Q. sir, ~chibit 19 is in front of you,
~. 108
MCCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 105. .108
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 right? ,, 1 are on Exhibit 21.

2 A. Yes. ! 2 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
3 Q. This is a letter you wrote to Mr. Feda. 3 No. 21 was marked for
4 It's dated tune 17, 2012, right? 4 identification.)
5 A. Yes. ' S BY MR. TANK: ',
6 Q. m this letter you list your i 6 Q. For the record, this is a copy of
7 understanding of tcaria's medical history, right? i t Mr. 5cl~nid's motion to reconsider that was prepared
8 A. Yes. 8 by Mr. Feda. Do you recall seeing this doctonent --
i
9 Q. =t's also your understanding that a17 of ! g A. Yes.
10 the evidence that's in this letter was testified ,': 10 MR. SORENSEN: What is it again?
11 about by Karla at trial, right? ! 11 MR. TANK: Motion to reconsider.
a. ves. 12 BY MR. TANK:
13 MR. Tru~K: All right. All done with ' 13 Q. -- filed on Dece~er 17, 2012? Did you
14 that. Exhibit 20. , 14 see a copy of this document before it was filed,
15 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 15 Mr. 5cl~ni d?
16 No. 20 was marked for '16 a. z don't recall if z saw it before it was
17 identifi cation.) ' , 17 filed.
18 BY MR. TANK: ' 18 Q. So this is a document that was submitted
19 Q. For the record, this is the October 3rd, ! 19 to the judge after the jud~nent was entered, right?
20 20]2, court order. At the bottom under '20 A. Yes.
21 "Miscellaneous Findings/Orders," it says, "Closing '21 Q. 1t~is is Mr. Feda asking the judge to
22 arguments heard this date." fiat's what it says, 22 reconsider the judgment that he entered on the
23 right? 23 divorce, right?
24 A. Yes. 24 a. ves.
109 111

1 Q. Were you there at this hearing? Q. And in this document it outlines the
2 A. Yes, I was. arguments for why you shouldn't have to pay Karla
3 q, and you specifically rerne~ar the fact as rich maintenance as you were paying her and for
', 4 that the attorneys argued the cases? why the debts shouldn't have been divided up the
5 A. ves. way that they were, right?
6 Q. So Mr. Feda argued your case on your A. Yes.
7 behalf? Q. It's your understanding this was actually
8 A. Yes. presented to the judge?
9 Q. ~o you recall him going over all of the A. Yes.
10 evidence that was presented at trial? MR. TANK: Done with that. Exhibit 22.
ll A. N0. (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
u Q. okay. oo you have any reason to believe No. 22 was marked for
13 that he did not do that? identifi cation.)
14 A. YeS. BY MR. TANK:
15 Q. what is your reason for believing he did Q. This is a copy of the January 24, 2013,
16 not do that? court order. Have you seen a copy of this order
17 A. Both attorneys essentially read their before?
18 written proposed judgments. A. Yes.
19 Q. so at this October 3rd, 2012, q. At the bottom under "Miscellaneous
20 closing arguments, Mr. Feda read to the Bindings/orders," it states, "kespondent's
21 judge what was contained within his proposed post-trial motion is denied after hearing arguments
22 judr~nent? of counsel." So when it says respondent's
23 A. Yes. post-trial motion, that was the motion to
Z4 MR. TANK: All done with that. Now we reconsider, right?
11Q 11~
~3 McCorkle ~i~tigation Services, Inc. 109..112
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 A. Yes. 1 reversed regarding the disposition of property that

2 Q. ~t says it was denied after hearing 2 was acquired during the marriage?
3 arguments of counsel. so that means Mr. Feda went 3 A. Yes.
4 into court and actually argued on your behalf about ' 4 Q. And number 3, it wanted the provision in
5 ~y the judgnent should be reversed, right? 5 the jud~nent finding the petitioner in poor health
6 a. Yes. '. 6 without any canpetent evidence establishing that
7 q. And judge Pilmer N stened to those 7 fact, it wanted that reversed as we17, right?
8 arguments and he denied the motion, right? ! 8 a. ves.
9 A. ves. " 9 Q. And those were ali things that you wanted
10 Q. Haver, he also went on to write, 10 to appeal, right?
11 motions to modify permanent maintenance may be -- 11 A. Yes.
12 something -- if respondent allegedly unable to get 12 Q. After that was filed, you said Mr. Feda
13 a job. So basically what he said is, if you 13 stopped being your attorney in April of 2012,
14 continue to try to find a job and you can't find ':14 right?
15 one, then you can cane in here; and we'll consider l5 A. Yes.
16 modifying the maintenance order. Is that your 16 MR. TANK: I'm going to mark this Group
17 understanding of what happened? 17 Exhibit 24.
18 a. That's my understanding of what's written 18 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Group
19 there, yes. i 19 Exhibit No. 24 was marked for
ZO Q. After that happened Mr. Feda wasn't your ',20 identification.)
21 attorney for much longer, right? !21 BY MR. TANK:
22 a. z believe up until April. '22 Q. 5i r, in front of you is Group Dchibit 24.
23 Q. After that judc~nent was entered -- or !23 This is a copy of all of the written correspondence
24 excuse me. 24 in letter format that was sent to you by Mr. Feda.
113 115

1 after the motion to reconsider was If you could turn to the very last documerrt, which
2 denied, you wanted to appeal your case, right? is the letter dated April 16, 2013, and let me know
3 A. Yes. when you're there.
4 Q. and Mr. Feda did, in fact, file a notice a. okay.
5 of appeal, right? MR. GAUTHIER: What's the date on that?
6 A. Yes. MR. TANK: April 16, 2013.
7 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit MR. GAUTHIER: GOt it.
8 No. 23 was marked for BY MR. TANK:
9 identifi cation.) Q. Have you seen this letter before?
10 BY MR. TANK: A. Yes.
11 q. And that's what ='ve marked as q. Second paragraph beginning, "Secondly,"
12 Exhibit 23, the "r~tice of Appeal"? c~ you see where I'm at?
13 a. ves. A. Yes.
14 Q. so it says it was filed on February 22nd Q. =t says, "The court granted our motion to
15 of 2013, right? in the top right corner on the withdraw of record after you requested, pursuant to
16 stamp. it's hard to read sometimes. a message you left for Attorney Feda on April 9,
17 A. February 22nd, 2013. Yes. 2013, that we take no further action, we are no
18 Q. There are three paragraphs here. The longer the attorney of record in the trial court."
19 first paragraph says that once the jud~nent, nid z read that correctly?
20 requiring you to pay 40 percent of your income A. Yes.
21 while employed or 1,500 no matter what, once that Q. And is what that sentence says accurate?
22 reversed, right? A. Yes.
23 A. Yes. Q. Zt goes on, you will note that as
24 Q. Paragraph 2 says it wants the judc~nent instructed, we filed a notice of appeal and
114 116
~3 MCCorkle ~itigatian services, Inc. 113..116
Chicago, zllinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 docketing statement in the second district 1 is the Qece~er 19, 2013, order and finding of
2 Appellate court, and we will new file a motion to 2 contempt. Mr. Sc~nid, have you seen this before?
3 withdraw," right? 3 Have you seen it before, sir?
4 A. Yes. 4 a. I believe I have, yes.
5 Q. so that's an accurate statement as well? 5 Q. If you go dov~m to itan 6 on the first
6 7t~ey did, in fact, file the notice of appeal, 6 page, it says, "The respondent," meaning you, "on
7 right? 7 December 9, 2013, indicated to the court that he
8 A. Yes. 8 would not sign the fisting Agreement because
9 Q. The new sentence says, "The brief on 9 'judge Pilmer got it wrong."' And the judge Pilmer
10 your appeal is due on ar before May 31st, 2013. 10 got it wrong part is in quotes. Did you say that
11 t~towever, pursuant to your request, we will not take i 11 to the judge?
12 any further action on that." yid z read that '. 12 a. I'm trying to fi gure out exactly what
13 correctly? '; 13 this is and what it -- can you tell me what the
14 A. Yes. 14 date on this is?
15 q. It's accurate that you told Mr. Feda you 15 Q. Dece~er 9th, 2013.
16 did not want him to do anything else on the appeal, ' 16 A. Could you repeat the question?
17 right? 17 Q. Sure. =t says that on Decer~er 9, 2013,
18 A. Yes. 18 you told the judge that you ~uldn't sign the
19 Q. Skip the next sentence. Then there`s a ' 19 listing agreement for your home because judge
20 sentence that says, "I can advise..." do you see ' 20 Pilmer got it wrong. Did you tell judge Cruz that?
21 where I'm at? Zl A. Yes.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. You didn't say that htr. Feda got my
23 q. It says, "I can advise you my appearance 23 representation wrong, right?
24 that if no continuation is granted and you do not 24 A. Yes.
117 119

1 file or take action on your appeal, that appeal 1 Q. Yes, that's right?
2 will be dismissed," right? 2 Nurser 8, it says you were given an
3 a. ves. i 3 opportunity to make a statement, at which time you
4 Q. And as you found out, that is true as 4 said you were seeking proofs of a nu~er of
5 well. 7t~e appeal can be dismissed if nothing is 5 financial issues in other documentation relative to
6 done on it, right? 6 the Nove~er jud~nent of dissolution of marriage.
7 A. Yes. 7 zs it true that you told the judge that?
8 Q. sut Mr. Feda was not your attorney at the 8 A. Yes.
9 time that happened though, right? 9 4. what documents were you looking for?
10 A. Yes. ' 10 A. z can't recall at this time.
11 Q. and if you go down to the next paragraph, ll Q. whatever those docwnents were, if you
12 the last paragraph on the page, the first sentence 12 were still looking for them in oece~er of 2013,
13 says, "Mr. Feda had advised that you to file a 13 then you could not have provided them to htr. Feda
14 petition in the trial court requesting that your ' 14 before the trial in 2012, right?
' 15 maintenance obligation be modified as indicated in , 15 A. z'm not sure what documents this is
16 the January 24, 2013, order." Did 2 read that 16 talking about right now.
17 correctly? 17 Q. aut if you didn't have them, then you
18 A. Yes. ! 18 couldn't have given them to Mr. Feda, right?
19 MR. TANK: All done with that. 19 A. z can't answer that question without
20 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid EXhlbit 20 knowing what documents this is talking about.
21 No. 25 was marked for i 21 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit
22 identifi cation.) 22 No. 26 was marked for
23 BY MR. TANK: ' 23 identification.)
24 Q. 7fiis is ~chibit 25. For the record, this j 24
i
118 ! 120
1~3~ McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 117..120
U Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 BY MR. TANK: Q. on the last page is your signature?

2 Q. on achi bit 26. Mr. Sct~ni d, this is a A. Yes.
3 petition to modify maintenance obligation. Have Q. You signed it on Nove~r~ber 8, 2016, right?
4 you seen this document before? a. ves.
5 A. Yes. Q. All right. Back to the fi rst page,
6 Q. This was filed with the court in Noverr~er please. oid you prepare these answers, or did
7 of 2014 by 7effrey Leving's office, right? someone else?
8 A. Yes. A. i prepared them.
9 Q. if you go to the new page, paragraph 5, Q. Where it says, answer, this is you
10 this paragraph talks about your area of expertise itanizing what you're claiming as money damages in
11 in terms of what you do for a living, and it talks this case, right?
about how you've had difficulty finding a job, a. ves.
13 right? q. You say, maintenance award was excessive
14 a. Yes. in total and improper over a period of payment lost
15 Q. what is contained within this paragraph to plaintiff, based on life expectancy to age 78,
16 was also presented as evidence at trial by and then you list $360,000. How did you calculate
17 Mr. Feda, right? that nu~er?
18 A. zt would have been as verbal evidence. A. That would have been my estimated gross
19 Q. Yeah. verbally it was presented. You earnings, plus per diem, minus what I thought Karla
20 testified to all of those things, right? would have -- should have been due based on her
21 a. Yes. needs and owning a house.
22 MR. TANK: All right. All done with that Q. uh-huh. 5o what did you assume in terms
23 one. 27. of future employment, how rich you would be making?
24 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit a. z don't recall without looking at the
121 123

1 No. 27 was marked for notes.

2 identification.) Q. Do you still have those notes?
3 BY MR. TANK: A. z don't know where they would be right
4 Q. After that motion was argued, for the now. sut this would be my normal owner's fi eld
5 record z put in front of you Exhibit 27, which is a engineer's salary of $120,000 plus and plus
6 December 30, 2014, agreed order. After that order per diem.
7 was presented, judge Cruz modified fihe jud~r~ent Q. And is that assuming that you had to pay
8 that was entered by judge Pilmer, right? her 30 percent of that or 40 percent of that?
9 A. Yes. A. z'm not sure what number z used.
10 Q. So instead of having to pay $1,500 or Q. ,4nd then you said you also took off what
11 40 percent of income from employment, whichever was you thought tcarla should have gotten. what did you
12 greater, you only had to pay $1,540 or 30 percent assume that Karla should have gotten?
13 of income from employment, whichever was greater, a. as attorney Feda and z discussed,
14 right? 20 percent of my net income.
15 a. Yes. Q. The next one says, loss of 100 percent of
i 16 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit marital assets. Then you wrote 50 percent. what
' 17 No. 28 was marked for exactly is that? are you saying the total amount
18 identification.) of marital assets was v~rth wi~at, $132,dOQ and you
19 BY MR. TANK: divide that in half?
20 Q. i'll show you achibit 28. For the ,4. z have some additional notes on damages
21 record, these are your supplemental answers to and amounts.
22 aefendant Feda's interrogatories. you've seen this q. Do you have those with you?
23 before, right? a. yes.
24 A. Yes. Q. All right. pet's pull thin out, please.
122 124
Mccorkle litigation services, Inc. 121..124
Chicago, Illinois <312) 263-0052
 William F. schmid 02/17/2017

1 All right. Let's mark these as an exhibit. we are 1 days befrore and you went over the evidence, right?
2 on exhibit what? 2 A. Several days before, yes. Not
3 ,4. 28. 3 irrmediately --
4 MR. T~wK: So this will be 29. 4 Q. okay.
5 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit 5 A. -- before.
6 r~o. 29 was marked for 6 Q. And when he fi rst hired you, you sat doHm
7 identification.) 7 and you met with him, and you t►a> talked about your
8 BY MR. TANK: 8 case, right?
9 q. so you referred to these when you 9 A. Yes.
10 determined what the marital assets should have .! 10 Q. so then you would agree based on the
11 been, right? 11 letters, the phone calls, the preparation before
12 A. Yes, that and other defense exhibits. ' 12 trial, that Mr. Feda com~nicated with you on a
13 Q. ~chibit 29, z mean, that's what you 13 regular basis about your case, right?
14 referred to. all right. 14 A. No.
15 THE REPORTER: I didn't hear an answer. ' 15 Q. No? Why not?
16 MR. TANK: I guess I've got to reserve my 16 A. The written proposed judgment was not
17 right to redepose you if i have to since we just ! 17 given to me in time for me to review.
18 got those documents, although z'd rather not. so 18 Q. You got it before it was due, right?
19 we'll see what happens. 19 a,. I don't think so.
20 BY MR. TANK: ' 20 Q. You actually talked to htr. Feda over the
21 Q. Payment of 100 percent of marital debts, ' 21 phone about what was contained within the written
22 50 percent. How did you deternri ne that? ' 22 proposed judc~nent, right?
23 23 a. ves.
24 24 Q. and you talked to him about that before
125 127

1 a. That would have been fran the divorce 1 he filed it, right?
2 judgment. 2 ,4. Right before he filed it. He said he
3 Q. So you were ordered to pay a hundred 3 could not make any changes to it, and the only
4 percent of them, and you think you should have only 4 change that he made was changing civil engineer to
5 had to pay 50 percent of them? zs that what that S site engineer.
6 is? 6 Q. what did you want it to be changed to?
7 A. Yes. 7 what do you think should have been changed in the
8 Q. ,411 right. All done with that. lust in '~I 8 proposed judgment?
9 general, you agree that once you hired Mr. Feda, he 9 A. zt should have had an explanation about
10 wrote to you on a regular basis, written ' 10 my employment in the coal-fired power generation
11 correspondence? 11 plant construction industry as well as an
12 a. t don't know what you mean by "regular," ! 12 explanation of my unemployment that was due to
13 butI did have letters from him, yes. 13 working in that field and the economic conditions
14 Q. He wrote to you about once a month 14 that were in the country at the time and especially
15 according to the documents we received, does that 1 15 President obama and Al Gore's war on the coal
16 sound right? 16 industry and the effect that it had on coal-fired
17 A. Yes. ' 17 power generation plant Construction.
18 Q. You also talked to him over the phone? ' 18 Q. yid you testify about your att~npts to
19 a. on a couple of occasions. 19 find work and the state of that industry during
20 Q. You also met with him to prepare for the 20 trial?
21 testimony you gave at trial, right? 21 A. Yes.
22 A. ves, on a couple of occasions. 22 Q. so judge Gilmer heard that evidence,
23 Q. And it wasn't just right before the trial 23 right?
24 started. You actually came in at least several ', 24 A. Yes.
i
126 ~ 128
~3 McCorkle Litigation Services, znc. 125. .128
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 Q. oo you know if judge Pilmer is a De~rrocrat 1 Q. Feda said judge would not allow tcarla to
2 or a Republican? 2 break dam and cry at trial. That doesn't really
3 A. i have no idea. 3 affect your case, right?
4 Q. ~f a judge was a Democrat, do you think 4 A. He did not present evidence from
5 it Knuld be good to sulxnit an argument to him 5 April 2006 that showed Karla was basically
6 blaming President obama for your job situation? 6 stealing marital funds and putting it into her gift
7 a. z think President obama and Al Gore 7 account.
8 declared war on the coal industry and tried to put 8 Q. pet's back up. You say no court reporter
9 them out of business. 9 was there, right? That doesn't necessarily have
10 Q. oo you think it would be good to argue 10 anything to do with whether or not you von or lost
11 that to a judge who may, in fact, support those ll your case, right?
12 politicians? a. I don't know.
13 a. I have no idea what should be argued to a 13 Q. All right. No doctor testimony for tcarla
14 judge. t worked in the coal-fired power generation 14 disability claim. As far as you know, if
15 plant construction industry. 15 Mr. Feda had retained a doctor, the doctor
16 Q. so it may have been a good thing that 16 would have come in and supported everything she
17 Mr. Feda didn't put that in the proposed judc,~nent? 17 said, right?
18 A. z don't know. 18 a. z don't know what a doctor would have
19 Q. zn your canplaint you make a couple of 19 said about her medical condition because z never
20 allegations about what you think Mr. Feda did 20 was allowed to speak to her doctors --
21 wrnng. I'm just going to ask you if you agree with 21 Q. All right.
22 these. t understand you may not have drafted the 22 A. -- or z only spoke to her doctor on one
23 canplaint, but I want to find out what you think 23 occasion.
24 about than. First you say that Mr. Feda failed to 24 Q. Do you know how Bch it costs to hire an
129 131

1 properly prepare the matter for trial. That's what ! 1 expert doctor to testify at trial?
2 the complaint says. Do you agree with that? 2 A. I have no idea.
3 A. Yes. Q. Throughout the divorce proceedings, you
4 Q. what do you think he did improperly? were telling the Court that you had a hard time
5 A. I have a whole list of actions and paying Karla her maintenance because you didn't
6 inactions that were -- have a whole lot of money yourself, right?
7 Q. Is that with you? A. Yes.
8 A. Yes. Q. So you don't know if you even would have
9 Q. Have you presented those at any point been able to afford an e~cpert doctor to testify at
10 before nod? Have they been produced in discovery? trial?
11 yid you give then to us, anything like that? A. Yes.
12 A. N0. Q. Yes, you don't know; or yes, you would
13 MR. TANK: Okay. Let'S see. This is have been able to afford?
14 Exhibit 30. A. Yes, z don't kno~u if z would have been
15 (WHEREUPON W. Schmid Exhibit able to afford a doctor.
16 No. 30 was marked for Q. You say no SS determination for Karla
17 identifi cation.) disability application. Mr. Feda crross-examined
X 18 BY MR. TANK: Karla about that at trial, right?
19 q. When did you prepare these? A. Yes. But there was not a determination
20 A. past night and on the train in this from social Security Disability application. it
21 ~rorning. was just the application itself.
22 q. Ail right. This is Exhibit 30. tow Q. And judge Pilmer knew there was
23 these are things he did and didn't do? just the application when he entered the judgment,
24 A. Yes. right?
130 132
~3 McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 129..132
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 A. z don't know what judge Pilmer knew. 1 complete two depositions on the same day. we're
2 Q. You say police reports and sanething ' 2 just going to complete Mr. 5chmid's deposition on
3 domestic battery charge not used. Karla emails, ~ 3 next Tuesday, and that's the understanding of the
4 timeline, voice~nails claiming abuse and refuse to ~ 4 parties.
5 work not used. You don't know if that actually was ' S MR. GAUTHIER: This is Mike Gauthier,
6 relevant in the case, right? '! 6 attorney for plaintiff. 5o agreed.
7 A. I don't know why they would not be 'i 7 MR. SORENSEN: Great. Okay.
8 relevant. ': 8
9 Q. You also don't know why they xnuld be, , 9 (wIiE2EUFON a discussion was
10 right? 10 held off the Record, and the
11 A. No. I'm not the lawyer. ll deposition continued as follaus:)
12 Q. all right. You say, did not have an '12 MR. GAU7HIER: Plaintiff reserves
13 expert witness eacplain my vu~rk. Do you know what 13 signature for the deposition conducted today.
14 an expert witness would or would not have said if 14 WHEREUPON 7HE DEPOSTRON
15 they testified at trial? 15 WAS COM"INUED SINE DIE.
16 a. they could have explained that the Obama 16
17 administration and the sierra club had declared war 17
18 on not only the coal mining industry but coal-fired '18
19 power generation plants. •1g
20 Q. You don't know if that actually v~uld '.20
21 have helped your case though, right? '21
22 a. I know that was the situation that my ,Z2
23 employment was in. ',z3
24 q. oo you know if you could have afforded an '~24
133' 135

1 evert to testify about that? 1 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2 a. An expert could have been my former i' z IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

3 employer. ' 3 TWENTY-SECOND JUDZGIAL CIRCUIT

4 Q. yid you tell Mr. Feria that your forn~er '! 4 MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS

5 employer could have come in and testified about S Court No. 14 LA 332
6 that? ' 6 I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing

7 A. I don't recall. ~ transcript of my deposition given on February 17,

8 MR. TANK: All right. z don't have any ' 8 2017, consisting of pages 1 through 135 inclusive,

9 other questions. 9 and i do again subscribe and make oath that the

10 MR. SORENSEN: let me take a look at this '10 same is a true, correct and complete transcript of

11 Exhibit 30 for a second. 11 my deposition so given as aforesaid as it now

1Z (WHEREUPON a discussion was 12 appears.

13 held off the Record, and the 13

14 deposition continued as follows:) la
15 tit. SORENSEN: Now back on the record. 1s
16 This is Dave Sorensen. I represent Bob Krupp. And I'16 WILLIAM F. SCHMID

17 7ordan Tank had to leave for a personal matter. 17

' 18 we've discussed it amongst everyone, and we've 18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN t0

19 agreed to continue the deposition of Mr. Schmid to 19 before me this day

20 next Tuesday. Zo of 2017.
21 And we've also agreed that the 'zl
22 deposition of Mr. Feria, which had been scheduled 22
23 for next Tuesday, will not be taking place z3 Notary Public

24 at that time, so that we're not all trying to z4

134 136
MCCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 133..136
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/17/2017

1 STATE OF ILLTNOTS ) 1 Mccorkle Litigation Services, Znc.

200 North Lasalle street - Suite 2900
2 55: i 2 Chicago, Illinois 60601-1014
312.263.0052
3 couNry aF coox ) ' 3 CERTIFIED MAZL
February 23, 2017
4 I, SHERRIE LYNN SEGALL, CSR, RPR, an ; 4 DEPONENT'S NAME: William F. Schmid
5 ofificer of the Court, do hereby certify that S MR. WILLIAM F. SCHMID
C/O MR. MICHAEL J. GAUTHIER
6 heretofore, to-wit, on the 17th day of February, 6 GAUTHIER & GOOCH
134 North Lasalle street
7 2017, personally appeared before me, at suite ~ Suite 1135
Chicago, Illinois 60602
8 2260, 230 west Monroe street, Chicago, Illinois, ~ S
IN RE: Schmid vs. Robert 7. Krupp, et al.
9 WILLIAM F. SCHMID, in a cause now pending and j g
DATE OF DEPOSITION: Fe6rua ry 17, 2017
10 undetermined in the circuit Court of Cook County, 'lp
Dear Mr. Schmid:
11 Illinois, wherein Schmid is the Plaintiff, and ;11
12 Robert ]. Krupp, et al., are the oefenda~ts. Your deposition in the above-entitled cause is now
12 ready for reading and signing as required by law.
13 I further certify that the said witness '13 Please call the Signature Department upon receipt
of this letter to schedule an appointment to come
14 was first duly sworn to testify the truth, the !14 to the above address to read and sign your
deposition. you have 28 days from the date of this
15 whole truth and nothing but the truth in the cause 15 correspondence in which to appear for reading and
signing.
16 aforesaid; that the testimony then given by said I16
If you fa91 to appear or to notify us so that we
17 witness was reported stenographically by me in the 17 may make arrangements for another appointment, your
deposition will be completed and forwarded to the
18 presence of the said witness, and afterwards 18 attorneys and will be ...used as fully as though
19 reduced to digital format by Computer-Aided 19 signed."

20 Transcription, and the foregoing is a true and ', ZQ Procedure outlined in ttule 207(a)
of the Illinois Supreme court 2ules
21 correct transcript of the testimony so given by Procedure outlined in Rule 30(e) of
'; Z1 the 2ules of Civil procedure for the
22 said witness as aforesaid. U. 5. District Courts
22 Sincerely,
23 Z further certify that the signature to Cindy Alicea
i 23 calicea2@mcdeps.com Court Reporter
24 the foregoing deposition was noe waived by counsel Signature Department Sherrie ~. Segall
1 24 cc: all Counsel of rzecord
137 139

1 for the respective parties.

2 i further certify that the taking of this
3 deposition was pursuant to notice, and that there
4 were present at the deposition the attorneys
5 hereinbefore mentioned.
6 2 further certify that I am not counsel
7 for nor in any way related to the parties to this
8 suit, nor am i in any way interested in the outcome
9 thereof.
10 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF: I have hereunto
ii set my verified digital signature this 23rd day of
12 February, 2017.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Illinois Certified Shorthand rteporter
20
21
22
23
24

138
Mccorkle litigation services, znc. 137..139
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 ZN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22ND 7UDICIAL CIRCUIT ~ 1 I N O E X

MCHENRV COUNTY, ILlIN0Z5 z

z '. 3 WITNESS EXAMINATION

WILLIAM F. SCHMIO, )
j 4 WILLIAM F. SCHMID
3 )
- By hfr. Tank 4
alaintiff, )
4 ~ S By Mr. Sorensen

V5. ) No. 14 ~ 332 i FUI'theP By MP. 7dOk

5 ~ ~!
6
ROBERT 7. KRU PP, THE LAW ) '. ~
6 OFFICE OF ROBERT J. KRUPP, ) 8
PG , WILLIAM A. FEDA fltld ) 9
7 MCNAMEE & MAHONEV, ITD., )
~ E X H I B I T S

8 ~efe~dants. ) 10
9 The continued discovery deposition of WIlL2AM F. 11 NUMBER MARKED FOR ID
10 SCHMID, taken in the above-entitled cause, before 12 Deposition Exhibit
11 Christine Golden, Certified Shorthand Reporter in the i13 exhibit No. 31 17
12 State of Illinois, on the 21st day of February, 2017,
';14 Exhibit No. 32 25
13 at the hour of 1:00 p.m. at 230 west n+onroe street,
15 exhibit No. 33 25
14 Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to notice.
15 il6 Exhibit No. 34 74
16 ', 17
ll ; 18
18 ' 19
19 20
20
! 21
21
22
22
23 2eported by: Christine Golden, C5R ~' z3
24 License No. 084-002126 iZ4

1' 3
1 APPEARANCES: '; 1 WILLIAM F. SAID,
2 GAUTHIER & GOOCH
BY: M5. SABINA D. WAICZYK, ' Z called as a witness herein, having been first duly
s coos N. Broadway avenue, s~;ee zoe ! 3 spurn, was examined and testified as follays:
Chicago, Illinois 60613
4 312-600-4385 '~ ~ ~c~hut~anot~(continued~~
swalczyk@gauthierandgooch.com I 5 BY MR. TANK:
S Representing the Plaintiff;
';. 6 Q. y~e marked this as ~chibit 30 in your last
6 LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD ]. K02EL
BY: MR. DAVID A. SORENSEN, ~! 7 ~~$~'t~~. 7tiat's a copy of the handwritten notes that
7 333 South Wabash avenue, 25th Floor
$ you prepared i believe the night before your deposition,
Chicago, Illinois 60604
B 312-822-3350 I 9 correct, 511'?
david.sorensen@cna.com ],Q A. Y25.
9 aepresenting the Defendant
Robert ~. Krupp, 'rhe Law office 11 Q, so z'm not sure hnw clear this came out on the
~o of ttobert ]. Krupp;
12 record so I just want to have you state for us exactly
11 LIPE LYONS MURPHY NAHRSTAOT & PONTIKIS, LTO.,
BY: MR. JORDAN M. TANK, ~ ~-3 what these notes are, why you prepared them?
iz zso west Monroe Street, sate i~eo % 14 A. ~ese are my notes of actions and inactions
Chicago, Illinois 60606
is 312-448-6233 ZS that Mr. Feda took that harn~ed me,
jmtQlipelyons.com I I( Q. 0~(dY. bet's turn to E~ibit 15. So Exhibit 15
~4 reepresentiny the Defendant
William q. Feda and MCNamme & 17 for the record, this was a copy of the notes that you
is Mahoney, std. ' 18 prepared to give to Mr. Krupp with the understanding he
16 ` 19 was going to use these notes to create bystander
i~
~s 20 reports, is that correct?
19 21 A. Yes.
zo
21 22 Q. If you can start at the bottan of the first
zz ' 23 page? you see mere it says start of Doyen questions
23
z4
EXHIBIT ~a? 4
McCork a 'ces, Inc. 1..4
Chica ~ 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 A. Yes. 1 A. Yes.
2 Q, so this right here is the part of your notes that 2 Q. and that is essentially the end of the
3 addresses the portion of the trial on February 7 and - 3 questions that Karla's attorney asked her on February 7
4 February 8 v+~ere Karla's attorney asked her questions, 4 and then the trial continued the new date on
5 right? 5 February 8, right?
6 A. Yes, sir. 6 A, Yes.
7 Q. Directly underneath that it says "in the 7 Q. so at the bottan there's a portion that says --
8 context of health history and prescription medicafiions ' 8 there's aline that says state of Feda questions for
9 and other medications supplanents." yid z read that 'I 9 Karla. oo you see where I'm at?
10 correctly. 10 A. Yes.
11 A. 'there aren't quotes but you read it correctly. ll Q. phis is the section of your notes that
12 Q. 2'm sorry, that's me quoting. Yes. Because ' 12 discusses the questions that year attorney asked Karla
13 you put this on this note that means that on the first '! 13 under cross examination, right?
14 day of trial on February 7 Karla introduced evidence ' 14 A. Yes.
15 through questioning by her attorney related to her 15 Q. Right beneath that line it says in the c~text
16 health history, prescription medications and other ~ 16 to establish the value of the Dundee marital residence.
17 medication supplements, right? ll That means Feda cross exarm ned Karla about establishing
18 A. Could you repeat that? 18 the value of the Dundee marital residence, right?
19 h~R. TataK; Can you read that back? 19 A. Yes.
20 (Record read.) ' 20 Q. Beneath that it says in the context of claiming
21 THE wi1NE5S: Yes. i 21 disability and submitting SS disability report. yid z
22 BY MR. TANK: 22 read that correctly?
23 q. Turn to the next page, please. At the bottan '! 23 A. Yes.
24 there's a sentence that says in the context to establish. ' 24 Q. mat means that Feda cross examined Karla about
5 7

1 Do you see wfiere I'm at? ! 1 her claim of having a disability aril the disability report
2 a. Yes, ~ 2 that she subirritted, right?
3 Q. ~t says in the context to establish the value 3 A. Could you ask that again?
4 of the pundee marital residence. Did I read that '. 4 Q. sure.
5 correctly? ! 5 tdR. TANK: Could you read that back, please?
6 a. Yes, sir. 6 (Record read.)
7 Q. That means Karla's attorney asked her questions '; 7 7HE wlTr!lEss: she did not submit a disability report
8 in order to establish the value of the Dundee marital 8 on February 7.
9 residence, right? 9 BY MR. TANK:
~ 10 A. ves. 10 Q. But he cross examined her about the disability
ll Q. Next page, please. At the top it says in the 11 she was claiming and the disability report she submitted?
12 context of housework, right? 12 A. about her verbal testimony.
13 a. Yes. ; 13 Q. ,4nd the lack of having a disability report,
14 Q. That means that Karla's attorney during this '! 14 right?
15 trial asked her questions about the housexnrk that she ' 15 A. Yes.
16 perfot~~ed'? i 16 Q. okay. Next page, please, at the very bottan.
17 A. Yes. 11 zt says in the context of applying for student loans.
18 Q. Right beneath that in the wntext of applying j' 18 Do you see where I'm at?
19 for college student aid tcarla's attorney asked her 19 a. ves.
20 questions about applying for college student aid for 20 Q. That means that at trial on February 8 Feria your
21 ya~r daughters, right? 21 attorney cross examined Karla about applying for college
22 A. For my daughter Amelia. 22 loans for your daughter Amelia, right?
23 Q. Yes. Okay. Just for Amelia, not for ' 23 A. Yes.
24 Elizabeth, right? '; Z4 Q. Next page, please, the tap it says in the
6' 0
~3~ McCorkle Litigation services, znc. 5..8
Chicago, Illinois {312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 u,~ a ►wrk
context of becoming ~nployed or providiru~ that you prepared indicates that Feda asked you
2 search. That means Feda cross examined Karla aabout
~ her questions about your ~nployment history and also your
3 ability to become employed and about wi~ether she attempts to find a job during the divorce proceedings,
4 provided evidence that she had looked for a job, right? right?
5 A. Yes. A. Yes.
6 Q. Beneath that it says in the context of previous Q. bet's go on to Exhibit 16. Here you go, sir.
7 employment. That means your attorney Feda cross 5o at the top it says trial date April 19, 2012 and last
8 examined Karla about her previous employment during your half hour Febn~ary 8th of 2012?
9 marriage, right? A. Yes, sir.
10 A. Yes, sir. Q. Please turn to page 3. That's the section that
ll Q. and that was the end of the questions that your discusses the trial that was held on April 19, 2012. 50
12 attorney asked Karla then he put you on the witness this was just a continuation of the t~xn prior days of
13 stand and he started asking you questions, right? trial, right?
14 A. Yes. A. Yes.
15 Q. tt says in the context of William explaining Q. And about halfway down it says carryover fran
16 his job search efforts. William is you, right? at trial 2-8-12, start of Doyen questions for William.
17 a. Yes. oidI read that correctly?
18 Q. mis note means that during trial on A. What page were you?
19 February 8, 2012 Feria asked you questions about your Q. Page 3.
20 efforts in trying to find employment, right? A. and the question was?
21 A. Yes. Q. Sure. So you see where it says at trial
22 Q. Next page, please. At the bottom it says in 4-19-12?
23 the context of William explaining his une~riployment, A. Yes.
24 underarployment, employment history. what is the Q. couple lines down it says carryover frromm at
11

1 difference between that section and the previous trial. oo you see where t'm at?
2 section? A. Yes.
3 a. This section that we're at now is my actual Q. It says start of Doyen questions for William.
4 er~loyment history. This is the portion of your notes that talk about
5 Q. so this is you talking about all of the jobs Karla's attorney cross exaimning you, right?
6 that you've had in your professional career, is that A. Yes.
7 right? I.et me explain mat I'm trying to get at just Q. so Karla's attorney cross examined you about
8 because T'm trying to clear something up for myself. so your attempts to find a job?
9 on the previous page you talk about explaining your job A. Yes.
10 search efforts. So does that mean your attempts to try Q. zt says halfway dorm the page in the context of
ll to find a job at that time? William refusing to pay maintenance. Do you see that?
A. Yes. A. Yes.
' 13 Q. and then an the next page when you talk about Q. 7tiat means that Karla's attorney cross examined
14 your unemployment, underer~ployment, employment history you about v~ether you were paying her the maintenance
15 you're talking about all of the jobs you've had in the the court ordered you to pay, right?
16 past? a. ves.
17 n. ~ was talking about a spreadsheet that shows Q. And then farther down it says in the context of
18 all of my employment and unemployment. William refusing to work. That means Karla's attorney
19 Q, okay. So you showed that spreadsheet to cross examined you about whether you had told Karla that
20 judge Gilmer, right? you v~uuld refuse to work if she divorced you, right?
21 a. z don't recall if judge Pilmer actually saw it a. ves.
22 but it was entered in evidence andIwas speaking from Q. Then on the next page towards the top it says
23 the -- from the spreadsheet. end of Doyen questions to Karla, start of Feria questions
24 Q. okay. so this being written here on this note to Karla. so this is again your attorney cross
10 12
~,~~ McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. 9. .12
\/ Chicago, zllinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 examining Karla? !1 Q. zt says in the context of Karla claiming

2 A. ves, 2 William refusing to work. so Feria asked you questions
3 Q. Directly beneath that line it says in the ~' 3 under oath to explain your ~nrk history and wt~y you were
4 context of Karla stating William always told me he 4 unable to find anployment, right?
5 xnuldn't irk and he t~ouldn't give me anything. Feria ' S A. I don't knurr the answer to that without going
6 specifically cross exairrined you about the stat~nent she 6 through the entire.
7 made about that, right? ' 7 Q. okay. The note you wrote says in the conteact
8 a. Not at this section that you're talking about. 8 of Karla claiming William refusing to work, right?
9 Q. What does that section talk about? 9 A. Yes.
10 a. Those are questions that Attorney Feria had for 10 Q. so this section of your notes talks about the
ll Karla. ll questions Feria asked you about Karla claiming you
12 Q. z'm sorry, z asked that incorrectly. so Feria ' 12 refused to kork, right?
13 cross examined Karla about the statements that she made " 13 a. Page 7 pertains to my employrr~nt at American
14 about marking, right? ' 14 Electric tower.
15 A. Yes. ;I 15 Q. And the fact that you lost that job, right?
16 q. Okay. That was my fault. turn to the next ' 16 A. Yes.
17 page, please. The very top it says in the context of 17 Q. And that means that Feria asked you questions
18 Doyen assertion at 3-1-12 notice of claim of ', 18 about that during the trial, right?
19 dissipation. This is the section that talks about the ', 79 A. Yes.
20 questions you were asked about ►fat you did with that ! 20 Q. The next page at the top in the context of
21 money during the time period from when the claim of '21 Karla accusing William of refusing to look for work.
22 dissipation was made, right? 22 oaring this session you explained your attempts to find
! 23 a. Yes. 23 employment, right?
' 24 Q. And so Karla's atCorney asked you questions , 24 a. ves.
13 15

1 about that, right? ', 1 Q. During the trial you testified abut your
2 A. Yes. '; Z attempts to find e~nployment, right?
3 Q. And then farther down the page it says in the 3 A. ves,
4 cor~ttext
0 of Karla claiming William refuses to vx~rk. ~o 4 Q. Then at the bottan it says William was allowed
wed
5 you see where I'm at? ! 5 to retrieve spreadsheets equivalent to Defendant Exhibit
6 A. Yes. ! 6 3. Do you see where I'm at?
7 Q. 7tiat means that Karla's attorney cross examined ' 7 A. Yes.
8 you about your alleged statement that you Knuld refuse 1 8 R. 5o at this paint you pulled out a spreadsheet
4 to work? ! 9 prepared that showed all of the payments you had made to
10 A. Yes. 10 Karla?
ll Q. The next page, please. At the top it says in ll A. Yes.
12 the context of Doyen questioning your claim of not 12 Q. Those are maintenance payments up until that
13 having any income except unemployment. Karla's attorney ; 13 point, right?
14 cross examined you about your claim that you only had ! 14 A. it was a spreadsheet with all of my
15 income fran unemployment, right? 15 expenditures, not just maintenance payments.
16 A. Yes. ~ 16 Q. Every expenditure you had going back how many
17 Q. Turn to the next page, please. Towards the 17 years?
18 bottan you see where it says start of Feria questions to 18 A. i believe it 4~ent back to 2005,
19 William? It says end of Doyen questions to William, ' 19 Q. So at this point using the spreadsheet you
20 start of Feria questions to William? 20 testified at trial going back to 2005 all of the
21 A. Yes. '21 expenditures you had up to that point, right?
22 Q. this is the part of your notes that talk about X22 A. Yes.
23 the questions Feria asked you, right? 23 Q. And you gave that testimony in front of
24 A. ves. !24 lodge Pilmer, right?
14i 16
McCorkle litigation Services, Tnc. 13. .16
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 A. The testimony is what is written here. The 1 in the context to establish Karla's expenses in
2 spreadsheet ant fran 2005 to 2012, i guess. ' 2 Michigan?
3 Q. And that was in front of fudge Gilmer, the 3 a. ves.
4 judge who was presiding over the trial, right? 4 Q, That means that at trial Karla's attorney asked
5 A. Yes. 5 her questions about the expenses she had while she was
6 Q. He heard all of the testimony yap gave as far 6 living in Michigan?
7 as you knou~!? 7 A. That section that you're talking about is
8 A. ves. 8 Attorney Feda questions to Karla.
9 Q. aside fran talking about your expenses did you 9 Q. z'm sorry. You're right at the tap. 5o this
ro also give testimony about the income you had over those 10 is Feda's cross examination of Karia at trial?
ll years? ll A. Yes.
A. That was on a separate spreadsheet and a 12 Q. oirect7y underneath that it says in context to
13 defense exhibit. i 13 clarify the value of Karla's Flint residence. mat
14 Q. But that spreadsheet and that testimony were 14 means Feda cross examined Karla about her claim about
15 presented at trial, right? i 15 what that residence was worth, right?
16 A. whatever was written here is. ' 16 A. Yes,
17 Q. You ►x~uld have to refer back to your notes to 17 Q. Then halfway down in the context to establish
18 see? ', 18 Karla's e~enses in tfichigan Feria cross examined Karla
19 A. Yes. ', 19 about the expenses she had in Michigan, right?
20 MR. TANK: Let's mark this as Exhibit 31. 20 A. Yes.
21 (Exhibit No. 31 was marked for 21 q. All the way dam at the very bottan and auto
22 identification.) 22 the next page it says in the content to establish the
23 BY MR. TANK: 23 origination date and receipt of funds to Karla gift
24 Q. 71~is is the report you prepared for the trial 24 account, right? DidIread that correctly?
17 19

1 that was held on 7uly 24, 2012 and 7uly 25, 2012, right? 1 A. Yes.
Z A. Yes. ', 2 Q. 7tien on the next page there's a narrative here
3 Q. mis was a continuation of the trial dates of '. 3 where you talk about discussions that you had with Feria,
4 February 7 and 8 and April 19, right? 4 discussions Feria had with judge Pillmer. gust very
5 A. Yes. 5 generally, right?
6 Q. Halfway down the page it says start of oayen I 6 A. YeS.
7 questions for Karla. ~o you see ►,here x'm at? I 7 Q. At the very bottan of the last sentence of that
8 A. Yes. 8 paragraph it says Feria reluctamly proceeded to question
9 Q. zt says in the context to establish the value ': 9 Karla after marking statements Defendant's Exhibits 10
10 of Karla's Flint residence. Did z read that correctly? 10 and 12. DidIread that correctly?
ll A. Yes. ' ll A. Yes.
Q. That means that Karla's attorney asked her 1~ Q. what were Defendant's Exhibits 10 and 12?
13 questions to establish the value of her residence in 13 a. z can't recall at this time.
14 Flint, Michigan, right? 14 Q. Are they twn joint saving account statements
15 A. Yes. 15 that showed transaction dates on the date Karla opened
16 Q. Farther down at the bottan it says conte~ to 16 her gift account?
17 establish Karla rwr~narital property still in Dundee 17 a. one of them ~wuld be, yes.
18 marital residence. That's referring to the hone that's '. 18 Q. 5o what is this Karla gift account you wanted
19 here in Illinois, right? 19 Feria to question her about?
20 A. Yes. 1I 20 A. it's an account that she opened on
21 Q. That means at trial Karla's attorney asked her ' 21 approximately April 20th in her natr~ only.
22 questions about the value of that hone, right? ~Z Q. 20th of x~at year?
~3 A. Yes. 23 A. April 20th, 2~6.
Z4 Q. Next page, please. About halfway dax~ it says ! 24 Q. Okay.
18 20
~3 MCCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. 17. .20
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 A. And on the same day she moved approximately ! 1 n. ves,

2 540 from a joint savings account to her newly opened 2 Q. taext page, please. At the top. You say in the
3 gift account and she moved approximately 56000 from a 3 context to establish Karla left the house in deplorable
4 joint investment account, international investors, to ', 4 condition. That means your attorney asked you questions
5 her newly opened gift account and at about the same 5 at trial about the condition that Karla left your house
6 time, April 20, 2(}06, she denied me a S10(l,000 bane 6 in in Illinois when she moved out?
7 equity line of credit in my name only. ' 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. when did you find out she opened this gift i 8 Q. Farther datin it says start of Doyen questions
9 account? ' 9 of William. This is her attorney questioning you,
10 a. Sane time in between 20ll and the court date. ! 10 right?
ll Q. She transferred the money from a joint account 'ill A. Yes.
12 that your name was on, right? ! 12 Q. Tt says in the corrCext of Karla accusing
13 A. aoth our names were on. ' 13 William of destroying the house Mile he lived there
14 Q. so if you had gone back and looked at that 14 rent free. That means Karla's attorney cross e~camined
15 account you ►u~uld have seen she transferred money out of i 15 you at trial about her accusations that you destroyed
16 the accounts even if you didn't know xfiere it went, i 16 the house while you were living there, right?
17 right? ' 17 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes. :. 18 Q. Next page, please. At the bottom it says start
19 Q. when did you first see that Karla had ' 19 of trial date 7-25-12. These are your notes from the
20 transferred money out of your joint acwunt? 20 7uly 25th trial date?
21 A. That would have been saw time in 2010 after I X21 A. Yes.
22 was kicked out of the house. mat would have been 22 Q. You were asked questions during this trial
23 after, after May, 2010. ! 23 date, not tcarla, right?
24 Q. There's no reason xtry you couldn't have ' 24 A. z don't know without reading it.
21 23

1 discovered that sooner, though. Your name was on the i 1 Q. You were -- first you were asked questions,
2 account, right? 2 right?
3 A. I had been working out of state since 2~6. •, 3 A. once again, i don't know without reading it.
4 Q. But because your name was on the account if you I 4 p. okay. At the bottan it says William was given
5 had contacted the bank the day after she made those 5 Plaintiff Exhibit 26, list of nor~narital property
6 transfers you xnuld have found out she made the 6 subrrtitted 2-8-12. Do you see that?
7 transfers, right? ', 7 a. ves .
8 A. If I would have inquiredI would have found out 8 Q. Then it says Mayen asked William are you
9 about it, yes. 9 familiar with this list, right?
10 Q. 7t~e last sentence says Feda reluctantly 10 A. YeS.
ll proceeds to question Karla after marking the ll Q. so that means you were asked questions during
12 stat~nents. That indicates at trial on Duly 24 Feda ' 12 the .7uly 25th trial, right?
13 cross examined Karla about the creation of wi~at you 13 A. Yes.
14 called the gift account, right? 14 Q. I'm all done with that one.
15 a. Yes. 15 tit. TANK: w1~y don't you go ahead?
16 Q. Farther down it says in the context to 16 IXPMINATION
17 establish the possession of 4tilliam missing farmly ill BY MR. S~tENSEN:
18 heir7oan gold coins. Do you see where I'm at? ' 18 Q. so ►~e'll shift gears, Mr. Scturrid. I'm going to
19 A. Yes. ' 19 ask you a few questions relating to your interactions
20 R. That means Feria cross examined Karla about what ', ZO with Robert KtUpp, okay?
21 happened to the gold coins you owned, right? ', 21 A. okay.
22 A. Yes. "', 22 Q. yet me ask you, do you have any additiaial
23 Q. Then your attorney once again asked you 23 notes or anything to produce talay or --
24 questions on the witness stand? ' 24 a. Yes.
22 i 24

McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 21. .24

chicaga, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 wiliiam F. Schmid 02/21/Z017

1 Q. -- are x~ good? You do. tJnat have you got for 1 A. Yes.
2 us? it's not required but if you did something we 2 Q. That was a doc~nent you had prepared on
3 should find out what it is. is that sanething you I 3 Thursday or Friday of last week or both of those days,
4 intend to produce to us or just some notes? 4 correct?
5 a. Yes. 1 5 A. Yes.
6 M5. waLczYK; This one, yes. z don't think this one. fi Q. And it just says darr~ges at the top. and was
7 tit. SOR~lSEN: ~o you guys want to talk for a ' 7 that meant to be Feria, damages Mr. Feria?
8 second? 8 A. Yes.
9 ~. W,4~¢m: Can we, please? 9 Q. zn other words, v~hat I'm asking is Exhibit 29
10 Mt. SORENSEN; Sure. 10 that second page if I canpare it to Exhibit 33 that you
11 (whereupon, a discussion was held off ll produced to us today are they basically the same thing?
u the record.) 12 Are they meant to be the same thing?
13 N~. SORENSEN: 50 -- '. 13 A, 11~ey're meant to be the same thing but I didn't
14 M5. WALQYK: Yes, we can use these. ' 14 have a copy of Exhibit 29 to ~wrk Fran.
15 tit. SORENSEN; we should make copies for everybody, 15 Q. okay. okay. So if you had your dnrthers you
16 And a~e'11 mark then as exhibits. '16 vnuld have basically reprinted page 2 of Exhibit 29 as
17 t~. TANK: Krupp inaction is 32 and Krupp damages is 17 your Exhibit 33? Is that your intention?
18 33. ' 18 A. ves.
19 (Exhibit Nos. 32 and 33 were marked 19 Q. Right. 2'm trying to cut to the chase. 7s
20 for identification.) 20 there anything you meant or mean to be different on
21 f:37~f:~Yi;~~1~J.E 21 Exhibit 33 that relates to Mr. Krupp that is not on this
22 Q. So Mr. Schmid, z`m going to ask you sane 22 page -- Dd~ibit 29, page 2 of Exhibit 29?
23 questions and t think you've already got a sense of how 23 A, only if t forgot to put sanething on one or the
24 fihe process works. ~fiere's one thing z want to remind 24 other.
25 27

1 you of I think is the most important, if you have any Q. You mean for them to be 100 percent identical,
2 difficulty understanding my question for any reasa~, if is that right?
3 it's not clear to you, you're having trouble hearing me, A. Yes, if there's -- there should only be
4 anything at all 2'm relying on you to let me know that. duplicate items between the twa. If there's an item
5 No magic words, just tell me sanething that tells me that's not on one, it should be on both.
6 you're having trouble with my question. otherwise if Q. 7t~e way you answered that just now with all due
7 you answer my question I'll pres~ane you have understood respect that was kind of confusing to me. Here z am
8 it and you're trying to answer it to the best of your telling you I am having trouble. I was trying to phrase
9 ability, fair enough? it in a simpler way, Do you mean for page 2 of Exhibit
10 A. Yes. 29 to have the enact same inforn~ation and claimed
ll Q, v~hy don't weee start with -- actually x~hy don't damages as achibit 33? Are you claiming the same
we start with the second e~ibit we just marked, ~chibit darnages on both pages, same total amounts, same items?
13 33, xt~ich you have titled Krupp Damages. And was that Do you folla,~?
14 -- then did you create this doc~nent, first of all? A. Yes. dike Exhibit 33 says same as Feria, they
15 A. past night and this morning. should be the same if all of the items are included on
16 Q. okay. Md there was a cbc~nent marked earlier each one.
17 and, ]orlon, perhaps you could produce that, i think Q. Right. So you keep adding an it at the end and
18 it's Exhibit 29. I have to keep asking about it. fiat's what we do,
19 tit. TANK. Sure. 'cause the nature of trying to make sure we have a clear
20 BY h~, S~ENSEN: understanding on the record `cause this is the only
21 R. Mr. Schmid, there was an exhibit produced on chance we get to talk to you right now. So to clarify
22 Friday or marked an Friday, Exhibit 29, and the second that, are there any damages with respect to Mr. Krupp
23 page of that exhibit has your handvriting on it, that you're claiming that are different at all from any
24 correct? damages that you're claiming with respect to Mr. Feria?
26 28
Mccorkle Litigation services, znc. 25..28
Chicago, Illinois (3l2) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 a. No. The damages should be the same. 1 Q. Hav much would you say you have out of pocket
2 Q. on that achibit 33 the gold coins in the ~' Z as of today paid to any of Karla's attorneys?
3 middle, did you ever get the gold coins back? 3 A. Probably only 52,000 thatIknow of, her
4 A. No. 4 initial retainer that was put on a credit card that z
5 Q. You believe Karla took them and do you know 'i 5 had paid for.
6 what she's done with them? chat was t►w questions but 6 Q. yid you finish? Idi~'t mean to step on your
7 is that okay? Did you follav that all right? 7 Ards.
8 A. i believe Karla took them and i have no idea 8 a. The other attorney fees are in the divorce
9 what she's done with them. 9 judgment fran November, 2012 and more recently court
10 Q. she hasn't said anything to you about thin? j 10 ordered arrearages Ithink they're called for attorney
ll a. other than what she said at trial. ~ 11 fees.
~ 12 Q. The judge, did he a~vard the gold coins to her ~12 Q. vdw's the judge on the case r►a+~
13 or vras that issue in your mind not settled? ' 13 a. judge Crews.
14 A. It was in Attorney Feda's written proposed 14 Q. Are you prose representing yourself or do you
15 judgment but it was not in the divorce judgment. !, 15 have an attorney currently?
16 Q. There was nothing said about the gold coins in ' 16 A. I currently have an attorney.
17 the divorce jud~t? 117 Q. Is it Mr. Gooch's office or someone else?
1$ A. I don't believe so, ! 18 A. Terry Mohr, M-O-H-R.
]9 Q. Karla's inheritance of $135,000, that includes ! 19 Q. ►den did Mr. Mohr becane your attorney,
20 the house, right, of about 565,000? Is that n~nber 20 approximately?
21 about right or is that wrong? 21 A. around the 24th of 7anuary.
22 A. No. That was a house that she purchased. she 22 Q. of this year?
23 did inherit a house fran her father. 23 a. Yes.
24 Q. okay. The inheritance of 5135,000 that you X24 Q. Did you have an attorney in October of 2016
29 i 31

1 have an the sheet, wfi~at's that made up of? =s that the 1 when that order you just referenced was entered?
2 house plus saris other items or just the house? ~ 2 a. r~.
3 A. that came from a list from Karla for the court I 3 Q. You were representing yourself?
4 date of 7uly Z7, 2010 and it was the house and other ', 4 A. z was working in Louisiana andI did not cane
5 monetary items that she inherited from her father. ' S back for the trial.
6 R. You have lawyer fees due to Karla divorce on 6 Q. There was no one in court for you on that day?
7 this Exhibit 33. zt says Karla approximately 60,000, ', 7 a. Not on that day, no.
8 VM for William, approximately 40,000. What does that •. 8 Q. Did you try to call into the court or cb
9 stand for? can yai explain that? 9 anything?
10 A. That was my best approximation of all of 10 A. No.
ll Karla's lawyer fees that have been assigned to me both ! 11 Q. To contact the court?
12 in the judgment and since most recently October of 2016 12 A. t~.
13 and my approximation of my lavyer fees that I've 13 Q. After Mr. I.eving's office withdrew from your
14 encountered since the beginning of the divorce. 14 case was Mr. Mohr your next attorney or did you have any
15 Q. When you say approximation, haw did you came up 15 other attorneys in betv~een for your divorce matter?
16 with the n~nbers then? Did you -- 16 A. There were no attorneys in between. Iwas
17 A. I just went fran memory. ; 17 without an attorney.
18 4. may. As to the other nt~rbers on here, were ' 18 Q. The 540,000 that you have as for attorney fees
19 you going fran memory as well or did you refer to ',19 for you, have you paid all of that money or is that --
20 spedfic documents? 20 is sane not paid?
21 a. No. Iwas just going by memory. 21 a. Some are not paid.
22 Q. yid you actually pay $60,000 to Karla's I22 Q. dray. who do you ouve and hav much
23 attorneys? i 23 approximately?
24 A, No. i 24 a. Idon't rert~mber the amounts.
30 32
MCCorkle litigation services, Inc. 29. .32
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 Q. How much did you pay Mr. Krupp?
2 a. z believe that was 56000.
3 Q. That all paid?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. on this Exhibit 33 ~fiere it says homes and it
6 says Flint 365,000, that's the have Karla inherited?
7 a. No, that's the have that she purchased.
8 Q. oiwy. Andn when did she purchase that
9 appro~mately?
10 A. zt would have been august of 2010.
u Q. This was after she had filed for divorce,
correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. and she ~rchased that with -- alone or how did
15 she purchase that?
16 a. with cash funds that she was given, ~ believe
17 it was SZ6,000 fran a court order on July 27, 2010 and I
18 assurr~ she used her inheritance funds to make up the
19 rest,
20 Q. lfiese college funds you have on Exhibit 33, is
21 this based on x~hat you believe, z think you testified on
22 Friday you think Karla should have shared those college
23 expenses with you 50-50, is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
33
Q. here does Elizabeth live nanr?
,4. Elizabeth bought a house in Woodstock.
q. She married or does she live on her own?
a. she's not married that r know of. She lives
with a boyfriend.
Q. She still goes by the last name of Schmid or
does she go by sanething else?
a. as far as z knav, yes.
q. And as far as you know Elizabeth is working to
pay off her $3000 loan herself?
A. Yes.
q. Pmelia, is she married or single and do you
know xfiere she lives?
a. She's single as far as z know and she lives
with her mother.
Q. And Nnelia, does she still go by the last name
of Sclvni d?
A. as far as I knav, yes,
Q. And icarla, has Karla changed back to her maiden
name or does she go by the name of Schmid?
a. As far as I knav she's still using Schmid.
Q. and living in the west Dundee house?
A. No. she lives in the house in Flint that she
bought.
35

1 q. And so the n~nbers on ~chibit 33 are -- is that 1 Q. so tcarla and Amelia live in Flint?
2 how much you paid or is that wi~at you think you 2 a. Yes.
3 overpaid; in other Kurds, that mould get you back to 3 Q. oo you know what the rough percentage of the
4 50-50? i, 4 total assets between you and Karla was that the judge
5 A. That was my best approximation at the total I 5 divided up between you and how that came down? rn other
6 amounts that were paid. I 6 words, was it 75-Z5, 65-35, something else?
7 tit. T~K: Paid by or paid in total? 7 A. That's what F~chibit 29 is.
8 11iE WITNESS: There was a total of 100,000 for 8 Q. oid you, and for the sake of time here, do you
9 Elizabeth and 80,000 for Amelia and of that Karla paid 9 have it written down there at all or did you cane to any
10 approximately $ll,0(?0 in cash and Elizabeth has a loan i 10 conclusion about what that came out to?
ll of ~8,~0 and z believe Amelia has loans either in her ' 11 a. By column F and 7 the divorce judgment looks
12 name or with Karla as cosigner for maybe $36,0 and z ; 12 like we split 5148,925 with ~76,000 going to Karla and
13 made up the rest with loans and cash. 113 73,00 going to me. Zn reality column e shays 5335,
14 L~[dL'~~i,~~~9~,A 5336,000 with roughly 78 percent, $262,000 going to
15 Q. To your Imowledge, are -- well, strike that. Karla.
16 How is your relationship with Elizabeth and Q. Is that by adding up E and F to get that 276 I
17 Amelia these days? guess it is?
is A. I think the Kurd is estranged. A. N0.
19 Q. are you out of contact, do you have sane Q. So tell me how those col~nns uNork real quickly
20 contact with them? then, how you -- in explaining your ansv~er. How do I
21 A. I've had very little contact with Amelia and read that to understand where you're getting the n~nbers
22 the last time that z saw her Karla accused me of from, that last answer?
23 physically and verbally abusing Amelia in church at my A. Column F would be the divorce judgment amounts
24 younger sister's funeral. and who they were assigned to.
34 .~i'"
Mccorkle Litigation services, znc. 33..36
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 Q. And do col~nns 121, 122 and 123 on the bottom ! 1 Q. teas anybody been living there? Has Karla been
2 reflect ~o there assigned to? ( 2 using it as a second house?
3 a. No. column F would have been assigned to 3 A. N0.
4 Karla. '; 4 Q. It's just sitting there? who's maintaining it?
5 Q. okay. ', 5 A. My next door neighbor.
6 a,. and the corresponding column 7 is v~hat was '! 6 Q. And I'm not sure if yai discussed this, if you
7 assigned to me. ! 7 did on Friday I might have missed it but let me know,
8 Q. Okay. , 8 wiry is that house not sold yet despite the court order?
9 A. which makes it looks like Karla got 51 percent 9 a. aecause z want the house and z've been telling
10 and i got 49 percent. If you take into account !; 10 Karla that z want the house and it's an old house and
ll everything that I had before the divorce colu~ B shows ll it's -- z am willing to mortgage it at the ma~cimum
12 we should have had ~336,0(l0 and column B is the various ' 12 amount that I can get it appraised for and i think the
13 court orders that gave Karla 78 percent of ~336,000. 13 only reason it hasn't been sold is because Karla
14 Q. Okay. ' 14 realizes that she can't get as Bch for the house
15 hMt. TANK: So CO is court order and AO is what? 15 selling it through a realtor that I can get if z explain
16 7HE WWIT1JE55:
T agreed order. 16 to the appraiser what has been done in the house.
17 MR. TANK: Agreed order. what is EooP? 17 Q. dray. And if the house is mare valuable,
18 THE wrrNEss: That was emergency order of 18 though, through vat you can do far it doesn`t that mean
19 protection. " 1g she can maybe get abetter cut fran you fnr it?
20 MR. TANK: Then you have m. Is that supposed to i 20 A. Back in October she was outright awarded
21 be CO or is it CO and z'm reading it incorrectly? 21 possession of the house, the house is essentially hers.
22 THE wIrNE55; where are you at? ' 22 she can do whatever she wants with it as of octo6er.
23 MR. TANK: I5 it CO 7-27-10? !, 23 4. dray. And is she still represented by the sa~rie
24 ~E wrtNEss: That should be Co. 24 attorney that was representing her before, chapskis's
~~ 39

1 MR. TANK: Co. okay. it probably is. ', 1 office?

2 hMt, SORENSEN. Yeah, it's us, '. 2 A. Yes.
3 BY MR. SORENSEN: ~! 3 Q. so your cannunications had to go through that
4 Q. All right. Did you ever have yourself any 4 attorney to her or have you been carmunicating with her
5 tense or heated exchanges with judge Pilmer directly? i 5 directly?
6 A. No. 6 A. r've been sending emails to Karla directly and
7 Q. yid you ever talk to judge Gilmer directly in 7 I do have an email fran attorney Doyen that says all
8 court? ' 8 camwnication is supposed to go through him.
9 A. Not directly. 9 Q. then did he send you that?
10 Q. oo you feel like judge Pilmer had it in for ' 10 A. I think that might have been around April of
ll you? ' ll 2016.
12 a. z don't knay. 12 R. Have you ever declared bankruptcy?
13 Q. were there any ~rrds or actions of that judge 13 a. ~o.
14 or any other judge that made you think that any of the ' 14 Q. Have you -- are you cante~lafiing bankruptcy?
15 judges had a dislike for you or was punishing you in 15 a. r~o.
16 some Hay? 16 Q. why not?
17 A. well, 7uck~e Kostelny awarded an emergency order 17 a. Because z don't have other debt other than
18 of protection to Karla to remove me fran the house when ' 18 the -- what z oNre Karla for alimony and the arrearage
19 Karla had a danestic battery charge against her. ! 19 and maintenance and the attorney fees.
20 Q. sorry, again I apologize for junping around if '20 Q. And the order fran judge Pilmer in 2012, the
21 it confuses you at all. No one is liviru~ in the West 21 final order assigning different division of property and
22 ~untlee house right now, if Karla's in Flint? ' 22 anaunts, wasn't Karla to the extent she was supposed to
23 A. That's correct. I haven't been there in the 18 ' 23 be receiving certain amounts fran you, wasn't sane of
24 months that I've been working. 124 that planned to come fran the sale of the house?
38
~'.~~ McCorkle Litigation Services, znc. 37..40
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 A. i don't think the judgment says. 1 she's holding out for, some deal or some agre~nent?
2 Q. Even if it doesn't say so? 2 A. Yes. z have a whole bunch of emails back and
3 a. i can't recall right now exactly what the ' 3 forth with tcarla since April of 2016 after t had been
4 judgment says. 4 working since or working six months and able to qualify
5 Q. Fair enough. men if it doesn't say so in so ~ 5 fora loan except for the 30 percent or 40 percent that
6 many Hnrds, would that not have been how you would be ' 6 I owe her for alimony on gross income including overtirt~
7 able to gather certain funds to satisfy sane of those , ~ and per diem that the bank won't include in my mortgage
8 jud~nent amounts warded against you would be the sale 'i! 8 application.
9 of that house? i 9 Q. In other Kurds, you could get a loan to buy
10 a. zf z was working z v~uld have mortgaged the 10 that house fran her except for that 40 percent order
u house to pay Karla, ' 11 against you?
12 Q. And ~'m not sure, I'm not clear -- x~ell, strike ' 12 a. That and my debt that I have that's also
13 that? " 13 included in the mortgage application.
14 have you paid all of the amounts due to Karla 14 Q. How many times did you meet with Mr. Krupp in
15 under the 2012 order of judge Pilmer? 15 person?
16 A. N0. ' 16 A. I can't recall hav many times I met.
' 17 Q. Have you paid any of those amounts? i ll Q. I`m sorry. I don't mean to step on your
18 a. The pension funds and Itt~ funds were ' 1& xnrds. z wasn't sure if you were done.
19 transferred to Karla. 19 A. z can't recall how many times i actually met
20 Q. okay. ,anything else transferred to Karla or 20 with him. z can guess maybe.
21 paid to Karla from the 2012 order? 21 Q. No need to guess. would you say it was more or
22 A. Yes, if you include the ta~c refund. i don't 22 less than five times or more or less than 10 times yaa
23 remember what year it was, 23 actually met with him in person in his office?
24 Q. yid any of the judges in the divorce case put 24 a. I was going to say maybe six times.
41 43

1 you in jail for contanpt of court? 1 Q. Fair enough. How many times u~nuld you say you
2 A. Yes. ', 2 spoke to him on the phone about your case? ~e same
3 Q. which judge or judges? li 3 thing, more or less than. approximate n~nber is fine.
4 a. judge Cre~ys. ',` 4S A. i would guess maybe 20 times.
5 Q. ~s he the only judge who did that? Q. and hav many times Kuuld you say you
6 a. Yes. 6 camunicated with him by email or text? Again
7 Q. when did he put }rou in jail? ' 7 approximate is okay.
8 A. t believe it was maybe December of X013? ' 8 A. I don't know hav many. z put together an email
9 Q. And was that because you would not sell the i 9 file,
10 house? 10 Q. you did?
~ ll
A, Yes. I ll A. Y2S.
Q. And how long were you in jail for? ': 12 Q. You produced that to your attorney?
13 A. aasically overnight and the better part of the ' 13 A YeS.
14 next day until I ~,as released after signing the sales 14 Q. The best of your knowledge you produced
15 agreement in jail. 15 everything you -- all of your carmunications with
16 Q. Even though you signed the sales agreement the 16 Mr. Krupp that were by email or text?
17 sale didn't go through. How cane? 17 A. Yes.
18 a, z don't know. z didn't want to sell the 18 Q. yid you have texts with Mr. Krupp?
19 house. z don't kna~r why Karla didn't proceed with it 19 a. A file that I put together was emails. z don't
20 other than she knew all along that z wanted to buy her 20 have the capability to copy tee messages.
21 out of the house. ,; 21 Q. okay. Sure, mat's fair. the question that z
22 Q. Knowing that you want to buy her out of the '~ 22 was asking you is did you acCua1ly have any text
23 house is she waiting on you doing sanething? is there 23 exchanges with Mr. Krupp?
24 same communication between you and her that you think !' 24 A. Yes.
42 44
~t MCCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. 41..44
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 Q. How many would you say? ': 1 A. I don't know why he did that.
2 A. I would just have to guess. "' 2 Q. yid either Mr, Feria or Mr. Krupp give you an
3 Q. Okay. 3 estimate as to hav much it might cost to appeal the
4 A. I don't know hav many, i 4 case?
5 Q. [rid you save thin on your phone or is it a 5 A. z believe the letter fran Attorney Feria said it
6 different phone now or are they not retrievable? 6 knuld be in excess of the 56000 retainer.
7 A. They're nofi retrievable. 7 Q. you have said that Mr. Krupp would "pranptly
8 Q. Were they short messages anyway, just a text? 8 dispose" of what he considered to be a "sure fire" win.
9 A. Yes. 9 Are you saying Mr. Krupp used those s~cific words,
10 Q. were they messages about meeting up, meet at 10 promptly dispose and sure fire in discussing your appeal
ll court or meet in the office? 11 with yau?
12 A. Yes. 12 a. i can't recall what the exact wards were.
13 Q. Mr. Feria wrote you a letter as he was 13 Q. Your point is that he gave you some sense that
14 withdr~ving and there's a line in the letter saying it 14 you had good prospects of prevailing on appeal?
15 would appear that you have a viable cause of action as 15 a. Yes.
16 it relates to your appeal. oid you discuss the appeal 16 Q. yid he also at any point, if you recall, advise
17 in any more detail with htr. Feria? ', 17 you that on any appeal that results are uncertain,
18 A. Yes. Attorney Feria did file the initial 18 cannot be guaranteed?
19 documents to open the appeal. 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You authorized him to do that, right? 20 Q. Did Mr. Krupp tell you that, whatever Hnrds,
21 A. Yes. 21 that when the court, the trial court like judge vilmer,
22 Q. yid you discuss with him the strategy or the 1 22 has issued a decision that it's harder to get an
23 basis for the appeal and the likely process of the 23 appellate court to overturn the trial court?
24 ~~1 ~;th AttO~y Fes? 24 A. Could you repeat that, please?
45 47

1 a. Not i n any great detai1, ', 1 Q. Yeah, no problem. Maybe z can make it a little
2 q. z know you're not a lawyer but have you done 2 more clear. Did Mr. Krupp explain to you or give you a
3 any research on your case, legal type of research to try 3 sense that men atrial judge has issued a decision it's
4 to learn about the legal issues in this case, learn ', 4 harder to go to appellate court to get that decision
5 about appeals as ►~11, thiru~s
u~ like that? 5 overturned than it is to go to the appellate caart and
6 A, Yes, 6 ask the appellate court to keep that decision? noes
7 Q, that have you consulted to do that? 7 that make sense?
8 A. Just on the Internet. 8 A. No.
9 Q. Google, basically? 9 Q. Did you do any researd~ an appeals at all or
10 A. Yes. 10 review or reading in your research about appeals?
ll Q. Any other particular sites you've gone to or 11 A. Yes.
u you just Google a question and see what the results are? 12 Q. 5o you understand that appeal is basically ►den
X 13 n. z've been on the Gitlin website. 13 a trial court issues a decision and by an appeal like in
14 Q. Mr. Feria, ane of the reasons ~y you stopped 14 your case you're asking the appellate court to overturn
15 Harking with Mr. Feria was because he wanted anew 15 the decision that the trial court gave you, correct? o0
16 retainer for the appeal, is that right? 16 you understand that?
17 A. N0. 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. No? why did you stop working with Mr. Feria? 18 Q. And do you understand fran either your
19 p. Because he requested that my mother come into '; 19 wmnunications with attorneys or your research, whatever
20 his office and open an account that he could be paid 20 it may be, do you understand when you appeal a case
21 through. ' 21 there's something called a standard of review that the
22 Q. yid he do that because he knew that your Z2 appellate court has which deternrines how they look at
23 funds -- you were short on funds and he wanted to make 23 the case? Are you familiar with that term at all,
24 sure he was going to he canpensated for the work? ~ 24 standard of review?
I
46 48
~~.~3~ McCorkle litigation Services, znc. 45. .48
~% Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

1 A. N0,
2 Q. Have you heard of the term abuse of discretion
3 standard? Does that sounds familiar at all?
4 A. N0.
5 Q. So you're rare that in your case you would be
6 -- yai would have been appealing and asking the
7 appellate court to say that judge Pilmer's decision was
8 wrong and should be overturned, correct?
9 A, Yes.
10 Q. whereas Karla's attorneys had the appeal been
11 filed they ►Wald be responding to your appeal and saying
to the appellate court this decision is fine, don't
13 change it. oo you follow that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In other words, they would want to keep the
16 decision the same as it is, you were trying to change it
17 to go back to trial court and do it over again, right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. you understand that appeal is not just another
ZO chance at the bat, it's not a second try at a hope of a
21 different outcane, you're mare you actually have to
22 convince another court that there was something wrong
23 about the earlier decision?
24 A. Yes.
49
1 Q. okay. You understand that just because you
2 feel that atrial court's decision is unfair in and of
3 itself is not necessarily going to win you an appeal?
4 A. z don't know how to answer that given that
5 Karla received the lion's share of everything.
6 Q. yid you do any research on cases in zllirrois
7 vfiere about percentages of distribution or where one
8 sides seems to get more of the distribution of marital
9 property than another to see what the court said about
10 those kind of cases? Did you do any research or reading 10
ll on that?
12 A. z believe that was on the Gitlin ~vebsite.
13 Q. that was your understanding from the Gitlin
14 website about that, if you recall?
15 a. aasically the same thing i discussed with
16 Attorney Feda, that the alimony should be in the
17 neighborhood of 25 percent of net income.
18 Q. where did you get that figure from?
19 A. Fran various attorneys and the Gitlin website, ' 19
20 Q. You're rare that a judge was not locked in to ' 20
21 making a -- there's not a simple forn~ula requiring the
22 judge to go with the 25 percent, they have discretion to ' 22
23 change those percentages, right? Are you familiar with '23
24 that or aware of that?
50
~
~`, Mccarkle litigation services, znc.
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
William F. Schmid 02/21/2017
a. z'm aware of that, yes.
Q. Are you a~vare that appellate courts generally
defer to the trial court's decisions?
A. hb.
Q. as far as all the written communications that
you've ever had with Mr. Krupp relating to your divorce,
you produced all those written communications to your
attorney, is that right?
,4. Ibelieve so.
Q. okay. You've never worked with an attorney or
had an attorney represent you who's ever told you that
any result was guaranteed, right?
a. z don't think so, no.
Q. At sane point when you were working with
Mr. Krupp did he recam~end to you or discuss with you
the fact that anew trial court judge was tarring in, I
believe judge crews, in place of judge Pilmer? oo you
recall having conversations with hir. Krupp about that?
A. Yes,
Q. yid you have conversations with Mr. Krupp about
the idea that might be better for you to focus, you and
him to focus on trying to get the trial court to revise
or change fudge Pilmer's order as opposed to the appeal?
~o you remember having discussions with him about that?
51
! 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you render him discussing with you the
3 idea that fudge crews would be a judge ~o would be
! 4 easier to knrk with, might be more favorable to you,
5 might be Hare receptive to the idea of revising judge
~ 6 ~ilmer's earlier decision?
7 A, I don't recall.
8 Q. dray. oo you recall the idea that or -- Strike
9 that.
Do you recall Mr. Krupp discussing with you
' 11 that judge Crews might give you abetter shot at
12 changing your or revising judge Pilmer's order than an
13 appeal shot?
', 14 A. Idon't recall the specifics of changing it
15 through an appeal or through judge Cr~vs.
16 Q. okay. But you do recall the idea of or you did
17 recall -- strike that.
18 Yau do recall Mr. Krupp discussed with you the
idea of going back to judge Crews to try to get fudge
Pi1mer's order revised or changed, right?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
Q, ,4nd that was sanething that was agreeable to
yam,?
24 A. So long as it was changedI really don't mind
52
49. .52
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 which way it is changed. 1 that's what they say on them, understanding your belief
2 Q. okay. vaa were agreeable to the idea of trying 2 in the ternrinology as you stated. Those bystander
3 to focus more on
a~ the trial court than on the appeal? 3 reports, quote unquote bystander reports, were created
4 A. N0. 4 by you based on what, your detailed review of your notes
5 Q. You wanted both to go full steam ahead? 5 fran the trial?
6 A Yes. 6 a. tit notes fran the trial, notes after the
7 Q. You realize that would be more e~ensive? 7 trial, after the appeal was filed,
8 a. I realized it needed to be changed one way or 8 Q. ,4fter the Notice of Appeal was filed?
9 another. 9 A. after I talked with attorney Krupp and he said
10 Q. okay. oo you think that fudge crews throwing 10 there was no court reporter and that i needed to produce
ll you in jail for contempt made it diffialt for you to ll my bystander report or recollections of what was said at
12 garner favor with judge Crews? nid it Sean to create 12 the trial.
13 any tension bet~en you and judge crews? 13 Q. dray. zt made sense he would ask you to help
14 A. t have no idea what was on judge Crews's mind. 14 produce this inforniation or develop this inforn~ation
15 Q. yid judge Crews Sean upset with you or tense or 15 since you lived through it and you had a lot of direct
16 did he have short words fnr you when he sent you to 16 observations of what occurred, right?
17 jai1? 1~ a. ves. z was at each of the trials.
18 A. i don't really remember what judge Crews's 18 Q. dray. And it v~au1d also be sort of a cost
19 reaction was other than he said he could just give the 19 effective way for him to get inforniation about what
20 house to my wife. 20 happened without having to recreate the wheel and having
21 Q. How many times were you before judge Crews men 21 to find out other ways, right?
22 Mr. Krupp was representing you? 22 a. i don't knav how to answer that. i was the
23 A. z don't ranember. 23 only person at the trial other than attorney Feda and
24 Q, More or less than five? 24 Attorney Doyen and Karla at some of them.
53 55

1 A. I've got all the various court orders or court Q. yid you keep detailed notes of the trial?
2 dates in my notes and in my file of the divorce court A. No, I did not.
3 file. Q. The maintenance -- have you gone back to since
4 Q. ~e bystander reports you created, I think you attorney ~eving`s office helped you tried to revise the
5 said you created those at the request of Mr. Krupp, is maintenance required, correct, the 40 percent?
6 that right? A. it was my understanding z was going to be
7 A, Yes. allowed to file a petition to modify maintenance after z
8 Q. 7twse were going to assist in the appeal? paid Karla $135,000 for the house and the attorney fees
9 A. Yes. and all the other items what were in the judgment.
10 Q. you created those bystander reports a little Q. dray. Since the house hasn't been sold and
ll while after judge Pilmer`s order had been entered, is those things haven't taken place that has held up your
that correct? filing of the petition to modify maintenance?
13 A. z think z clarified that bystander report was A. Yes.
14 not the correct term to use for those. z think the Q. oo you have any plan on doing that any time
15 correct term would have been recollections. soon?
16 Q. okay. Did you look up the term bystander A. Yes.
17 report to learn that in your opinion that was not the Q. what's your plan, 'cause it's going to relate
18 correct terminology? to your selling the house and everything else or buying
19 a. z think z did look up inforniation after the house? are you in a position where you're going to
20 Attorney Krupp gave me the appellate court website be able to make those moves?
21 concerning the bystander report or whatever it's called, A. That's wfiat Attorney Mohr is marking on.
22 my recollections of the trial since there wasn't a court Q. okay. You -- strike that.
Z3 reporter. yet me ask you about Exhibit 32, if we can go
24 Q. we'll just call than bystander reports because to that one. This is a handwritten doc~nent created by
54 58
MCCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. 53..56
Chicago, Illinois (3l2) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 you yesterday and/or today? 1 her claims of abuse on my part.

2 a. ves. 2 Q. Now, it's easy to file anything in court, but
3 Q. And your purpose in creating this docunent was 3 you understand the difference betvreen tether it's easy
4 what? i' 4 to make an appeal versus whether or not you're going to
5 a. ]ust to put my notes dam on paper. ~'! 5 win or not, correct? Those are txn separate things.
6 Q. okay. Your thoughts as to Mr. K►vpp and wfiat 6 you understand that? you always understood that, right?
7 you believe he did not do or did not do wrrectly in I 7 A. N0.
8 your case? 8 Q. you thought all you had to do was appeal this
9 A. Yes, his actions or inactions. 9 case and you would win in the appellate court? rs that
ld Q. okay. bet's sort of go down. 7tie very first ' 10 what you thought?
ll one, you would probably pay me ~ateverIasked for. ' 11 a. Ithought that I had a winable appeal.
1Z What's your point of putting that down? ! 12 Q. That's because you believed strongly in your
13 A. That was my first meeting with Attorney Krupp. !; 13 case and you felt it was manifestedly unjust based on
14 Q. what's the significant of you writing it here? ! 14 your living through it and the n~rbers as you s~v them
15 A. when we talked about his retainer and whether ! 15 being uvarded, correct?
16 he would accept the case. 16 A. 1 kn~v what the numbers are, yes.
' ll Q. Does that bother you, does that leave a bad '; 17 Q. Right. But you adrcit you're not a Dyer and
18 taste in your mouth, that's why you wrote it down or 18 you wouldn't k~ able to knav for sure ►fat the appellate
19 random memories? 19 court is going to do?
20 a That's way just what z remer~ered of the 20 A. I'm not a lavryer, that's for sure.
21 conversation. Z1 Q. And you knew that no one could guarantee for
22 Q. so you're not trying to say you blame him for 22 you what the appellate court would do, ►ether they
23 that or are you saying you do blame him for saying that? ' 23 vxwld agree with you or not?
24 A. No. It's just something that he said while we I 24 A. Yes.
57 I 59

1 were discussing the retainer and taking my case. 1 Q. You know the trial judge, fudge Pilmer, had
2 Q. Okay. 'the second one is about he had sane ! 2 found you not to be credible in your case and, in fact,
3 cam~ents
a e about judge Pilmer. is this verbatim orItake 3 in the order he said he believed that your using funds
4 it since several years have passed since the meeting ' 4 to pay off credit card debts or something of that nature
5 you're s~rmarizing a general recollection, is that fair S he found to be incredible in the order. ~o you rimer
6 to say? ': 6 that, right?
7 A. Yes. 7 a. t don't recall exactly what the term incredible
8 Q. You're not quoting him necessarily? '. 8 was used for.
9 A. No. 9 Q. He said the husband has continued to pay
10 Q. The next one where it says your case is ' 10 substantial amounts on his monthly credit card balance,
11 appealable and should be a slam dunk to change the 11 including payments in the thousand of dollars despite
12 jud~nent, are you saying he said it's a slam dunk? 12 claiming that his only source of funds is his weekly
13 a. z believe so. i 13 unemployment canpensation and he has no money left in
14 Q. Has any attorney ever told you other than 14 savings wfiich the court finds to be incredible. That
15 perhaps here that anything was a slam ink in court? ' 15 was page 5 of judge's order of 2012. So you understand
16 A. No. ' 16 that the judge did not find you to be particularly
17 Q. Did you believe that it ►x~uld be a slam dunk, ' 17 credible on sane points, fair to say?
18 given everything you had been through and all the 18 a. z understand that the divorce judgment was
19 attorneys you dealt with up to that time that anything 19 verbatim surd for word Attorney Doyen's written proposed
20 in court wcwld be a slam dunk? 20 judgment.
21 ,a. I believed that the appeal should have been 21 Q. okay. And you think that the judge did not
22 very easy since all of the nu~ers and Karla had no 22 exercise any independent jud~t in deciding fat the
Z3 physical evidence from a doctor for her claim of !23 order ~+ould be but just listened to whatever Doyen said?
24 disability or -- and she didn't have any evidence for !24 A. Yes.
58 .~
McCorkle Litigation services, Inc. 57. .60
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 Q. why do you think the judge was the puppet of i 1 Mr. Krupp did or did not do anything wrot►g from that,
2 Mr. Doyen? 2 correct?
3 A. Because it's all numbers and the numbers for i 3 a. Attorney Krupp instructed me to go on the
4 dissipation made no sense v~atsoever. 4 appellate court website for the instructions on how to
5 Q. Do you have any other basis to think that the `: 5 write the bystander report or recollections or whatever
6 judge just blindly took whatever Doyen said other than ' 6 it's called.
7 what you already said, v~hat you have testified to? ', 7 Q. Right. But you're not saying that's sanething
8 A. There wasn't any evidence of any dissipation, i 8 he did wrong or negligently, that's just an observation
9 there wasn't any evidence of my abusing Karla or my ' 9 of something he said you should do?
10 daughters. There wasn't -- the court orders all had Ii 10 A. Yes. YeS.
ll specific amounts attached to them and Karla received the ill Q. You're not saying that was wrong, correct?
12 78 percent of X336,000 and I wasn't credited for any of '. 12 A. Yes, I'm not saying that that is wrong. That's
13 that. ' 13 what was needed to be done.
14 Q. yid z allay you to finish? Sorry. i was going !, 14 Q. lust what happened?
15 to go to the next question. 15 A. Yes.
16 A. Tfie divorce judgment says she was forced to ' 16 Q. treeded to be done. 77hat's wi~at ~'m getting
17 spend davn her inheritance and ztt~ accounts and I wasn't 17 at. z'm trying to cross off the ones that are really
18 credited with any of that, either. she was also -- ' 18 just sort of observational like fihat. we don't
19 Q. That would actually be sanething that goes 19 necessarily need to talk about those.
20 against you, if she was forced to do sanething in 20 The next one about the spreadsheets, Ithink
21 there. Did you not see it that way. 21 that's kind of the same thing, right? Something thafi
22 A. N0. she was not forced to spend dam 22 you needed to do that you did and you provided to
23 anything. She could have stayed in the house instead of 23 Mr. Krupp, right?
24 moving to Michigan. 24 a. Yes,
61 '. 63

1 Q. have you finished? ='m just asking so I can 1 Q. you're not saying you did anything wrong in i
2 move on to the next question. I want to make sure you 2 that, correct? I
3 have a chance to say what you want to say. 3 A. nbt in that, no.
4 n. mere wasn't any evidence of me abusing Karla ~ 4 Q. t know ultimately you`re saying, yeah, don't
5 and i believe that's what she used to get the emergency 5 worry, you still have your claim that you're saying I
6 order of protection and also residency status for a~lia l 6 ultimately he didn't do this thing right. Iknow that.
7 to get in-state tuition in Michigan. 7 I'm just trying to break down these individually so v~
8 q. Anything else? 8 understand.
9 a, Not that I can recall. ! 9 a. okay,
10 Q. After the slam dunk on Exhibit 33, your !: 10 Q. the new one about the recollections, again,
ll handvritten notes after the line about slam dunk, the ' 11 you're not saying he did something wrong in that, this
12 next couple seem to be just sort of rewliections, ' 12 is just sanething that you did and that you gave to
13 right? There was no court reporter, i made notes on a 13 him, correct?
14 spreadsheet frorn~at. 1 made recollections misnamed ' 14 A. Yes.
15 bystander reports. at one meeting regarding -- these `: 15 Q. Iknow again you're saying ultimately, you
16 next few would you agree these are more observations as '; 16 knav, he didn't do enough with thin or whatever, however
17 opposed to specifically saying that Attorney Krupp did 17 you want to make the claim, z understand that. z'm
18 something or didn't do something, correct? i 18 focusing on your notes to make sure z understand them.
19 A. No. ~ 19 5oIwant to go dam to txa more down, it says was
20 Q. All right. bet's go through it, then. There i20 ,attorney KruppJFeda withholding info about ESOP and
21 was no court reporter, Feda screwed up to -- here's the j 21 Karla claimed abuse. what's that about? can you
22 appellate court website, go on there for instructions '22 explain that?
23 for bystanders report, that's just recollections of 23 A. ~ had talked to Attorney Krupp several times ~
24 things that happened, right? You're oat saying 24 about the six or seven police reports and the emergency
62 ' 64
~} McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 61. .64
Chicago, Illinois (312) Z63-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 order of protection and Karla's claims of abuse and my 1 ~, pet's go to the next one, the Attorney Krupp
2 suspicion that anelia and Karla had filled out the 2 never finished the bystander report and never instructed
3 University of Michigan residency application claiming 3 me to finish the bystander notes fran my notes. I
4 that they had to leave Illinois to get away from my ! 4 understand that. zs there anything more to that? mat
5 abuse. 5 sew pretty self explanatory.
6 4. Is that fat they did? yid they do that? oid 6 A, No, there's nothing more to that.
7 they make that claim in some docunent somewhere, that ~', 7 4. may. 7anuary, 2014 attorney K~vpp did not
8 they had to leave Illinois to get ~vay from you? Do you 8 respond to my inquiries, et cetera. bid you try to
9 know if they did that? '; 9 contact him regularly? yet me strike that.
10 A. I believe that's what fihe emergency order of 10 tbw often xould you say you spoke to him
ll protection and the court order or agreed order from !ll between the time he began representing you in April of
12 ]uly 27th where Karla was given 526,000 to assist her to : 12 2013 to the time he withdraw in 7uly of 2014? Now often
13 buy a house in Michigan. 13 would you say on a weekly or monthly basis you discussed
14 Q. Did they say something to the University of 14 the case with him?
15 htichigan ala~g9 those lines as well or cb you not knav2 15 a, I was sending him draft copies of the bystander
16 A. I don't know for sure. I would like to see the 16 reports and my notes on a regular basis.
17 residency application and anything else that Amelia gave 17 Q. okay. on a regular basis by that do you mean
18 to the University of Michigan. 1B on like a weekly basis or something else?
19 q. Has any of your attorneys asked for that or 19 A. on a daily or weekly basis, whenever I ~vould
20 have you asked any of your attorneys to ask for that? i 20 update sanething or canplete sat thing.
21 A, mat's what my discussions with Attorney Krupp ':. 21 q. i~aw it's fair to say like when judge Crews held
22 were about to stop Karla's claims of abuse. 22 you in contenpt of court there were a n~anber of times
23 Q. well, okay. while we're on that point, do you 23 Mr. tcrupp had to go to court on your behalf for matters
Z4 think Mr. Krupp or Mr. Feda were withholding inform3tian ': 24 that were not related to the appeal because the divorce
65 67

1 from you? ! 1 matter in the trial court wras still going on and Karla's
2 A. I don't know. 2 attorneys were requesting things and there ►ire a number
3 Q. what inforniation do you think they might have 3 of reasons for him to have to do work for you in the
4 been withholding, if anything? 4 trial court level, correct?
5 A. I think Karla may have tape recorded an S a. ves,
6 argument that u~ had back when r first came home from ' 6 Q. The focus of your complaints against Mr. Krupp
7 working in Texas in March or April of 2010, right before 7 is not on those things that he had to cb with you in the
8 the emergency order of protection. 8 trial court level at that time but on the appeal and the
9 Q. oo you think that Attorney Krupp or attorney 1 9 fact that didn't work out the vray you believed it strould
10 Feda got a copy of that? was it ever produced in court ! 10 have worked out, correct?
ll by anybody? ll A. Yes.
T2 A. N0. 12 Q. Did you ever have a breakda~vn, yelling
13 Q. is there anything else that you think they 13 arg~nents with Mr. Krupp or anybody in his office?
14 might have been withholding from you? 14 A. oidIhave or did Attorney Krupp have?
15 A. No. 15 Q. Either way.
16 Q. I'm guessing if she recorded an arg~anent you 16 A. Yes.
17 guys had it probably wouldn't be a good reflection on 117 Q. and what happened and when was that?
18 either side, ►Wald that be fair to say? Probably shows 18 a. z believe that's the last item on the --
19 txa people ►,tw are angry at each other, in other rnrds, ',19 Q. dray. Why don'tI-- we'll get to that in a
20 right? 20 second. z want to ask you about the other ones before
21 A. it ~wuld have been me yelling at Karla. 21 we get there. 7anuary, 2014 Attorney Krupp did not
22 Q. Probably not going to prove or disprove any i22 respond to my inquiries if my notes were adequate. So
23 claim of abuse she was making, right? ~ 23 in January of 2014 you were trying to reach him and he
24 A. i have no idea. ~ 24 -- did he get back to you at all?
66 68
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. 65. .68
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 A. Not that i recall. Q. okay. He gave you no response an that?

2 Q. so he never responded to your inquiries in a. Not that r'm aware of.
3 7anuary, 2014? Q. okay. And did that cause you concern because
4 A. Yes. you aren't hearing back from him and you knew there
5 Q. Correct, he did not respond? were same court deadlines?
6 A. i don't recall if he responded but I don't A. Yes.
7 believe he did. Q. what did you do in response to that concern,
8 Q, sorry. the way ~ phrased that and your answer, reacting to that concern?
9 you know, trying to clarify. 1n 7anuary of 2014 did you A. I asked his secretaries what -- if Bob is
10 know ►,den the deadline was to file the appeal, the looking at the documents that I've been giving him, the
ll appellate brief or any of the other doc~nents required? notes.
12 A. There ire a series of extensions, t don't Q. ,and u~at did they tell you, if anything?
13 recall the dates. A. I don`t recall what they told ~.
14 Q. okay. oid Mr. Krupp generally update you then Q. yid you have any discussions with aob about it?
15 he got extensions as to vA~en the new due dates were? Mr. Krupp?
16 A. I was taking the extensions that attorney A, Not that t recall other than e~ensions were
17 Krupp's office prepared, I was taking them to the filed.
18 appellate court to be filed and bring the topies, the Q. Did you investigate getting another attorney
19 filed copies back to sob's office. after you were not hearing fran Mr, Krupp in early 2014?
20 Q. why were you doing the filing of those? A. No.
21 A. To save on costs. Q. 4~1y f10t?
22 Q. Fair enough. so you were aware, then, in A. I had to borrow funds fran friends and family
23 response to those extension requests of the orders that to pay attorney Krupp's retainer.
24 were issued granting e~ensians and setting new deadline Q. and the new item on the list, z think that's
69 71

1 dates? sirrrilar to the prior ane. The next one is attorney

2 a. ves. Krupp did not file a brief or bystander reports for my
3 Q, and on May 7, 2014 the appellate court ordered appeal. That's pretty straight forward. fiat's part of
4 you had 10 days within uu~ich to file a brief or the your canplaint.
S appeal would be dismissed without further notice. uid me next one says court date? Can you explain
6 you have camxmicatian with Mr. Krupp about that? what this entry is about?
7 A. could you say that again? A. z can't recall the date but we were in court at
8 Q. Sure. On May 7, 2414 the appellate court one point for the sale of the house and payment of
9 ordered that you had 10 days to file a brief or the medical expenses and health insurance for ,4melia and
10 appeal would be dismissed without further notice. That Bob's crnm~ent to me was we won four out of five of the
ll vras the final court order before the case was dismissed items, ~nich the four out of the five were minor items,
by the appellate court, correct? minor dollar amounts for Amelia, but z believe that was
13 A, I believe so. vJnen z was -- that was the start of forcing the sale of
14 Q. 7t~at was, that last order, that May 7, 2014 the house.
15 order was based on an extension hir. Krupp had asked for Q, dray. So you didn't think -- you did not think
16 that you had helped file with the court, correct? that the winning four out of five was significant in the
17 A, i don't recall the exact dates for any of them. context of it, is that fair to say?
18 Q, okay, when you ►Wald get these order requests A. Yes.
19 fror e~ensions filed and you would see the new dates did Q. And so the last one here is do you r~nber
20 you have any discussion with Mr. Krupp at all abouC the approximately when I guess this xauld have happened
21 brief or when things would be filed? after Mr. Krupp filed the motion to withdr~v from your
22 a. fiat's what z was questioning back in January, case, correct? So it would have been sane time around
23 if the bystander reports were canplete enough to carry ]uly of 2014?
24 on with the brief. a. z believe that was before he actually filed the
70 72
~} McCorkle litigation services, Inc. 69. .72
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 motion. 1 first question for you is on the very last page, is that
2 Q. okay. He told you before he filed the motion 2 your signature to the docwnents?
3 thafi he was going to withdrar~? 3 A. Yes.
4 A. Yes, 4 Q. and did you have a chance at that time back in
5 Q. ,4nd you vent to pick up the file and as you S March of 2016 to review these answers to check to make
6 write here he screamed at you in front of his 6 sure they were accurate before you signed?
7 secretaries? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. Iknow there would be at least ane change to
9 Q. tow, that line that t did not know who t was 9 the doc~nent to make it completely accurate or up to
10 messing with, is that a correct direct quote, is that a 10 date today is your hane address nav is back in
ll stsnnary, a paraphrase of what may have been said a ll Illinois. z understand that. t,~at z wanted to ask you,
12 couple years ago? "! 12 in particular what i xanted to ask you is in the answer
13 A. I'm not quite sure what a paraphrase is. 13 to interrogatory No. 17, this is a very lengthy answer,
14 Q. Paraphrase means it's not trying to be ►wrd for Z4 there's no page n~nbers butIthink it's about a five or
15 word exact. it's just an approximation. as opposed to 15 so page answer. The answer to No. 17 says mat injuries
16 the ►yard verbatim which is this is exactly what was said 16 were sustained by you as a result of the events
17 word for ward. 17 described by you in the cariplaint. And this appears to
' 18 A. That's my recollection of what Bob said. 18 be a detailed answer by you not, z'm complaining about
19 Q. zs that a quote or is that -- ~! 19 the length, just trying to describe it, a detailed
20 A. I don't know if it's exact. 20 answer by you of amounts that you believe relates to the
21 Q. zt's approximate? 21 damages you're claiming in this case, correct?
22 a. ves, '. 22 A. Yes,
23 Q. And do you remember anything else that was said i 23 Q. Now, my question then in relation to Exhibit 28
24 between you and him at that time? 24 is -- if you could you shax then ~chibit 28, Gordan?
73 75

1 ,4. I remember that the -- that the motion to 1 MR. TANK; z don't have it in front of me.
2 withdraw that he showed me at that time was the reason 'I 2 MR. SORENSEN: Do you have it over there?
3 for the request was different from what was actually ': 3 7HE wtr
wtTNE55: I've got 29.
4 filed. 4 BY MMt. SORENSEN:
5 Q. what do you mean by that? S Q. we have Plaintiff's supplemental answers to
6 A. The motion to withdraw that Bob shaved me that i 6 nefendant Feda's Interrogatories. we talked about it on
7 day, r don't remember the wording but it was different ~' 7 Friday. z thcwght we would have the exhibits here. I
8 fran the reason in what was actually filed. '; 8 can show you this one. zt has no markings on it. I
9 q. yid that matter to you? was that significant 9 believe it's 28.
10 in some way, do you recall? 10 5o rtry question for you is is that Exhibit 28 an
]1 A. z don't remember what the wording was, 11 attempt to provide amore concise s~nnary of the answer
Q. fast couple of things. This would be quick. i 12 to the interrogatory No. 17 or is that sanething
13 just want you to -- I'm net going to c~ through these 13 different? Is it a change in the figures or can you
14 but this is a docunent we'll mark as an e~chibit, it's 14 explain if those two -- if these two doc~nents can be
15 Plaintiff's Answers to nefendant tcrupp Interrogatories. 15 compared or related together? Does that make sense?
16 I'm just going to ask you to -- I'm going to verify that 16 A. z think it's a less wordy explanation than
17 it's your -- these are your answers, it's your ' 17 answer 17 but the amounts should be the same.
18 signature, that kind of thing, z'm not going to ask you 18 Q. dray. Let me take this one back fran you. so
19 more than just a couple follow-up questions. we can '! 19 in Exhibit 28 then -- well, z guess if you don't mind me
20 have it marked as Exhibit 34. 20 stancfing here for a second, Dchibit 28 mere the first
21 (Exhibit No. 34 was marked for ' 21 item is about the maintenance ~,rard and it's $360,000, I
22 identification.) 22 don't r~nber seeing a forn~ula in 17, correct me if I'm
23 BY PMt. S~ENSEN: ' 23 wrong, I'm trying to figure out from you if you had a
24 Q. Mr. Sct~nid, you've been handed E~chibit 34. My Z4 forn~ula or a math~natical calculation to use that you
74 76
McCorkle litigation services, Inc. 73. .76
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 came about to come up with that n~er?
2 A. A legal for~la?
3 ~. 7ust a math formula, not a legal formula. How
4 did you get to 360,000. it mould be sanething times
S sariething plus or mirror or divided by. Was there some
6 sort of process like that that you can explain to us as
7 to how you calculated that n~nber?
8 A. without going through everything item by item
9 it would basically be what 40 percent of my gross insane
10 including per diem until age 78 interspersed with 30
ll percent une~loy~nt at X1500 a month less what I
thought maintenance should be of probably $1500 a month
13 when z was working and zero v~en z was not.
14 Q. okay. And so in coming up with this figure you
15 had to throw in away to assess how much you would be
16 unemployed?
17 A. YeS.
18 Q. How did you deternrine that? Based on your
19 historical unemployment compared to actual work?
20 A. Yes, my employment and une~loyment history
21 that was su~nitted as a defense exhibit.
22 Q. tow did you reduce that to a nunber? in other ". 22 marital assets (50 percent), you're not actually saying
23 words, did you look back ten years and say z was anrking Z3 you lost 100 percent of the marital assets, you're
24 8(1 percent of the time and unemployed for 20 percent
77
was done. it says loss of 100 percent of marital
assets, 56,000. what exactly is that?
a. z believe that Hnuld be the nu~er off of this
spreadsheet, all of my --
Q. You're referring to ~hibit 29 and you're
pointing to the upper left corner, upper left corner or
if you can give us the coit~mm and that exactly you're
looking at?
A. COlumii B, rav 117. That shows 5336,000.
Q. So how does that relate to this $66,000
figure?
A, i believe that would be the -- ray 118 shays
Karla getting 78 percent of 5336,400.
Q. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse
here, I'm just trying to understand it. Does the 66,OQ0
represerrt a specific asset or is that just a difference
in the way the n~bers Harked out that you think you
' 18 lost out a~?
' 19 a. It's not one specific asset, it's all of them
'20 that totaled $336,000.
' 21 Q. okay. So this title loss of 100 percent of
24 saying you did not get a proper distribution of the
m

1 therefore 2'm going to use that as a figure to ►wrk into 1 marital assets, is that correct?
2 the calculation? 2 A. Yes.
3 a, yes, that's what the spreadsheet showed that in !, 3 Q. ,and you believe it should have been 50-50?
4 my line of work Iwas unemployed 36 percent of the time. !; 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. okay. Do you know if that's actually -- so S q. You believe judge Pilmer should have ordered a
6 that's +ntiat the spreadsheet showed fran your past ~i 6 50-50 split of all of the marital assets?
7 history, you were unemployed 36 percent of the time or ; 7 A. Yes.
8 was that sort of a -- did you average? 8 Q. dray. pnd the next nurser it says wrongful
9 A. N0, that was my actual employment history. ': 9 finding of dissipation. ~rhis maybe doesn't match. u
10 Q. You are how old today, sir? ', 10 it the 5100,500? Is that the wrongful finding of
ll a. Si~y-one. ll dissipatia~?
', 1Z Q. since you made -- since the ~ecenber 12th trial ,12 A. I believe the wrongful finding of dissipation
13 we have a few years since then, have those percentages ' 13 should be added to the X66,000 nu~er to coincide with
14 held up or changed in terms of your active employment ! 14 Exhibit 29 spreadsheet.
15 versus unemployment? ! 15 Q. So it's not a separate figure? It's part of
16 A. i don't know what the -- what the percentage ! 16 the -- it's part of how you got to the 566,000 figure?
17 would be but I was un~nployed from May, 2011 until March ! 17 A. Yes,
18 of 2015 or not employed in my regular field. i 18 Q. dray. mother words, we don't add up every
19 Q. okay. Did you tell the judge at one point that ~ 19 one of these things and say here's your total damages on
20 you were riot working because you had to spend so much 20 Exhibit 2$, it's just more E~chibit 28 is more of an
21 time on the divorce matter? 21 explanation of how what the n~nbers are? Does that make
22 A. N0. ~ 22 sense?
23 Q. okay. yet me ask you about the next n~nber. 23 A, z think these numbers should add up to the
24 Again, I'm trying to get a sense of how the calculation 24 difference between Exhibit 29.
78
~t McCorkle Litigation Services, znc. 77. .gp
Chicago, zllinois (312) 263-0052

1 Q. You're saying when you say these n~nbers you
2 mean the nurbers in ~chibit 28 should add up to 29?
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. The dissipation, 100,000 figure, hav did you
5 calculate that figure? what's that based on?
6 a. The dissipation is 20,900.
7 q. So, I'm sorry, I got -- I j~nped the line.
8 zt's payment of 100 percent of marital debts, (50
9 percent) that's Wnat you have 5100,500 for. And that's
10 -- is that a -- is a big chunk of that the college?
ll A. ~ believe so, yes.
u Q. zn other words, ~ vrant to know what the
13 components were that got you to S100,OOD. what other
14 than the college do you recall adding up to that
15 nt~nber?
16 a,. Karla's credit card debts.
17 Q. Anything else you can recall as you sit here?
18 A. N0.
19 q, okay. Then the wrongful finding of
20 dissipation, just to be clear, this 420,900 figure, the
21 court fiaund that you had dissipated that amount?
22 A. In the judgment, yes.
23 Q. That was related to that paragraph that z read
24 to you, correct, or was that sanething else?
81
a. z don't recall what.
Q. okay. 7tiat was -- let me try to clarify that.
was that the judge thought you had takes some money to
either pay off some credit cards or taken sane credit
card loans out? 7s that what the 20,000 related to?
A. No. That was in a specific period from when s
started ~rork at American Electric Gower in November of
2010 and it was a 15-month period I think ended in
February of 2012 when the trial started.
Q. The dissipation means the court thought you had
wrongfully or inappropriately used assets, is that your
understanding?
A. Yes,
Q. v~hat did the court, to your recollection, think
you had done incorrectly or wranyfully with that
amount?
n, ~ don't recall vinat the v~rding is, by my
accounting 50-50 split of the assets includes 520,900 in
my -- what was awarded to me and in reality that X20,900
was spent on living expenses, working at American
Electric Power and errors in the makeup of that 520,900.
hty gross inca~ and net income were mixed up in that
total,
Q, okay. yid you receive regular invoices from
McCorkle Litigation services, znc.
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
William F. Schmid 02/21/2017
Mr. Krupp reflecting the time spent and the charges for
the time?
A. i received some invoices. z don't know if they
were on a regular basis or not.
Q. You don't re~nber how often or how many you
received?
a. no.
Q. oo you think you have a complete set of
invoices fran Mr. Krupp?
A. i believe i do.
Q. so at some point you believe you got than all
before the time he withdrew?
n. 7i~ey should be in my file saneplace.
Q. okay. Did you ever talk to him or inquire
about aspects of the bills?
A. N0.
Q. since you had paid the retainer up front and
these time and fees were coming out of the retainer did
you just sort of file thin ~vay.1
A. Yes.
a. t think I'm just about done. z think one of my
last questions is I'm not clear if you talked about this
on Friday or not, but is it your position or is it your
feeling that you should not have had to pay any
83
i maintenance at all or -- to Karla or just a maximi~n of
2 1500 a month men you're working and zero when you're
3 not working? ~s it the second, the second thing t said
4 or do you think that you should not have been forced to
5 pay any maintenance to her at all?
6 A. t,~at s discussed with Attorney Feda was
7 Attorney Feda used a formula I guess you would call it,
8 I don't remember if it's 20 percent of net or 25 percent
9 of net and at one point z had asked him well, how do you
10 determine net and he said the judges just use a -- in
ll your tax bracket judges would use 75 percent of intone
12 as net intone and whatever it was, 20 percenfi of that at
13 $120,000 a year salary I was making with Dinenergy in
14 2010 works out to 51500 a month.
15 Q. dray. But you agree -- so sort of getting back
16 to the core of the question is on the principle of
17 tether or not you would have to pay her any maintenance
18 at all or, you krww, or not, you did not expect to go
19 through the divorce process and not have to pay her any
20 maintenance at all, is that fair to say? You knew there
21 would be sane maintenance to pay?
22 a. ves.
23 Q. And is that the figure you thought was most
24 appropriate --
84
81..84
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 a. $15~ a month based on 5120,000 a year salary, i 1 A. Yes.

Z yes. 2 Q. are you saying that is a true statement, you
3 Q. can you think of any reason why Mr. Krupp was 3 were convicted of dissipation because you knrked on
4 yelling at you at the last meeting you had with him? 4 spreadsheets for trial or what does this have to ~ with
5 uid he explain or was there any other context you can 5 Mr. Feda?
6 provide you ren~nber as to wfiy he seemed so upset? i 6 A. I think that`s what the v~rording in the judgment
7 A. No, other than he yelled that I don't know who 7 says, I was not credible that I was spending my time
8 I'm messing with. 8 marking on spreadsheets for the trial and looking for
9 Q. yid you raise your voice at all to him? 9 irk.
10 A. N0. ' 10 Q. And what does this have to do with Mr. Feria?
ll Q. Were you shocked that he then raised his voice ' ll Is this just you reiterating what the order says?
u like that and yelled at you? 12 A. The divorce judgment was verbatim Ord for ~wrd
13 A. Yes, 1 WdS, 13 Attorney ooyen's written produced judgment and Attorney
14 Q. You never got any explanation for that? 14 Feria did not file a written proposed judgment.
A. N0. 15 Q. But he read it to the court during closing
16 Q. was there any personal animosity between the 16 arg~enents, right?
17 twa of you or any other bad exchanges or was that the 17 A. I believe he did, yes.
18 one tense or angry exchange you had? 18 Q, And he also filed a motion to reconsider to
~, 19 A. That was the only one. I did not knaV where he 19 reargue what was in the written proposed juck,~nent,
20 was taming fran? 20 right?
21 MR, SORENSEN: That`s all I have. i 21 A. I don't kna4 how that Korks out but he did file
22 hut. T~K: sane quick follow ups. z'll make this 22 a motion to reconsider, yes.
23 fast, 23 Q. so instead of judge Gilmer entering the
24 24 juck~nent that he did because ,4ttorney Feria didn't file a
85 87

~»~:l~~am„i~~~~Ii:~l 1 written proposed jud~nent as you believe isn't it also

BY h`~R. TANK: i 2 possible judge Pilmer simply believed Karia over you?
Q. when it comes to your wife and Amelia moving to 3 A. I suppose that's possible,
ntichigan, did they ever represent to the court as far as '= 4 Q. coo down six more lines to the line that says
you know that they v~ere doing that in order to get S pictures of deplorable condition. Do you see where I'm
in-state tuition rates for university of Michigan? 6 at?
A. I don't know what you roman, representing to the 7 A. Yes.
court. 8 Q. zt says pictures of deplorable condition of
Q. oid they -- did your wife Karla and ,~nelia ever 9 house Mardi, 2010 and August, 2010 not used. Are those
tell you they were mmring to Michigan in order to get 'I 10 photographs of the house herein Illinois?
in-state tuition rates for the university of Michigan? 11 A. Yes.
A, Yes, she did. 12 Q. The one that was ordered to be sold but still
Q. as far as you know did she ever tell the judge ', 13 has not been sold, right?
that? i 14 A. Yes.
A. I don't know. 15 Q. Go do~rmm txo more lines to the line that begins
Q. Do you have Exhibit 30 in front of you? That's '16 Feda/7udge Pilmer. Do you see where I'm at?
the action inaction list for Mr. Feria. 17 A. Yes.
A. Yes. 18 Q. qt the end it says refusal to allax William
Q, okay. coo darn five items to the sentence that 19 HELOC 100,000. Whdt does H-E-L-O-C $100,000 mean?
begins i was convicted. Da you see wf~ere z'm at? ' Zd A. mat was a home equity line of credit.
A. Yes. ' 21 Q. Go down four more lines to the one that begins
Q. it says I was convicted of dissipation and ' 22 did not accept my check. Do you see where I'm at?
refused to vark because z marked on spreadsheets for 23 A. Yes.
trial. 24 Q. zt says did not accept my check before court
g$
~# McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 85..88
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02J21/2017

1 after z moved funds to checking account. what does that 1 Q. zs it possible saneone told you that anaunt was
2 meats? 2 exactly what it actually was, rich is money that you
3 A. I believe i had a letter from Attorney Feda 3 owed for maintenance and for attorney fees?
4 saying he would be needing more funds before a certain ! 4 a. z can't recall without looking at the
5 court date and the day before the court date z moved S documents.
6 funds into the checking account and wrote a check for ' 6 4. text page, please. Taxards the bottom there`s
7 Mr. Feda and when z tried to give him the check before 7 a line that begins after jud~nent Feda cam~ent. oo you
8 we ant into the tourtroan he did not accept my check. $ see where z'm at?
9 Q. Did he tell you thy? 9 A. Yes.
10 A. N0. '10 Q. rt says after judgner►t Feria cam~ented to my
ll Q. He just said I v~an't accept it? ,11 question judges make 5250,000 per year, what could your
12 A. he just didn't take it. ~12 wife have paid to jeopardize that salary? that does
13 Q. oid you ask him ►~y he ►u~uldn't accept the ' 13 that mean?
14 check? i 14 A. Ihad a discussion with Attorney Feria of why
15 A. No, ' 15 the outcome was the way it was and z had asked him if my
16 Q. as far as you know did it have anything to do '~. 16 wife was bribing the judge or sanething to cane up with
17 with the way your money had to be spent in light of the 17 the horrendous outcome and that was attorney Feda's
18 divorce proceedings? "' 18 answer to ~ that --
19 A. Idon't know wfiy he didn't take it. ;, 19 Q. the judge made so much money there's nothing
20 Q. Three more dou~mm there's a line that begins i 20 your wife could have paid?
21 agre~nent with Doyen. Do you see where z'm at? '21 a. ves.
22 a. Yes. ' 22 Q. 7o make it worth the judge's while?
23 Q. It says the agree~nent with Doyen for me to pay '; 23 A. Y2S.
24 57,000. What does that mean? 124 MR. TANK: fiat's all Ihave. signature?
i
89

1 A. I received a letter from Attorney Feria saying 1 M5. WAL¢YK: We'll reserve signature.
2 that he did file my written proposed judgment by the due 2 (off the record at 3:12 p.m.)
3 date but he talked to judge Pilmer and he was going to 3 AND FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NAUGHT
4 be allowed to turn it in late and a couple weeks later ! 4
S they had me in court, Ithink it was in September before i 5
6 the oral arguments and there was agreement where z was i 6
7 supposed to turn over $7,0~ to the Chapski trust `' 7
8 account to becane current with the alimony or the 8
9 maintenance payments, half of my unemployment andI 9
IO think there was some of Attorney ooyen's fees, ~ don't ! . 10
' ll know if they were 508(b) fees or sanething. ll
12 Q. what do you understand 508(b) fees to be? ' 12
13 a. For the content of court charges, i think. 113
14 Q. These are monies you were previously ordered to ~ 14
15 pay by the court? ~ 15
16 a. Yes. It was unemployment and attorney fees. ' 16
17 Q. If you were already ordered to pay this by the ~ 17
18 court why is this on the list of things Mr. Feria did ' 18
19 wrong? 19
20 a. Because I thought it was supposed to be an ' 20
21 advance on incase ta~c refunds. ' 21
22 q. Did someone tell you that? 22
23 a. i can't recall without looking at the i23
24 documents, !24
90
O McCorkle litigation Services, Inc. 89. .92
Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 William F. Schmid 02/21/2017

1 ZN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22ND 7UDICIAL CIRCUIT j 1 d8pO5iti0~ WflS pUPSUant t0 OOtlCO dnd tbet there were
MCHENRV COUNTY, ILlIN0I5
i, 2 present dt the deposition ThE attorneys hereinbefore
2
WILLIAM F. SCHMID, ) ! 3 mentioned. ',

3 ~ ! 4 I further certify that t am not counsel for nor

alaintiff, )
4 ~ 5 in any way related to the parties to this suit, nor am i
vs. ) No. 14 ~ 332 ~, 6 in any way interested in the outcome thereof.
S ~ 1 7 IN TE57IMONY WHEREOF: I have hereunto 5Et my
ROBERT J. KRUPP, THE LAW )
6 oFFice of ROBERT 7. KRUPP, ) 8 verified digital signature this 3rd day of March, 2017.
PC., WILLIAM A. FEDA dnd ) ~; 9
7 MGNAMEE & MAHONEY, LTD., )
~: 10

8 Defendants. ) ' 11
9 this is to certify that I have read the transcript
lZ
10 ofi my deposition taken in the above-entitled cause by ~A
11 Christine Golden, Certified Shorthand Reporter, on the ~' 13 ~/ _ )
~„Q~1./
12 21st day of February, 2017, and that the foregoing 114
13 transcript accurately states the questions asked and the
14 answers given by me as they now appear. ~! Illinois Certified Shorthand aeporter
15 :''.: 15
16
'~,! 16
17
18 ! 17
WTLLIAht SCHMID lg
19
19
20
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO 20
21 before me this_, day Z1
of 2017.
22 22
,
23 23
Notary aublic
'. 24
24
93 95
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) . 1 MCCORKLE COURT REPORTERS, INC.
2 200 Horth Lasalle Street, suite 2900
55:
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1014
2 COUNTY OF C 0 O K ) ~! 3 (312) 263-0052
3 Z, CHRISTINE GOLDEN, an Officer of the [ou rt, 4 CERTIFIED MniL
5 starch 4, 2017
4 dp hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit, on the 21st 6 MR. WILLIAM F. SCHMID

S day of February. 2017, pers onall y appeared before me, at c/o GAUTHIER & GOOCH
7 4003 North Broadway avenue
6 230 west Monroe street, Chicago, Illinois, WILLIAM suite 206
7 SCHMID, in a cause now pending and undetermined in the 8 Chicago, Illinois 60613
9 iN 2E: William Schmid vs 2obert ~. Krupp
8 circuit court of the 22nd judicial circuit, McHenry onTE of DEPOSITION: February 21, 2017
9 County, xllinois, wherein wi~~ia~nt SCHMID is the !10
Dear ror. Schmid:
10 Pl a9 stiff, dnd ROBERT ]. KRUPP, et dl., 55 the ~: 11
11 Defendant. your deposition in the above-entitled cause is now ready
12 for reading and signing as required by law.
12 s further certify that the said witness was
please call the signature Department upon receipt of this
13 first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth 13 letter to schedule an appointment to come to the above
address to read and sign your deposition. you have 28 days
14 and nothing but the truth in the cause aforesaid; that ~': 14 from the date of this correspondence in which to appear
15 the testimony then given by said witness was reported for reading and signing.
15 if you fail to appear or to notify us so that we may make
', 16 stenographically by me in the presence of the said
arrangements for another appointment, your deposition wi11
17 witness, and afterwards reduced to digital format by x. 16 be completed and forwarded to the attorneys and will be
17 used as fully as though signed."
18 Computer-aided Transcription, and the foregoing is a
18
t
19 true and correct transcript of the testimony so given by ; Procedure outlined in aule 207(a) of
!19
x the Illinois supreme court aules
20 said witness as aforesaid.
.~ - 20 procedure outlined in sole 30(e) of
21 I further that the signature to the foregoing j the Rules of Civil Procedure for the

22 deposition was not waived by counsel for the respective '~ Z1 u.s. District courts
1 22 sincerely,
23 parties. Cindy nlicea court Reporter:
Z further certify that the taking of this 'Z3 signature Department Christine Golden, csti
24
i 24 CG: all attorneys of kecord

94 ~ 96
1.~~ MCCorkle litigation services, Inc. 93..96
U Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052
 Page 2 Page 4
i APPEARANCES: ~ (Witness sworn.)
THE GOOCH FIRM, 2 WILLIAM A. FEDA,
BY: MS. SABINA D. WALCZYK
3 209 South Main Street 3 called as a witness herein. having been first duly
Wauconda, Illinois 60084 4 sworn. was examined and testified as follows:
9 for the plaintiff; 5
s EXAMINATION
LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD J. KOZEi, 6 BY
6 BY: MR. DAVID SORENSEN ~ MS. WALCZYK:
333 South Wabash Avenue, 25th Floor
~ Chicago, Illinois 6o6oa s Q Ali right. Mr. Feda, if you could please
for the defendants 9 state and spell your name.
e Robert). Krupp, and ~o A Wiliam A. Feda, F-e-d-a.
The LaH~ Offices ofRobert J. Krupp, P.C.;
9 11 Q Okay. And have you ever been deposed
to LIPS LYONS MURPHY NAHItSTADT & PONTIKIS, LTD., 12 before?
BY: MI2. JORDAN TANK 13
11 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 2260 A Yes.
Chicago; Illinois 60606 1~ Q Okay. How many Times?
12 for the defendants 15 A I think maybe three or four.
William A. Peda and 15
13 McNamee &Mahoney, Ltd. Q Okay. And you know the rules of a
19 1~ deposition. Wait until I'm done speaking and I will
is
18 do the same to you. If there is a question that you
16
l~ 19 don't understand, tet me know,I'll try to rephrase
18 ~~ lt.
;o ?1 A And I won't answer with nodding my head or
?i ?2 winking, yes, I do.
22 '-3 Q Perfect. All right.
z~
,4 ?9 How long have you been licensed for?

Page 3 Page 5
[N DG X 1 A 43 ~~ears.
WITNESS: PAGE Q All right. And where arc you currently
3 WILLInM A. FEDA
9 Examination by: 3 working?
MS. WALCZYK............................ 4 4 A In Dundee, Illinois, with a law firm named
MR. SORENSEN........................... 69 s McNamee &Mahoney.
6 MR. TANK............................... 72
~ 6 Q What is the address?
8 ~ A 17N309 Route 31, Dundee, Illinois.
9 $
Q And how long have you been Fvorking with this
to
11 9 law firm?
1? to A I'd say approximately 10 years, somewhere
E X H I B I TS 11 azound there.
l~
NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION 1Z Q And where did you work prior to this office?
19 '
-3 A I was a sole practitioner for about six or
Feda Deposition Exhibit No. I ...............27 ia seven years prior to that.
1s Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 2 ..............35 ~
Feda Deposition E~ibit No. 3 ..............36 -5 Q Okay. And do you focus on a specific area
1s Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 4 ..............38 i6 of la~v?
Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 5 ..............42 l~ A Recently, I primarily do matrimonial cases,
17 Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 6 ...............50
Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 7 ...............55 18 but when I first started practicing I kind of did alt
18 Feda Deposition exhibit No. 8 ...............60 19 sorts of trial litigation work.
Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 9 ..............63 Zo ~
Q And when you say recently, ho~v recent.
9 Feda Deposition Exhibit No. 10 ..............66
20 ?1 A I'd say the last 12, 13 -- probably even
1 ?? longer than that. Maybe 20 years I've primarily been
2'' ?3 involved in matrimonial cases.
23
,q z4 Q What is your current hourly r:~te?

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY

312-977-1777
 Page 6 Page 8
1 A $350 an hour. 1 was in about a divorce case, I'm sure if we had any
2 Q And do you remember Mr. William Schmid? Z subsequent meetings I asked him to bring in whatever
3 A Yes. 3 documents he had.
9 Q Okay. And was $350 an Dour the same hourly 9 Q Do you recall what you discussed with him
5 rate you charged Mr.Schmid? ( 5 during the first meeting?
6 A No, not at that time. ]believe the hourly 6 A Primazily 1 think what he did was discuss
~ rate then was $300 an hour. ~ where his case was, what had happened in the past, and
8 Q And did it change —did the hourly rate e' the fact that -- I recall drat he had indicated that
9 change from 300 to 350 anytime during your 9 he had at least a lawyer prior.
o representation of Mr.Schmid? 10 I'm not sure if we discussed how many
11 A Not to my recollection, no. 11 lawyers, but I I:now he mentioned that this was ongoing
1? Q And how do you know Mr. Schmid? 1? litigation and he was looking for an attorney to
13 A He came in -- I can't recall how he was 13 represent him.
14 referred to the office, but he came in with regard to i9 Q And when you say that he vas saying — he
15 this particular divorce case. 15 mentioned to you Fvhere the case tivas, do you remember
16 Q Okay. And you said he was referred? 16 where the case was?
17 A I'm not sure if he was referred. I know he 1~ A No,not independently, no, I can't recall.
1$ scheduled an appointment and I saw l~im and advised me 1S Q Do you recall b4r. Schmid telling you that he
19 that he was in the middle of divorce litigation and he 1° had a trial coming up?
?o asked if i would take his case. ?o A He may have.
'-1 Q Do you recall when that was? '-1 Q And you represented Mr.Schmid during his
?? A I believe it was in 2012. 2? trial; correct?
z3 Q Okay. ~h'as that in January 2012? ' 3 A ThaYs correct.
29 A Yes. 29 Q Okay. Do you remember or do you recall

Page 7 Page 9
1 Q Okay. And when you met with Mr. Schmid, did 1 asking the Court to continue a trial date?
'- you execute a ~r~ritten retainer agreement? ? A Yes. I think when Mr. Schmid retained me I
3 A Yes, we did. 3 became aware that die trial was like in three or four
9 Q And this was for the representation of 9 weeks. And I'm sure I went into court and asked the
5 Mr. Schmid during his divorce proceedings; correct? S Court, since I was newly retanied, to have an
6 A Correct. 6 opportunity to catch up as to what had transpired in
~ Q Okay. And you had an in-person meeting with ~ the past.
$ Mr. Schmid; is that correct? 8 Q Okay. And you had mentioned that Mr.Schmid
9 A Yes. 9 paid a retainer. Do you recall ho«~ much the retainer
1o Q Do you remember Bow long that meeting was? 1o Fv~s?
11 p Normally -- and I believe we did the same 11 A I believe it was -- it was either 3,500 or
?2 diu~g back in 2012 -- is when someone comes in for an lz $5,000. I'm not sure. I ihinl: it was probabl}~
13 appointment, the first hour is free and then usually a 13 $3,500,though, the best of my recollection.
19 retainer is discussed. 1a Q Okay. And in your career, how many divorce
'- 5 And den it's up to the client if they 15 cases have you handled?
16 wish to retain the office or not. He signs the 1s A Ballpark figure, maybe 300 or 400.
1~ retainer agreement and pays the retainer fee and we i~ Q Okay. Out of the 300 or 400, do you recall
18 start representing him. 1s how many of those went to trial?
1s Q And is this what happened with Mr. Schmid's 19 A 1 would say I probably tried 60 divorce
o case? 2o cases; maybe more.
1 A I believe it was, yes. z1 Q Okay. And do you recall when you asked the
?2 Q Tor your initial meeting with Mr. Schmid, z2 Court for the continuance how long of a continuance
Z3 did you ask him to bring any documents? ?3 the Court gave you?
29 A Probably noi. Other than knowing that he 29 A I think it -- I'm guessing two or

3 (Pages 6 to 9}
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 10 Page 12

1 three months, something like that, I'm not sure. But 1 where he will come in and I will advise him as to how
2 I thought there was a period of time that I was given 2 to answer questions and primarily prepaze him for his
3 to acclimate myself to the file. 3 examination.
9 Q And do you recall the first trial date being 9 And I will give him a form sheet that I
5 February 7th,2012? 5 have. And it's deposition instructions. And I will
6 A If that was it, yes. 6 explain to him that, although this isn't a deposition,
~ Q Okay. Do you believe that that was enough ~ iYs very similar as to how you should answer
a time for you to get acclimated with the case? 6 questions, you're the only one that could ask the
9 A If that was the date we got, I believe, yes. 9 lawyer to repeat the question if you don't understand
l0 Q Okay. And do you believe you were fully to it, don't volunteer any information, things like that,
11 prepared to try the case? 11 don't argue with the latiyer. And it's a little
12 A Yes. 1~ grocery list of things to be aware of when you're
13 Q Okay. Why do you believe that? l~ testifying.
1~ NIIZ. TANK: Objection. Form. 19 Q Okay. And did you go over any documentation
15 Go ahead. 15 prior to trial with Mr.Schmid?
16 THE WITNESS: I tvoutd think if the,judge said 1s A Oh,l'm sure we did. One of the things that
1~ that it had to go to trial on that date, that I would 1~ often comes up in divorce cases is the parties have to
18 have spent the time necessary to prepare to go to ia fill out -- and I believe in his case it might have
19 trial on that date or I would have asked for 19 been already in the court file -- an affidavit of
2o additional time. ?o income and expenses where the parties set out what
21 BY MS. WALCZYK: '1 their income is and what expenses they have and are
?? Q Do you recall how many days the trial 22 they meeting those expenses on a monthly basis.
=3 lasted? 23 And I'm sure in preparation for trial I
24 A I know the trial lasted about four or z9 asked Mr. Schmid to bring in documentation that he may

Page 11 Page 13
1 five months, if I recall. And I don't remember 1 have had.
2 exactly how many days in February it went. '- Q Do you recall ho~v many times Mr. Schmid came
3 And that may be one ofthe reasons that 3 to your office to prepare?
9 starting in FeUruary wasn't that much ofa problem 4 A No, I don't.
5 because oftentimes in Kane Count}', when you get trial 5 Q Do you know if Mr.Schmid took notes during
6 dates, iPs afternoons where it could be an afternoon 6 the trial?
7 in February and then a couple afternoons in March or ~ A I'm sure lie did because normally when 1 try
6 something. g a case 1 give my clients several sheets ofpaper and a
9 1 don't recall if it was like 9 pen and tell them to take some notes. So if I'm
1o consecutive days in February or just one day in 1o exanuning a ~vimess, for example, before t advise the
11 February. 11 Court I have no further questions, I'll confer with my
12 Q Okay'. And this divorce trial was in Kane 1? client ifthere's something that lie thinks that
13 County; correct? 13 perhaps I should ask.
14 A Yes. 14 Q So did you tell Mr.Schmid to take notes
15 Q So that would explain why there was — Fvhy 15 during --
1s there were large gaps behveen the trial dates because 16 A Yes.
l~ of the Kane County procedures; would that be fair? i~ Q Okay. Do you recall if iVlr. Schmid asked you
-' $ A That's correct, yes. is to focus on any speciSc issues in his case at trial?
° Q Okay. Did you prepare N1r. Schmid for trial? 1s MR.TANK: Objection. Form.
20 A Yes, I did. zo Go ahead.
1 Q Okay. Do you recall hotiv you prepared 2_ THE WITNESS: I believe Mr. Schmid's main
2-' Mr. Schmid? ~ ?? concern was that ihcrc was an obligation that he pay
"'3 A Yes. Usually in divorce cases. if we're ~ zs spousal support to his wife. And I think he was
~ getting ready for trial, I will schedule appointments zg somewhat concerned about the amount lie was currently

4 {Pages 10 to 13)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 14 Page 16
1 paying. 1 Q Did you usk him to prepare that spreadsheet?
Z BY MS. WALCZYK: ? A I asked him to prepare documentation that
3 Q Do you recall what that amount vas? 3 would evidence those things. And I believe what he
9 A To the best of my recollection, I'm not 4 did is prepared the spreadsheet.
5 sure, l know there was discussions, but I know he was 5 Q The affidavit of assets that you mentioned,
6 paying an amount ofsupport on a monthly basis. I 6 is that a financial affidavit?
~ don't recall offthe top of my head what that amount 7 A Yes.
8 was. e Q Okay. And did you also present Mr. Schmid's
9 Q Do you recall what Mr.Schmid wanted you to 9 tax returns at trial?
1o do with the maintenance? Did he want you --strike 1o A I believe they were admitted into evidence.
11 that. 11 As best as I can recall, they might have been joint
1? A Welt, Ise thought it was too -- 1? returns. And plaintiffs attome~~ probably got B~em
13 MR.TANK: Let me throw in an objection to forn~. 13 admitted into evidence, but I believe they were in
19 Go ahead. i9 evidence.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay. I think lie ti~ought it.vas 15 Q Do you recall how many years of tax returns?
16 too high, ifI remember correctly. And I know he was 16 A I'm not sure, no.
1~ somewhat adamant that he didn't think lie had to pay 1% Q Did you present any W2s of A4r. Schmid at
1e any spousal support. 1~ trial?
19 BY MS. WALCZYK: 19 A I believe they were in evidence, but I'm not
2o Q Did you agree with him that the maintenance ?o sure.
1 obligation vas too high? 21 Q Okay. Other than the R'2s, financial
?? A I believe I told him 1 thouglrt it was too ?? affidavit and tax returns, do you recall any other
23 high, also. '-? e~~idence that was presented at trial to demonstrate
9 Q AnJ Mr.Schmid testified during his ?9 Mr. Schmid's income?

Page 15 Page 17
1 deposition --trial; is that correct? 1 A Not drat I recall.
2 A Con'ect. ? Q During the trial, Mr. Schmid was unemployed.
3 Q And do you recall asking Mr. Schmid 3 Do you recall tBat?
4 questions :►t trial? 9 A Yes, I do.
5 A Oh, I'm sure I did, yes. 5 Q Okay. And w:~s Mr. Schmid looking for a jnb
6 Q Okay. Do you recall what you asked him? 6 during his trim?
? A Probably if he was employed, where he ~ A 1 believe he was, yes.
6 worked, had he had employment, is this ongoing 8 Q And did you present any evidence at trial of
9 continuing or was there any gaps of his employment, 9 i4r. Schmid's job search?
1o what was his rate of pay, probably his tax return for 1o A I believe -- yes, I believe he had a
11 the prior year as to what his income was, things of '-1 spreadsheet that indicated the number of places he had
12 that nature. 1? sought employment.
13 (~ Anything else, do you recall? 13 Q And what was tl~e purpose of presenting that
14 A Probably on debts, obligations, things of 14 evidence at trial?
15 that nature. 15 A We(1, in cases such as Mr. Schmid's, iYs
16 Q Okay. And do you recall producing any 16 not uncommon for whoever was the breadwinner in a
1~ evidence on Mr. Schmid's behalf at trial? 1~ marriage to sometimes suspiciously be unemployed at
18 A I'm sure that an affidavit of income and 18 the time of trial and miraculously after they're
19 expense, if it wasn't already in the court file from 1g divorced they find employment again.
2o prior proceedings, was presented. ~o So it's important to establish that if
21 And 1 believe Mr. Schmid prepared some ?1 your client is unemployed, it's through no fault of
22 spreadsheets as to information with regard to,I ~'- his own or he has taken no steps to avoid employment.
2~ think, money in various accounts and possibly the =3 Q And do you recall why Mr. Schmid vas
z4 payment of bills. 1 2y unemployed?

5 (Pages 14 to 17)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 18 Page 20
1 A Mr. Schmid indicated that he worked in this 1 Q Okay. Do you recall what that was?
2 azea where he would be hired by a company to do work, ? A The attorney for Mrs. Sciunid had filed a
3 engineering work, and his contracts would be anywhere 3 petition indicating that apparently there were assets
4 from a year, six months, 13 months, and then there 9 that had been accumulated during the marriage and that
would be gaps ofunemployment, but then he'd find 5 Mr. Schmid had wrongfully used those on things not
6 anotherjob in the same area of expertise. 6 related to the marriage.
~ So from my recollection;there were ~ Q And do you recall ever talking about this
8 several instances where Mr. Scfvnid would be off of e topic tivith Mr.Schmid?
9 work for like three or four months and then find g A Oh, I'm sure we did. Ifthere vas some type
1o another job and start doing the same thing he had io of petition where they were asking for a hearing on
11 always done as far as his engineering work. il this issue, Mr. Schmid and [talked about it.
12 Q Do you recall if that happened during the 1? Q Okay. Do you remember telling Mr. Schmid
13 trial? If the trial lasted multiple months, did 13 that he needed to shoti~~ where every penny .vas spent as
19 ~4r. Schmid find work during ti~at time? i9 to the dissipation?
15 A My understanding is during the time of the 15 A Yes.
16 trial he ~i~as unemployed, but after the fact he was 16 Q And did he do that?
1~ employed again. 1~ A Not really.
18 Q Do you recall ho~v far after the trial he 18 Q During the trial, do you recall Mr.Schmid's
19 Uecame employed again? 19 wife, Carla, testifying to a medical condition she may
o A No, not really. 'o have had?
1 Q Okay. Did Mr. Schmid ask you to retain an Z1 A Yes.
z2 exert to testify as to his unemployment? ?? Q Okay. Do you recall what she testified to?
23 A No. z3 A Yes. She testified that --1 can't remember
9 Q Did Mr. Schmid mention that he would like to '-4 the medical terms now, but I lu~ow she testified that

Page 19 Page 21

1 have his former employer testify -- 1 she had some kind of bowel problem where sometimes, I
2 A No. 2 believe, she indicated tl~at she was unable to go to
3 Q --during his trial? 3 work. And I believe she said she had Crohn's disease
4 A No. ~ and there ma~~ have been something that she needed some
5 Q Did you recommend to Mr. Schmid that he 5 dental work.
6 should hire an expert to testify as to his 6 Q Okay. And did you object to any of Carla's
~ unemployment? ~ testimony during trial?
$ A No, not that I recall. e A Yes.
9 Q Did you think it was important to have an g Q Regarding the medical history?
1o expert testify as to the unemployment? 1o A Yes.
11 A No. I don't recall that that issue ever 11 Q Oka}~. Do you recall tivhat you objected to
12 came up. 1? specifically?
13 Q Mr. Schmid was collecting unemployment 13 A Yes.
14 benefits during the trial; is that correct? 1~ Q Okay.
15 A I believe so, yes. 15 A Mrs. Schmid's lawyer in discovery never
16 Q Do you recall how much he was receiving? 16 disclosed that there would be any expert witnesses
1~ A I think it was somewhere -- if there's 1~ testifying on his client's behalf. And when
18 something that would help refresh my recollection, 18 Mr. Schmid testified, she started testifying as ifshe
19 but, you know, if you want mejust to speculate, I'm 19 were a medical professional in diagnosing herself and
2o guessing it was like maybe 300 or $400 a week, Zo identifying the causes of her ill-being.
21 something around there. 21 And I objected because I believe that
z2 Q And do you recall any testimony about 22 she was not properly qualified and the proper
23 dissipation at trial? Z3 foundation wasn't laid for her to testify in that
z4 A Yes. ?4 regazd.

6 (Pages 18 to 21)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 22 Page 24
1 Q Do you recall anything else you may have 1 the divorce proceedings?
2 objected fo regarding the medical testimony? Z A No. What I recall is I don't think slie had
3 A Not -- no, not at this time, no, I don't. 3 worked in about four or five yeazs up to the time of
4 Q Do you recall Carla having any documentation ° trial.
5 at trial of any disability she may have had? 5 Q Do you recall ~vhy she hasn't worked --
6 A I believe there was some testimony that she 6 hadn't worked?
~ indicated she had applied for Social Security ? A Weli, it sounds like the ageement between
8 disability. And I don't recall ifshe produced any B the parties were such that she primarily stayed home.
9 documentation, that there was a document so filed. 9 Q During trial, did you question Carla about
to But I can't think of anything else to her ability to obtain employment?
'-1 that -- and she ma}' have had some paid bills, but 11 A I believe I did,}'es.
1? there was nothing, you know, other than that because I 1-' Q Okay. Do you remember what you had asked
13 certainly would have objected if she tried to get in 13 her?
14 some kind of medical report explaining her condition, 19 A I think eve probably touched on educational
1~ that that ~~rasn't admitted into evidence. 15 background, when she worked, and wh}~ she hadn't sought
16 So I think the only thing was she 16 out employment.
17 testified as to her condition and she may have 17 Q Do you recall what her educational
18 testified and presented some paid bills. 1e background ►vas?
19 Q Do }you remember if the paid bills were 1° A I recall that I know she was a high school
o accepted into evidence by the Court? '-o graduate. I can't recall if she had any post-high
1 A ProbaUly~, yes. ?1 school education, but I thought in the past during the
? -' Q Do you recall if Mr. Schmid asked you to " marriage, maybe ] 0 or IS years, that she had worked in
23 retain a doctor to testify in opposition to Carla's '- 3 the medical area where she made, I seem to recall,
?' medical testimony? ?9 like 23 or possibly as much as $30,000 a year.

Page 23 Page 25
1 A He may have. I don't recall, but he may 1 Q And during the pa►•ties' marriage, i4ir. Schmid
2 ]lave. 2 and Carla had certain assets and debts; is that
3 Q Do you recall discussing with Mr. Schmid 3 correct?
4 hiring a doctor to testify? 9 A That's correct.
5 A I would probably say that if eve discussed 5 Q Okay. Do you recall that issue being
6 it, I told him that we shouldn't retain a doctor to 6 brought up at trial?
~ testify. ~ A Oh, yes.
e Q And ~vhy did you tell him that? 8 Q Do you recall ~r~hat was brought up?
9 A Weil, ifthe plaintiffdoes not disclose g A Well, normall~~ in a divorce trial.
to that they have a doctor that's going to testify as to '-~ obviously, what the Court is apprised with is the
11 Mrs. Schrnid's condition ofill-being, it would be very '- 1 assets acquired during the marriage -- first of all,
12 risfcy for us to ask the Court to order that she submit 1? Pd say this.
13 to a medical examination by a doctor of my choosing in 13 The Court, first and foremost, would
14 that sinceI didn't know the results of what that 1~ identify if there were non-marital assets and assess a
15 doctor would say, the doctor could say, Oh, she's 15 value to diem and then go into marital assets and
16 totally disabled and unable to work, which wouldn't be 16 those to a certain extent would be valued.
1~ good for Mr. Schmid. 1~ And the same thing with debts. If
1e So I advised him that unless they are 18 there are outstanding debts, the evidence would be
19 going to present testimony, it wouldn't be wise for us 19 presented as to what the debt obligations were dial
o to by to present medical testimony without ]:Wowing 2o the parties acquired during the marriage.
Z1 what the doctor would say. 21 Q Was there non-marital assets in this
2? Q Did ~Ir. Schmid agree with you? ?2 marriage?
23 A To the best of my recollection, yes. '3 A The only one that I think of, which was kind
24 Q Do you recall if Carla was working during ?9 of peculiar, is she had inherited some money.

7 (Pages 22 to 25)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 26 Page 28
1 Q Okay. Do you recall if there was any 1 Q Okay. Do you recall if the closing
2 non-marital debts? 2 arguments actually took glace on September 20th?
3 A Not that I recall. 3 A I believe they did, yes.
9 Q Do you recall the issue of gold coins being °- Q Do you recall if the closing arguments were
5 brought up as to the assets? 5 written or oral?
6 A There vas some discussion that they had 6 A Both. We had to submit proposed judgments.
~ acquired some gold coins. And I can't recall now if ~ And then in addition thereto, the Court gave us an
$ they were missing, but I remember the question that 8 opportunity to make a closing argument orally.
9 there were some gold coins. 9 Q Are you done?
1o Q Do you recall if that was marital or 1~ A Yeah.
11 non-marital? 11 Q Okay. How did you prepare for the closing
1z A No. I can't remember when they were i? argument?
13 acquired, but I remember there was some discussion of 13 A I prepared the proposed judgment -- and,
19 gold coins. 14 normally, I make an outline -- and highlighted the
15 Q Da you remember Mr.Schmid telling you when 15 areas ofconcern in terms ofthe case in my oral
16 they may have been acquired? 16 argument to die Court.
1~ A No,l ca~~'t recall. 1~ Q Did you review any documents in prepa►•ation
1e Q Was there a court reporter for an~~ of the ie for closing arguments?
19 days of trial? 19 A Oh, I'm sureI did.
?o A I don't believe so. ?o Q Do you recall ~~~hat documents you may have
-1 Q Do you recall ~v1~y not? ?1 reviewed?
'? A No. ?? A Perhaps a valuation of marital assets, debt
-' 3 Q Did ~9r. Schmid ask you to get a court ?~ obligations. And I think those are the most
?y reporter? '
-9 si~ificant that Ireviewed -- and reviewed some case

Page 27 Page 29
1 A No. 1 law.
'- Q This trial concluded with closing arguments; '- Q Did you talk to Mr. Schmid while preparing
3 is that correct? 3 Tor closing argument?
4 A Correct. 9 A I'm sure we did.
5 Q Okay. And do you recall tivl~en the closing 5 Q Do you recall whit you may have talked
b arguments took place? 6 about?
~ A I thought it was in May, but I'm not sure. ~ A Probably the thrust of our case and what we
$ (Whereupon, Feda Deposition B would like the judge to rule in terms of how this case
9 Exhibit No. I was ma~•ked for y would be resolved.
io identification by Counsel.) ~o Q Do you recall what the thrust of your case
11 gy MS. WALCZYK: 1i vas?
1c Q I'm handing you what I've marked as 1? A Well, there was a question with regard to
1~ Exhibit 1. This is a letter dated August 28th, 2012. is the issue of maintenance or spousal support because at
14 And it looks like it is written from you to 1a that time both parties were unemployed.
1s Mr. Schmid; is that correct? 1s There was an issue with regard to the
1s A Correct. 16 testimony of Mrs. Schmid indicating her condition of
1~ Q Oka~~. Please let me know n•hen you're done 1~ i1]-being and her inability to secure employment. ['m
1B reviewing. 1e sure we discussed that and how the assets acquired
19 A I'm done reviewing. 19 during the course of the marriage would be divided.
Zo Q Okay. Based on this letter, do you recall 20 Q Anything else.~
21 when closing arguments took place? ?1 A Not that I can think of at this time.
?Z A Well, according to the letter, closing ZZ Q And you had mentioned that you may have
z3 arguments were to take place on September the 20th, 2s discussed with Mr. Schmid how you wanted the judge to
9 2012, at 1 -- or Il:30 before Judge Pilmer. 29 rule. Do you recall ho~v you wanted the judge to rule?

8 (Pages 26 to 29)
URBANSI{I REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 30 Page 32
1 A Yes. On the issue of maintenance, 1 A Well, my belief is that if a particular item
irrespective ofthe fact that this was a marriage of 2 was purchased on a credit cazd for example, that the
3 long duration, which clearly indicated Mrs. Schmid was 3 party that gets the item should pay the bill; or if
9 entitled to maintenance, I think the thrust of my 9 die party was die one that incurred the bill, my
5 argument is that if both parties are unemployed,I was 5 beliefis that that party should be responsible for
6 concerned that -- how the judge could order Mr. Schmid 6 the bill with the exception of like utility bills or,
~ to pay Mrs. Schmid when he had no employment at the 7 you know, real estate taxes or something like that.
6 time. ~ But if it's a particular bill for
9 Q Do you recall anything else? 9 buying dresses or something like that, the party that
1o A As far as the maintenance? 1o incurred that debt should be responsible for that
11 Q As far as any other issue that you wanted 11 debt.
1'- the judge to rule on. 12 (Discussion off the record.)
13 A Oh. The one on the medical, I argued that 13 gY MS. WALCZYIC:
14 for the judge to render a decision as to Mrs. Schmid's 1g Q Regarding the utility and real estate taxes,
15 condition ofill-being, it seems that there had to be 15 ho~~~ did Mr. Schmid want that debt to be allocated?
16 medical testimony presented to the Court where a is A Well, I think that his belief was that he
1~ I~ealthcaze professional could advise tfie Court as to 1r should retain the marital residence and, of course,
18 whether or not she's capable of working. And the only 1& he'd be responsible for that debt obligation.
19 evidence was Mrs. Schmid saying sloe couldn't work. i9 Q Anything else you recall regarding the
20 Q Any other issue hoFv you wanted the judge to 2c debts?
21 rule? ?1 A Not at this time, no.
?? A Other than how the property would be divided 22 Q Okay. If you could, please, took back on
3 and ~vlto would pay the bills, I would think that would zs ~a~~bit 1. The second paragraph nbout halfway starts
9 be the only other issues that were addressed at z9 that, Judgments and findings are to be tendered to the

Page 31 Page 33
1 closing argument. 1 Court by August 28,2012. Flowever, I hid the occasion
Z Q Do you recall how you wanted the --well -- ? to tack to the judge ~~~ith regard to that part of the
3 or ho~v Mr. Schmid wanted the property to be divided? 3 order and he has given me additional time. Do you see
9 A I think he vas interested in holding onto 9 that?
5 the marital residence in West Dundee. And that was a 5 A Yes.
6 major concern of his. 6 Q Okay. And do you remember if you had filed
7 And the division of personal property, ~ the judgments and findings on August 28,2012?
e I'm trying to think if there was anything specific B A Yes.
9 that he said. But he thought that the personal ~ Q 1'ou filed them on August 28?
1o property Mrs. Sclunid had access to, apparently she was '_ o A I can't remember the date 1 filed them, but
11 a collector of things and he thought that that had a ?1 ti~hat the judge wanted was both sides to present what
significant value and there should be some offset 12 he called a proposed judgment. And I remember 1 filed
-3 because she ~~as getting these things; but I'm not 1s my proposed judgment to the Court or I emailed it to
9 really sure. 19 the Court. Judge Pilmer asked that we email our
5 Q Do you recall what Mrs. Schmid was 15 proposed judgments to hnn.
16 collecting? 1s Q So your proposed judgment was never filed,
1? A I can't remember if it was dolls or 1~ it tiF•as only emailed?
18 something like that, but she had a collection. is A Emailed.
19 Q V4'as there ever any valuation put on the i9 Q And that sentence that I I~ad just read,it
?p dolls? =o mentions that you talked to the judge. Did you
1 A Not that 1 recall. 21 directly speak to the judge about :~n extension?
2? Q And then you also mentioned that one of the 22 A Yes. I seem to recall that I was in the
3 issues was how the parties were to pay bills. Do you z3 middle of another trial or I was involved in something
9 recall how you wanted -- z4 and the issue came up about when we had to fi(e or --

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY

312-977-1777
 Page 34 Page 36
1 1 shouldn't say file --email our proposed judgments ~ (Whereupon, Feda Deposition
2 to him. And I know he gave me additional time to 2 Exhibit No. 3 was marked for
3 email it to him. 3 identification by Counsel.)
9 Q And vas Caria's lawyer present at that time? °- BY MS. WALCZYK:
5 A I believe he was, yes. 5 Q I'm handing you what I've marked as
6 Q Okay. And then the last sentence in 6 Exhibit 3. Let me know when you've reviewed it.
~ Exhibit 1 states that, While I am working on that, I 7 For the record, this is a court order
8 will contact you in all litcelihood sometime on or 6 dated September 20th, 2012?
9 about August 30th, 2012. Do you see that? 9 A Yes. Okay.
l0 A Yes. 1o Q ~~Vere you present in court on September 20th,
11 Q Okay. And do you recall speaking to 11 2012?
1-' 19r. Schmid on or about August 30th? 1? A Yes.
13 A No,I don't, Uut I -- if it said that in the 13 Q Do you recall asking the Court for a
14 letter, I'm assuming that we probably talked. 1~ continuance of the closing argament?
15 Q And Carla's attorney filed a proposed 1S A Yes.
16 judgment for dissolution of marriage; is that correct? 16 Q Okay. Paragraph 3 of the order states that,
1~ A Yes. 17 The matter is continued to October 3rd,2012, of
1$ Q Ok:~y. Do you recall receiving a copy of the 18 l 1:00 a.m.; is that correct?
19 proposed judgment from Carla's attorney? 19 A Hm-hmm.
2o A 1 believe I did, yes. ?o Q And this continuance was for the closing
1 Q Do you recall when you received the =1 arguments; is that correct?
-'2 document? ?? A Correct.
?3 A No. 23 Q And in Paragraph 3,a fe~v words later, it
'- 4 '
-4 states that, Defendant to file proposed judgment ~~~ith

Page 35 Page 37
1 (Whereupon, Feda Deposition 1 findings no later titan September 28,2012; correct?
2 Exhibit No.2 was marked for 2 A Correct.
3 identification by Counsel.) 3 Q And then earlier you had mentioned that you
4 BY MS. WALCZYK: 4 did not file the proposed judgment, you only emailed
5 Q I'm handing you what I've marked as 5 it; is that correct?
6 Exhibit 2. And this is a notice of filing file 6 A Gmailed it to the judge and 1 believe a copy
7 stamped August 29th,20]2. And it is Plaintiffs ~ went to Mr. Doyen.
8 Proposed Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage With $ Q Do you recall why you didn't file the
9 Findings? 9 proposed judgment?
1o A Yes. 10 A I recall that the judge indicated that we
11 Q And do you recall seeing this document? 11 should email them to him so he could review them as
12 A Yes. 12 opposed to having them filed and then he has to go
13 Q Okay. Did you send this document to 13 through a court file.
19 Mr. Schmid after you had received it? 14 1-le just indicated, Email fl~em to me so
15 A I can't recall. '- 5 that I can read them without holding the file or
16 Q Do you recall speaking to Mr.Schmid =6 having to wait for the clerk to give me whatever is in
1~ regarding this document? i7 the court file.
18 A I'm not sure. 1B Q And you drafted a proposed judgment for
i9 Q Do you recall if Mr.Schmid had any 19 dissolution of marriage; is that correct?
o questions or concerns regarding Carta's proposed ?o A Correct.
1 judgment for dissolution of marriage? Z1 Q Okay. Did Mr.Schmid see a copy of your
?2 A No,I don't recall a conversation about 2? proposed judgment?
?3 that. ~3 A I don't recall.
2a zn

10 (Pages 34 to 37)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 38 Page 40
1 (Whereupon, Feda Deposition 1 Q Yes.
2 Exhibit No. 4 was marked for Z A No.
3 identification by Counsel.) 3 Q Okay. Did Mr. Schmid approve your proposed
9 BY MS. WALCZYK: 9 judgment for dissolution to be sent to the judge?
5 Q I'm handing you what I've marked as 5 A I don't recall the specific conversation
6 Exhibit 4. This is an email dated Friday 6 about that.
~ September 28,2012? ~ Q Did Mr.Schmid ever say yes, you can send
e A Yes. e it?
9 Q Okay. 9 A The only thing I remember Mr. Schmid saying
to A And you've refreshed my recollection. It 10 is after we had oral argument or closing argument,
11 was emailed to Mr. Schnud on September the 28th. 11 that I referenced the proposed judgment, I remember
1z Q Okay. Great. And ~vischmid55@yahoo.com is 12 Mr. Schmid commenting on that.
13 Mr. Schmid's email; is that correct? 13 Q Do you recall what he commented?
14 A That's to the best of my knowledge, yes. 19 A Yeah. He said, Good job, thank you.
15 Q Okay. And this was sent from Sandy, your i5 Q Do you recall what specifically he said,
16 secretary? 16 Good job, ~i~hich topic?
1~ A That was my secretar~~ at the time, ~~es. 1% A I think the whole thing. He was sitting at
1a Q Okay. Do you recall speaking to Mr.Schmid 18 counsel table and he said, Good job, thank you.
19 prior to drafting this proposed judgment? i9 Q Ok1y. And Exhibit 4, the second sentence
o A No. '-~ mentions an order of protection. Do you see that?
1 Q Do you recall if Mr. Schmid had any input in ?1 A Yes.
2 your proposed judgment for dissolution? '? Q Do you recall what the issue with an order
23 A No. z3 of protection was?
29 Q Oliay. And the first sentence of Exhibit 4 ?9 A I thi~ilc there had been an order of

Page 39 Page 41
1 states, Please reviciv the attached proposed judgment 1 protection entered against him. And I think 1 was
and call Bill Feda on his cell. And then there's a 2 just advising him of that.
3 cell phone number. Is that correct? 3 Q Do you recall what the basis for the order
4 A YES. 9 of protection was?
5 Q Do you recall Mr.Schmid contacting you? 5 A Prior to me getting involved in the case,
6 A No. 6 apparently lus wife got an order of protection saying
~ Q Do you recall contacting Mr.Schmid after ~ that he had battered her in the presence of one of
8 this email was sent? a their children prior to me getting involved in the
g A No. 9 case.
1o Q Qkay. Do you recall if this was the first 1o And I can't recall if it was ongoing or
11 time Mr.Schmid had reviewed your -- or, I'm sorry, 11 if it was a plenazy order of protection which would
12 received your version of the proposed judgment? 12 remain in effect for two years.
13 A I believe it was, but I'm not sure. 13 Q And Exhibit 4 also states that -- it says
1° Q Do you recall if Mr.Schmid wanted any 14 that, He said we would have to go another direction on
15 changes to the proposed judgment? 15 that. Do you recall what that would mean?
16 A No. 16 A No, I don't.
1? Q No, he didn't want any changes or — ?7 Q _Okay. Do you recall the order of protection
1B A I don't recall him asking for any changes in 1e being addressed at trial?
19 the judgment. 19 A No, I don't.
?o Q Okay. Do you recall telling Mr.Schmid that '-o Q Are you okay? Do you want to take a break
Z1 there could be no changes made to the judgment for ?1 or keep going?
22 dissolution? ?? A No, na. I'm fine.
z3 A You mean the proposed judgment for ~ ?3 MS. WALCZYIC: Okay. Anyone else?
4 dissolution. ~ '- 9 MR. TANK: No. Ready to go.

11 (Pages 38 to 41)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 42 Page 44
1 MS. WALCZYK: Okay. 1 judgment for dissolution of mnrriAge?
Z (Whereupon, Feda Deposition ? A I believe so. They may have changed
3 Exhibit No. 5 was mazked for 3 somewhat. I can't recall because oftentimes the
4 identification by Counsel.) 9 plaintiff goes first, I go second. So there may have
S BY MS. WALCZYK: 5 been something I commented on in closing argument that
6 Q I'm handing you what I have marked as 6 Mr. Doyen may have brought up in his closing argument.
~ Exhibit S. This is an email dated Monday, ~ But I can't recall.
8 October 1st, 2012. And is that email to Judge Pitmer? e Q Do you recall the issue of maintenance being
9 A Yes. ° brought up in your closing argument?
1o Q And this was sent from Sandy, your 1o A Yes.
11 secretary; correct? 11 Q Do you recall what vas said?
1? A Yes. i'- A Well, again, the difficulty with the issue
13 Q Okay. Have you had a second to review that? 13 of mavitenance was the fact that at the time both
1g A Yes. 14 parties were unemployed. And my position on behalf of
15 Q Okay. And this is ~n email that has 15 Mr. Schmid was that ]was having difficulty believing
16 attached a proposed judgment for dissolution of 16 that the Court can awazd Mr. Schmid to pay maintenance
17 marriage; is that correct? 17 or spousal support if at the time he was unemployed.
1$ A Correct. 18 And I think U~at was the thrust of our azgument.
19 Q pnd that is the proposed judgment that you 19 Q So part of the argument --your argument was
o had drifted; correct? '-o that Mr.Schmid should pay zero maintenance to Carin;
Z1 A Correct. ' 1 is that correct?
?? Q And previously you mentioned that you do not 2'- A Correct.
?3 recall speaking to Mr. Schmid prior to having this 23 Q And did you discuss the issue of
?4 emailed to the judge; correct? 24 Mr. Schmid's employment in your closing argument?

Page 43 Page 45
1 A Yes, I do not recall. 1 A Yes, I'm sure I did.
Q On Page 7 of your proposed judgment for ? Q Do you recall what you —
3 dissolution, the end of Paragraph 10 states, 3 A Well, if!ie was unemployed,I'm sure I
9 Petitioner will also return the gold coins to 4 advised the Court that he was unemployed at the
5 respondent immediately. Do you see that? 5 present time and he was seeking employment, but he
6 A Yes. 6 didn't have any employment.
Q Do you recall if Mr. Schmid asked you to ~ Q During the closing arguments on October 3rd,
8 s~ecifica0y include that in your proposed judgment? 8 2012, ti~~as h4r. Schmid employed?
9 A 1 can't recall, but, you know, since it was 9 A What date was that?
1o in there, I'm sure it was an issue in the case about ? fl Q October 3rd,2012.
11 those gold coins. '-1 A I don't believe he was.
1? The only thing I would say is I think 1? Q bid you discuss the issue of debt allocation
13 when she moved nut of the house, that she allegedly 13 in your closing argument?
19 took these gold coins and we were asking that they be 1~ A Let me refresh my recollection.
1s returned. 15 MR.TANK: Can you read that back, please.
16 Q Do you recall if the issue regarding tl~e 16 (Record read as follows:
~ gold coins vas resolved? 1~ "Did }you discuss the issue of
18 A No, I don't recall. 1$ debt allocation in your closing
19 Q So based on Exhibit 3, which was a 19 argument?")
o September 20th order, closing arguments took place on ?o MR.TANK: Thank you.
Z1 October 3rd,2012; is that your recollection? ?1 THE WITNESS: Yes. T did.
?? A I believe so. ?Z BY MS. WALCZYK:
?3 Q Would you agree that your closing argument ?3 Q Do you recall —sorry. Go ahead.
Z4 consisted of your proposed terms that Fvere in the ?9 A In Paragraph 12, it spells out that the debt

12 (Pages 42 to 45)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 46 Page 48
i obligation -- each party ~~ill be exclusively 1 THE WITNESS: No. Again,the problem is is that
Z responsible for the payment oftheir debt obligation 2 Mr. Schmid was convinced that some doctor would come
3 and hold the other ltarniless. ~ 3 forward and say Carla is not disabled.
9 And it would be at the time, before ~ 4 And lawyers, far example, are taught
5 they changed the bankruptcy code, there was a 5 never ask a question on cross-examination unless you
6 provision that you couldn't discharge that debt 6 know the answer. Well, that's very similar to this.
~ obligation in bankruptcy. 7 To say, Oh, we're going to have her
8 Q And Paragraph 12, you're referring to your e examined by a doctor and the doctor says, Oh, man.
9 proposed judgment for dissolution of marriage; 9 she's pern~anently disabled and she's going to need
1o correct? 1o additional medical care, would be a disaster.
11 A Correct. 11 So I could not suggest that she should
1'- Q Okay. And do you recall if during your 1? be examined by a doctor and pray that maybe the doctor
13 closing arguments, if you had added any adJitional 13 would say, Oh, she's as strong as an ox and she could
19 argument regarding the debt allocation? 19 work 80 hours a week or something like [hat.
15 A No, I don't recall. 15 And then premised on that is the fact
1s Q And I believe previously you had testified 16 that since there was no medical testimony or
1~ that Mr.Schmid's position at trial as to debt 1~ disclosure by her lawyer saying, We're going to
1e allocation vas that whoever incurred the debt would be 18 present medical testimony that clearly establishes
19 responsible for that debt; is that correct? 19 she's disabled, I saw no reason why we should gamble
zo A Correct. 20 and help them tii~ith their case by presenting
?'- Q Okay. And eras this the same posifion you '
"1 potentially medical evidence that shows she is
22 had at closing argument? 2? disabled.
'' 3 A Yeah, I believe thaYs what is spelled out ?3 BY MS. WALCZYK:
29 in Paragraph 12. 29 Q Do you believe that there was any other

Page 47 Page 99
- Q Okay. Did you discuss the issue of Carla's 1 evidence you could have presented at trial as to
'- medical history in your closing arguments? ? Mr. Schmid's ability to gain employment?
3 A Yes. 3 A We11--
`~ Q Do you recall what vas said regarding that? 9 MR.TANK: Object to the fonn.
5 A Well, I'm sure it was the same argument I 5 THE WITNESS: "Che only problem with --that
6 made at trial, that there was insufficient evidence to 6 Mr. Schmid had all these grap(ls or spreadsheets. And
~ suggest that she was incapable of working. ~ I recall telling him it would have been better had we
8 Q Did you argue that Carla did not have a e had letters from various companies saying, Dear
9 disability? 9 Mr. Sclunid, we appreciate your application. However.
io A Well,]didn't know. But her saying that 1o at the present time, eve -- there's no positions
i1 she doesni feel good on days and has bowel movement 11 available.
12 problems, I don't think that's sufficient to establish 1? We had these spreadsheets that
13 that she's incapable of working. 13 indicated he had made application for many, many, many
19 Q And do you believe that you presented enough 19 jobs and him testifying that he made applications, but
15 evidence at trial to support Mr. Schmid's positions in 15 [don't believe there was ever anything on letterhead
16 this trial? 16 stationery from employers indicating that they had no
1~ A On what issue? 1~ position available to him, which may have been helpful
18 Q For example, maintenance. ?e to flee Court.
19 A Yes. 19 BY MS. WALCZYK:
'o Q Okay. What about Carla's disability? ?o Q Do you recall ~vhy Mr. Schmid vas unable to
21 A Yes. ?1 get any ofthese letters on letterhead?
2? Q Do you think there could have been anything Z? A I think he had indicated to me that he
23 else that may have been presented? z3 always applied online.
9 MR. TANK: Object to tl~e forni, 29 Q If Mr.Schmid applied online,eras there any

13 (Pages 46 to 49)

URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY

312-977-1777
 Page 50 Page 52
1 email confirmation regarding these job applications? 1 capable ofearning significant income due to her poor
2 MR. TANK: Objection. Foundation. Z condition of her Health.
3 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, there was no such 3 Q And then you recall you had mentioned that
9 email confirmations. It wasjust that he had been y the maintenance was ativarded as permanent; correct?
5 applying online. 5 A Correct.
6 BY MS. WALCZYK: 6 Q Do you know why the Court awarded permanent
~ Q Do you recall when the judgment far ~ mainten:~nce?
e dissolution of marriage was entered? 8 MR.TANK: Don't guess.
9 A Yes. 1 think it was in November of2012. 9 THE WITNESS: I won't guess. No.
'-o (Whereupon, Feda Deposition to BY MS. WALCZYK:
11 Exhibit No. b was marked for 11 Q Okay. Do you know tivhat evidence the Court
1? identification by Counsel.) 12 took into account when drafting the judgment for
13 BY MS. WALCZYK: l~ dissolution of marriage?
19 Q I'm handing you what I've marked as 19 A I believe it reviewed the evidence presented
15 Exhibit 6. And this is the judgment for disso►ution 15 at the time of court, the demeanor and testimony of
16 of marriage dated November ]5, 2012. Do you recall 16 the parties who testified, and reviewed the proposed
17 seeing this judgment for dissolution? 17 judgments that the lawyers submitted to him and
1s A Yes. 1g rendered his decision.
19 Q Do you recall sending it to Mr. Schmid after 19 Q As part of the maintenance award, Carla was
?o you had receive) it? ?o awarded ~I,S00 per month; is that correct?
?1 A I believe I did, yes. ?1 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. Did you speak to Mr. Schmid about '- 2 Q And this was while Mr. Schmid vas
23 this judgment after receiving it? ?3 unemployed; correct?
9 A Yes, I did. ?9 A Yes.

Page 51 Page 53
1 Q Do you recall what was said? 1 Q And then tivhen Mr. Schmid gained employment,
A ]believe we both agreed we were unhappy ? Carla vas to be awarded 40 percent of the gross
3 with the terms of the judgment. 3 income; correct?
s Q Do you recall why Mr. Schmid vas unhappy? 4 A Yes.
5 A Well, l believe that he was unhappy based on 5 Q And the maintenance award ~v:ts never ro be
6 the order of the Court dealing with maintenance and 6 Icss than $I,SQO per month?
also the disposition of property. ~ A Correct.
8 AndIthink there was sane g Q And do you know what evidence the Court took
~ representation that Mrs. Schmid was unable to work, 9 into account when awarding this maintenance award?
1p which kind of concerned the both of us since the only io A Other than what I said before and what the
11 testimony of that was her saying she was unable to 11 judge may have put in the judgment order,I can only
1? work. 1? speculate as to how the judge got to that conclusion.
13 Q Do you remember why you were unhappy with 13 Q Do you recall that the judgment for
19 the judgment? 19 dissolution of marriage that was entered vas similar
15 A We(1, again, on the issue of maintenance; 15 to Carla's attorney's proposed judgment?
i6 the judge had several options. One of them is to is MR. TANK: Object to the form.
l~ reserve maintenance. And he made an award of i7 71-IE WITNESS: I never really thought about it,
-' 6 maintenance based on whatI considered die evidence Za no.
'- 9 that both sides were unemployed. i9 BY MS. WALCZYK:
20 Secondarily, he suggested that she was 20 Q You never compared tfie rivo?
1 disabled --1 think language to that effect -- and z1 A I read it, but I never sat dorm and
?? therefore, she was a recipient and should be the 22 determined whed~er or not there was similarity between
3 recipient of maintenance for life. 2s what Mr. Doyen prepared and what the judge prepared as
29 Yeah. It says, Wife is not presently 2a far as his judgment.

14 {Pages 50 to 53}
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 54 Page 56
1 Q R'ould it surprise you that the judge based 1 exhibit 7. This is the motion to reconsider file
2 its judgment off of Carla's attorney's judgment -- 2 stamped December 17, 2012. And this is a motion to
3 proposed judgment? 3 reconsider that you had filed; is that correct?
4 MR.TANK: Object to the form. 9 A That's correct.
5 THE WITNESS: No. 5 Q You had mentioned that one of the terms that
6 BY MS. WALCZYK: 6 you were asking the Court to reconsider tvas
~ Q 1~'hy not? ~ maintenance; correct?
g MR.TANK: Object to the form. g A Correct.
9 THE WITNESS: I would assume tl~ejudge thought 9 Q ~yhy did you focus on this issue?
1o she was entitled to the relief he put in the judgment 1o A Well, again, at the time ofthe trial,
11 based on the evidence. 11 Mr. Schmid was unemployed. And the Court ordered him
1? BY MS. WALCZYK: 1? to pay while unemployed $1,500 a month, and lien once
13 Q Do you recall taking any steps after the 1~ he was employed to start paying 40 percent of his
14 judgment for dissolution of marriage was filed? i4 gross to his former wife permanently.
is A Yes. i5 Q Did you think that the maintenance award ~~•as
16 Q Do you recall ~vliat those steps ~~~ere? i6 unfair?
1~ A I talked to Mr. Schmid and we talked about i~ A Yes.
18 it and I filed a motion to reconsider asking the Court ie Q Another term that you had mentioned that you
19 to reconsider its decision. 19 were asking the Court to reconsider was Carla's
'
-o Q V1'hy did you prepare a motion to reconsider? 20 ~~~ysical condition; correct?
21 A Because I didn't believe that the la~~ and z1 A That's correct.
?? the facts would sup~est the Court entering the 2z Q And why did you focus on this issue'?
23 judgment that ii did. ?3 A Because I believe for the Court to render a
4 Q Did Mr. Schmid ask you to prepare a motion zn decision ai that point there should have been some

Page 55
1 to consider?
A I think eve discussed it acid he approved that
3 and said, yes, prepare that.
4 Q Did Mr.Schmid review the motion to
5 reconsider prior to filing it?
6 A I'm sure we discussed it.
~ Q Do you recall if Mr. Schmid had any input in
8 tl~e drafting of the motion to reconsider?
9 A As far as us discussing it, that's it. 1
1o don't recall any specific indication from him what
i1 should be in the motion to reconsider. It's kind of a
1z lawyer's position.
'- 3 Q Do you recall what terms of the judgment for
`~ dissolution of marriage that you Sucre asking the Court
15 to reconsider?
16 A I think we touched on the maintenance issue.
1~ I think we touched on her physical condition and that
16 the distribution of assets favored her to the extent
19 that 1 didn't think that the judgment vas equitable.
?o (Whereupon,FedaDeposition
1 E~~ibit No. 7 was marked for
2 identification by Counsel.)
3 BY MS. WALCZYK:
4 Q I'm handing you what I`ve marked as
Page 57
1 medical testimony or some medical evidence that
2 clearly indicated that she was unemployable -- or I
3 shouldn't say unemployable -- that she was disabled,
9 physically and incapable ofsecuring employment,
5 Q And another term that you had mentioned you
6 Fvere asking the Court to reconsider was the
~ distribution of the assets; correct?
e A Correct.
9 Q And why did you focus on this issue?
1o A Well, one of the things, if I remember, in
11 this is the judge gave Mr. Schmid certain assets that
1z had a cash value, but then suggested, if]remember
13 this correctly, that he could then use those assets
19 for purposes of paying maintenance or spousal support
15 to his wife.
16 And that's kind of like a double dip,
17 if you will, that maintenance should be from income
18 and not from assets. Now, I think that caused a
19 problem for me as to how the Court made this
20 distribution.
?1 Q Do you recall any other issues that y ou were
?? asking the Court to reconsider?
23 A Well, I mentioned that there was a question
I ?4 as to whether or not the judge rendered this verdict

15 (Pages 54 to 57}
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 58 Page 60
1 because maybe they didn't like -- he didn't like 1 But if the Court order said that and I
Mr. Schmid because of all the rules to show cause that Z had a chance to read it, that might refresh my
3 were successfully litigated against him in the past. 3 recollection, buC I don't recall independently that he
9 Q Do you believe that tl~e judge did not like 4 made any findings as to why he denied the motion.
5 Mr.Schmid? 5 BY MS. WALCZYK:
6 A I would say -- I don't know if the judge 6 Q Was Mr. Schmid present at the hearing?
~ liked him or not, but I know that during the time 1 ~ A I can't recall if he was there for the
8 represented Mr. Schnud and prior to that time there $ hearing on the motion to reconsider. My guess would
g had been a significant number of petitions for rules 9 be he probably was there.
1o to show cause rendered against Mr. Schmid for failure 1~ Q Do you recall taking any further steps after
11 to comply with Court orders. 11 the motion to reconsider was denied?
12 Q Based on those petitions for rule to show 12 A Yes.
13 cause, you -- did Mr.Schmid ever tell you that he was 13 Q Do you recall what those steps were?
19 put in jail as a punishment? 19 A Mr. Schmid and I talked. And I believe
15 A 1 was not awaze ofthat. 1 found out today 15 there's some issues that perhaps should be addressed
1s that after I was out of the case he was put in jail. 16 by the Appellate Court. And I explained to him that
1~ I was not aware if he was ever put in jail prior to 1~ the neat step would be to take an appeal.
1e the time I got involved in the case. He never 18 Q And you filed n notice of appeal; is that
19 mentioned to me that he was incarcerated. 19 correct?
o Q Did Mr. Schmid ever tell you that he felt ~~ A That's correct.
1 that the judge did not like him? '-1 Q Okay.
?2 A I don't recall ifhe did or not. '--' (Whereupon,Feda Deposition
3 Q Did Mr. Schmid ever mention the judge having Z3 exhibit No.8 tivas marked for
'-4 more of a preference totivards Carla? ZS identification by Counsel.)

Page 59 Page 61
A No. 1 BY MS. WALCZYK:
'- Q Page 5 of Exhibit 7, the motion to ? Q I'm handing you exhibit 8. And this is a
3 reconsider, states your prayer for relief. Do you sec 3 notice of appeal dated February 22nd, 2013; correct?
9 that? 9 A Correct.
5 A Yes. 5 Q Did you take a retainer See from Mr.Schmid
6 Q And as part of the prayer for relief, you're 6 to file a notice of appeal?
~ asking the Court to reopen proofs; is that correct? 7 A 7 believe we had discussed that. And I
$ A Yes. $ can't recall if he paid me any additional sums at the
9 Q And Part B -- part of the pr~ycr for relief, 9 time I filed the notice of appeal to cover an appeal.
1o you were asking the Court to award no maintenance to 1o Q Do you recall Mr. Schmid paying you a
il either party or to reduce maintenance; is that ?1 retainer after you filed a notice of appeal?
1 -' correct? ?? A I recall that, to the best of my
13 A ThaPs correct. ~3 recollection, he did not.
1g Q And do you recall having a hearing on tine i4 Q Do you recall why not?
1s motion to reconsider? 15 A I had filed a notice of appeal. And I
16 A Yes. 16 believe he contacted me and said he had retained new
-~ Q Do you recall what happened at the hearing? 1~ counsel to represent handling his appeal.
18 A Thejudge denied the motion. 1s Q Why did you prepare a notice of appeal?
19 Q ~'hY~ 19 A Because under the law, after the motion to
o MR. TANK: Objection. Foundation. 2o reconsider, you have io file a notice of appeal within
21 THE WITNESS: I can't recall. And I can't ?1 30 days or your rights as far as thatjudgment are
'--' recall the Court order other than saying motion to ?? ended.
3 reconsider denied. If he put out specific reasons why ?3 Q Did Mr.Schmid ask you to prepare a notice
24 lie denied the motion, I don't recall it independently. ( 29 of appeal?

16 (Pages 58 to 61)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 62 Page 64
1 A I believe he did. I wouldn't have done it 1 Q Do you recall someone at your office sending
Z just unilaterally. I'm sure tive discussed it and he ? it to Mr.Schmid?
3 indicated that he would like to take an appeal on this 3 A I can't recall.
9 issue or the issues of the case. ~ Q Do you know if Mr. Schmid saw this order.~
5 Q Do you recall discussing with Mr.Schmid a 5 A I can't recall.
6 strategy for an appeal? 6 Q Do you recall ever explaining to Mr. Schmid
~ A Well, there's not really a strategy. You 7 what this order means?
$ file a notice of appeal. I believe you file something 8 A No, I don't recall any conversation with him
9 called a docketing statement. And then the Court 9 about this order.
1o gives you a schedule as to when to file briefs, both 1o Q Do you recall ever telling Mr. Schmid that
11 appellant and appellee. And the Appellate Court it his brief would be due by May 3lst, 2013?
1? either renders a decision or sets it for oral 1? A No, I don't recall that.
13 azgument. 13 Q And you had mentioned that Mr.Schmid called
19 Q Did you ever make any statements to 19 you and told you that he vas retaining ne~v counsel to
is Mn Sc6mid as to ho«~ much mone~~ the appeal would cost 15 file the appeal; correct?
16 him in total? 16 A T7iat's correct.
i~ A I'm sure I did. 1~ Q Okay. So you did not file a brief in this
1g Q Do you recall how much you may have said? 18 matter?
19 A Off tUe top of my head, I'm guessing a 1g A No.
?o Little bit, anywhere like between 5,000 or $10,000 to '-o Q Okay. Did Mr.Schmid tell you «~hy he didn't
?1 handle an appeal. '-1 want you to file the appell?
-2 Q Did you ever make any statements to ?2 A He said he had retained new counsel to
23 Mr.Schmid ns to how the appeal should turn out? ?3 handle this.
9 A No. ' 9 Q Did he tell you why?

Page 63 Page 65
1 (Whereupon, Feda Deposition 1 A 1 don't really recall him saying. I think
E~liibit No.9 was marked for ? he thought he just wanted to go in another direction
3 identification b}' Counsel.) 3 with regard to the appeal. I can't remember
9 BY MS. WALCZYK: ~ specifically what he wanted to do, but he advised me
5 Q I'm handing you rvhat I've marked as 5 that he wanted to retain new counsel.
6 Exhibit 9. This is an order from the Appellate Court 6 Q Did he advise you of this on the telephone?
~ dated March 15,2013; is that correcf? ~ A Yes.
$ A Yes. e Q Okay. And after Mr.Schmid had ad<<ised you
9 Q Do you recall seeing this document? 9 of this, did you take any steps?
1o A It was sent to our office. So I'm sure I io A Yes.
11 saw it, yes. 11 Q Do you recall what those steps were?
1Z Q And this is the type of order you had 12 A I believe the first thing is we had to file
13 previously testified to that the Appellate Court sends 13 somefl~ing with the Appellate Court that sue were no
19 an order setting a briefing schedule for the briefs; 1y longer representing Mr. Sclunid.
15 is that correct." l~ And I'm assuming that documentation,
16 A Correct. 16 everything -- I can't recall if he gave me die name of
17 Q Okay. If you can look at the third line of 1~ his new lawyer, but I'm guessing that that information
1g the first paragraph, it states that the appellant's 1B was sent to his new lawyer.
19 brief be filed no later than A4ay 31,2013; is that 19 Q And did you file a motion to withdraw in
-'o correct? ?o this case?
1 A Yes. ?1 A I believe I did, yes.
22 Q Okay. And do you recall sending this order 2? Q And the reasons ~vhy you withdrew were
?3 to Mr.Schmid? 23 because Mr.Schmid called you and told you that he
4 A I don't recall if I sent it to Mr. Schmid. ?9 retained ne~v counsel; is that correct?

17 (Pages 62 to 65)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 66 Page 68
1 A That's correct. 1 A I'm sure I had him into the office when we
2 (Whereupon, Feda Deposition Z were discussing this appeal. And at that time, I
3 Exhibit No. ]0 was marked for 3 probably advised him that appeals are very expensive
9 identification by Counsel.) 9 and it's kind of apay-as-you-go thing and that he
5 BY MS. WALCZYK: 5 needed to come up with additional funds if he wished
6 Q I'm handing you what T'vc marked as 6 to proceed and pursue this appeal.
~ Cxhibit 10. This is a motion to ~vithdrativ file stamped % Now,that could have been even before I
B April 10,2013? e filed the notice of appeal. I don't recall. But I
9 A Tltat's correct. 9 know that we had a conversation that would have
1o Q And about three lines down it states, 1o required him to come up with additional funds if he
11 Respondent has failed and refused to cooperate with 11 wanted to pursue this matter.
1? said attorney. Do you see that? 12 Q Do you recall ho~v much you hail asked him to
13 A Hm-hmm. 13 pay?
1~ Q And did iYfr. Schmid fail or refuse to 19 A No. I would think it would be somewhere
15 cooperate with you? 15 between 5,000 or $10,000. ThaYs normally what we
16 A I can't recall independently at this time. 16 charged at that time to handle an appeal.
1~ Q Do you recall if this is standard language i~ Q Do you recap a time when Mr.Schmid ever
18 that you ~vouid normally have? ie tried to pay you and you refused to take the payment?
19 A I'm guessing it's probably standard language 19 A No. The only time -- no, I don't remember
2o because I knew specifically that Mr. Schmid advised me 'o az~ything about that.
1 that he ~+~ished to have a different lawyer handle his 21 Q Did you ever ask Mr. Schmid to have his
2 appeal. -? mother open an account with your office?
3 Q Okay. So the purpose of your motion to ?3 A No.
4 withdraw, did this have anything to do with you not ?4 Q Did Mr. Schmid ask you to prepare the motion

Page 67 Page 69
1 being paid by Mr.Schmid? 1 to ~rithdraw?
A I wasn't aware ofthat when we discussed the ? A No, but when he said he was getting new
3 fee. And I wasn't sure what he was going to do until 3 counsel, I knew that we'd have to ~~~ithdraw from the
4 I got the phone call and he said he was going to go in s case so that new counsel could file their appearance
5 a different direction. 5 and all notices, et cetera; would go to the proper law
6 Q Did you ever communicate to i17r. Schmid that ~ firm.
~ you needed more money or else you Fvould Fvithdr~Fv from ~ Q And, ultimately, were you granted (cave by
g his ease? e the Court to withdraw?
y A Oh, I'm sure I said something to that 9 A Yes.
=o effect, to Q Okay. Do you recall when that was?
i1 Q Do you recall when that would have been? 11 A No.
1? A Probably around the time we filed the notice 1'- Q Okay. And looking back, is there anything
13 of appeal because appeals are expensive. 13 different you would have done in this case?
19 MR.SORENSEN: Can we take a bathroom break 19 MR. TANK: Object to the form.
is soon? 15 THE WITNESS: No.
1s MS. WALCZYK: Sure. I'm actually almost done. 16 MS. WALCZYK: Okay. I'm all done.
17 BY MS. WALCZYK: l~ MR. SORENSEN: $athroombreak.
lE Q And how did you tell Mr.Schmid? ~ 16 (Recess taken.)
~y MR.TANK: Objection. Form. Tell him ~i~hat? ~ 19 EXAMINATION
zo MS. WALCZYK: Sorry. I']1 start that one again. I 20 gy
?? I'm sorry. I'-'- MR. SORENSEN:
z2 BY MS. WALCZYK: ~ 2-' Q Mr. Feda, my name is Dave Sorensen. ~~'e met
?3 Q And hoFv did you tell Mr.Schmid that you had '-3 earlier before the dep started. I represent Bob
?9 needed more money or else you Fvouid withdraw? 29 Krupp. I just have a couple of questions to ask you.

18 (Pages 66 to 69)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 70 Page 72

1 first of all, can I ask you how many 1 A That's correct.

2 appeals of divorce matters have you ever handled? 2 Q And would it be fair to say that you do not
3 A I believe I handled maybe four or five. 3 have any opinion as to whether or not Mr. Krupp did or
y Q Okay. Over the course of your entire 9 did not meet the standard of care with respect to any
5 career? 5 Iegai services he provided to Mr.Schmid?
6 A Correct. 6 A ThaYs correct.
~ Q Okay. Do you remember when the last one ~ MR.SORENSEN: I appreciate that. I think
8 vas? 8 that's all the questions 1 have for you. Thanks.
9 A The last one was about three or four years ~ 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1o ago. 1o MS. WALCZYK: I don't have an}~thing else.
11 Q Okay. Do you know if any of your ap~cals 11 EXAMINATION
12 that you've done on divorce matters involved any of 12 BY
13 the same type of issues as might have been involved in 13 MR.TANK:
14 an appeal on this case? 19 Q I have a couple brief fallow-ups here.
15 A I believe perhaps one or two, but I'm not 15 First, regarding the proposed judgment
16 sure. We're going back maybe 15 years ago. 16 that Judge Pilmer asked you to email to him,Judge
1~ Q Do you remember what those issues might have 17 Pilmer never ordered you to actually file that in the
1e been or how they turned out? 1$ court filr, correct?
19 A Child support and, I think, maintenance. lg A No.
?o Q Okay. And do you remember if the Appellate '-o Q He just asked you to email it to him?
-'i Court modi5ed on the maintenance of any of the ?1 A Yes.
Z appeals you had ever been involved in? ?? Q And it was emaiicd to him before he issued
3 A I can't recall. ?? his ruling; is that correct?
29 Q Okay. And I unJerstand from your earlier '-~ A That's correct.

Page 71 Page 73
1 testimony that you believe that an appeal — at lc:~st 1 Q Counsel asked you A lot of questions about
2 that the chance of overturning the verdict vas Z specific dates when you were hired, when the trial
3 something that you thought ought to have been taken; 3 started, the days that the trial proceeded, when
9 is that right? 9 closing arguments were,things of that nature.
5 A Correct. 5 And this is --we're t:~lking about
6 Q Okay. VVould it be fair to say that you 6 things that happened five yeflrs ago now; right?
7 can't say how the Appellate Court would have ruled on 7 A That's correct.
e an appeal in this case? B Q Okay. So in order for you to know the exact
9 A That's absolutely correct. 9 dates that certain things happened, it would Lelp if
1o Q And an Appellate Court ruling on an appeal io you reviewed documents to refresh your memory; right?
11 in this case would have been reviewing it in a abuse ~i A That's correct.
12 of discretion standard of Judge Pilmer's ruling; i2 Q When it came to all of the issues that were
13 correct? ~3 in the proceeding beriveen Carla and 114r. Schmid,the
19 A That's correct. 19 issues on maintenance, the marital assets, non-marital
15 Q [n other words, Judge Pilmer's divorce order 1s assets, things of that nature, over the course of the
16 in this case Fvould only have been overturned had the is trial you presented evidence on alI of the issues in
1~ Appellate Court found it to have been an abuse of 1~ support of Mr.5chmid's position; correct?
is discretion? la A ThaPscorrect.
19 A That's correct. ig Q And Carla's attorney, Mr. Doyen, presented
Zo Q And in terms of appealing decisions in abuse 2o evidence on all of the issaes that supported her
?1 of discretion standard on re~•ietiv in the Appellate zi position; correct?
'
2 Court is the toughest standard to overcome and get a zz A Correct.
3 lotiver CaurPs decision overturned; is that not z3 Q And you ~vcre able to cross-examine Carla and
correct? ?9 the other ~~~itnesses and Mr. Doyen was able to

19 (Pages 70 to 73)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 74 Page 76
1 cross-examine Mr. Schmid and the other witnesses; 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
z correct? ) SS:
COUNTY OFT{ANE )
3 A ThaYs correct. 3 [N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1 GTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
~ Q So at the end of the day, both sides ~verc q ~+~ COUNTY,ILLINOIS
5 able to present their cases in chief; correct? WILLIAM F. SCHM[D, )
s
6 A That's correct.
Plaintiff )
~ Q And then aY the conclusion of that, there e }
~ `'s. ) No. 15 L 395
B ~►'as a closing argument in ~vhich you advocated for
9 Mr. Schmid's positions on all of these issues; ROBERT J. KRUPP, et al., )
1o 6
correct?
Defendanu. )
11 A Correct. 9
~ to Ihereb certit' that Ihave read the fore om
1- Q And Judge Pilmer, after hearing all of the ii transcript of my deposition given at the time and
13 evidence, after hearing the etosing arguments, after 12 place aforesaid, consisting ofPages i to 79,
14 iq inclusive, andI do subscribe and make oath that the
reviewing the proposed judgments, he ultimately issued
same is a tnie, correct and complete transcript of my
15 the judgment for dissolution of marriage that he dicl; 15 deposition so given as aforesaid, and includes
16 16 changes, if any, so made by me.
correct.~ i~ _Correction Sheets} Attached
1~ A That's correct. 1E
1g V47LLIAM A. FEDA
Q And after you conferred with Mr. Schmid :end 19
19 you both determined that you Fveren't happy with the SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
'0 before me this days
Zo result, you filed a motion to reconsider, right?
of , AD, _017.
1 A Right. ?i
'-' Q And in that motion to reconsider, you remade z,
'- 3 al! of the arguments that you made during the closing Notap~ Public
23
?9 argument; right? 24

Page 75 Page 77
1 A Yes. 1 ERRATA SHEET
2 Q And Judge Pilmer heard that argument and he '- I hereby make the following changes ro my deposition:
3 ultimately denied the motion to reconsider as well; 3 PAGE LINE
correct? 4 CHANGE:
5 A Correct. 5 REASON:
6 MR. TANK: No further questions. 6 CHANGE:
~ Anyone else? ~ REASON:
e MS. WALCZYK: No. g CHANGE:
9 MR. TANK: All right. g REASON:
io You want to reserve signature or waive 1o CHANGE:
11 signature? 11 REASON:
1c THE WITNESS: I'll leave that up to my counsel i? CHANGE:
-' 3 MI2. TANK: Let's reserve signature. 13 REASON:
i4 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT... 1a CHANGE:
15 is REASON:
16 16 CHANGE:
17 1~ REASON:
is ie
19 19

~ '-~ WILLIAM A. FEDA DATE

~~
21
~ ?1

Correction Sheet Page _ of

~3 23
~9 ~ 24

20 (Pages 74 to 77}
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 78
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
SS:
2 COUNTY OF COOK )
3 Kerry L. Knapp, being first duly sworn, on oath
4 says that she is a Certified Shorthand Reporter, that
5 she reported in shorthand the testimony given at the
6 taking ofsaid deposition, and that the foregoing is a
~ true and correct transcript of her shorthand notes so
$ taken as aforesaid, and contains all the testimony
9 given by WILLIAM A.FEDA at said deposition.
1o Further, that she is not connected by blood or
11 marriage with any ofthe parties to this action, nor
1z is she a relative or employee or attorney or counsel
13 of any ofthe parties, or financially interested
14 directly or indirectly in the matter in controversy.
15 That the preceding deposition shall be read by
16 said deponent, and any and all corrections which the
17 deponent desires to make shall be duly made by the
18 deponent on the enclosed errata sheet(s), indicating
19 page and line to be corrected, and that the
2o explanation. if any, given by the deponent for said
z1 corrections, shall be thereon noted.
22

z4 Certified Shorthand Reporter

Page 79
i URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
4G0 Lal:c Ave~mc
Z Crystal Lace, Illinois 60014
(815)356-G 140
3
4 November 3Q 2017
5
6 UPE LYONS MURPHY NAHRS'tADT & PONTIKIS,LTD.
A4r. Jordan Tail;
~ 230 West Monroe Sheet, Suire 2260
Chicago, Illinois 60606
e
9 Dcar Mr. Tank:
1o Re: Sclnnid v. lirupp, e1 al.
Deposition of William A. Feda
ii
It is our understanding that you will arrange for the
1= review ofthe above-entitled hanscript by the
witness. Accordingly, we are enclosing errata streets
i3 and the original signature page with your copy of the
deposition transcript.
is
Please note that Amended Rute 207{a)ofthe Illinois
~5 Supreme Coup provides that depositions may be used
fully as if signed if thry remain unsigned for mom
is than 28 days after having been made avai table to the
deponent. N~q thereforq would appreciate your
17 Handling this matter willun the 28-day limit.
1E Please return the executed signature page and errata
sheets, ifany, to the above address.
15
Sincerely,
zo
URBANSKI REPORTING CO~ANY
?i
??

Kerty L. Knapp
?3
enclosures: Transcript, signature page, errata
24 shcel(s)
ccs; Attorneys of Record

21 (Pages 78 to 79)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
ss:
2 COUNTY OF IC~NE )

3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH
4 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, KANE COUNTY, ILLINOSS

5
WILLIAM F. SCHMID, )
6 Plaintiff, }

7 -vs- ) No. 14 L 395

8 ROBERT J. KRUPP, THE LAW OFFICES )

OF ROBERT J. KRUPP, P.C., WILLIAM)
9 A. FEDA and McNAMEE & MAHONEY, )
LTD., )
10 Defendants. )

11

12 Discovery deposition of MICHAEL DOYEN taken

13 before REGINA E. GEBERT, CSR and Notary Public, pursuant

14 to the provisions of the Illinois Code of Civil

15 Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court thereof,

16 pertaining to the taking of depositions far the purpose

17 of discovery, at 1800 Larkin Avenue, Elgin, Illinois,

18 commencing at 1:25 p.m. on the 12th day of April, A.D.

19 2018.

20

21

22

23

24
EXHIBIT
b
Epiq Court - Chicago
1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 2..5
Page 2 Page 3
1 There were present at the taking of this i DEPOSITION OF
2 deposition the following counsel:
Michael Doyen
3 THE GOOCH FIRM by
MS. SABINA D. WALCZYK, 2
4 209 South Main Street April 12, 2018
Wauconda, Illinois 6008fl 3
5 (847? 526-011D
I 4 EXA74INATION BY: PAGE
swalczyk~goochfirm.com,
6 i 5 Mr. Jordan Tank 4,105
7 on behalf of the Plaintiff; I; 6 Mr. David Sorensen 68,106
B LAYI OFFICES OF EDWARD J. KOZEL by
~ 7 Ms. Sabina Walczyk 97
MR. DAVID SORENSEN, 8
9 333 South Wabash Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ... + + +
10 (312) 822-3350 9
david.sorensen~cna.com,
11 ~i 10 EXHIBITS
12 on behalf of the Defendants, 11
Robert J. Krupp and the '. 12 Deposition Exhibit 2 (Affidavit) PAGE 24
13 Law offices of Robert J. Krupp;
', 13 Deposition Exhibit 3 (Petition) PAGE 27
14 LIPE, LYONS, MURPHY, NAHRSTADT & PONTIKIS by
MR. JORDT~T TANK, ' 14 Doyen Exhibit 1 (Plaintiff's Answers} PAGE 84
15 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 2260 ': 15
Chicago, Illinois 60606 s ~ a + +
16 1312) 448-6230
f 16

jmtCalipelyons.com, 17
17 18
18 on behalf of the Defendants, 14
William A. Feda and
'. 20
19 McNamee & tdahoney, Ltd.
20 21
21 i 22
22
': 23
23
24 24

Page 4 Page 5
1 MIQi,~EL DOYEN, 1 A University of Notre Dame.
2 called as a witness herein, having been first duly 2 Q And what vrae your major and minor?
3 sworn, was examined upon oral interrogatories and i; 3 A Double major, econanics and philosophy.
4 testified as follows: 4 Q Then you went on to law school?
5 EXPMINATION 5 A Yes.
6 by Mr. Tank: 6 q What law school?
i
7 Q Sir, please state your fu11 name and spell your ', 7 A St. Louis University.
8 last name for the record. ', 8 Q And you graduated from St. Louis?
9 A Michael Doyen, D-O-Y-E-N. 9 A Yes.
10 Q And if I ask you a question today and you don't 10 Q What year did you graduate?
11 understand it, will you please let me Imo+~f? ~' 11 P. 1986.
12 A I will. '. 12 Q And have you practiced law full-time ever since
13 Q okay. And you understand that if I ask a 13 you graduated?
14 question and you answer it, we 11 all have to ass~e 14 A Yes.
15 that you understood the question that ti*ae asked, right? ' 15 Q And so let's go through your practice. In
16 A Yes. 16 general since 198b lave you concentrated ywr practice
17 Q Let's go over awry brief background information. !. 17 on one particular type of law?
18 What's your date of birth? 18 A Since 1990 I have.
19 A January 25, 1961. ' 19 Q Okay. And since 1990 have you concentrated your
20 Q And you graduated from high school, correct? 20 practice on tnatritronial disputes?
21 A Correct. 21 A Yes.
22 Q And then college? ' 22 Q Is it purely diwrce cases, do you also deal
23 A Yes. :j 23 with child custody issues?
24 Q What college did you graduate from? '; 24 ?~ Anything family related.

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 6..9
Page 6 Page 7
1 Q An~hing. 1 which would include dissolution of marriage cases since
2 A And basically we do a little bit of everything I 2 1990, right?
3 but probably SO percent to 85 percent world be family ': 3 A Correct.
4 law related but that could be dissolution of a~rriage, i, 4 Q Is there air way for you to eatia~te for us how
5 parentage, post-decree issues. I 5 many dissolution of marriages cases you've handled since
6 Q And the case that we're here to talk about 6 1990?
7 today, the dissolution of marriage between Rarla and 7 A I can. Just dissolution of marriage, not
8 Bill Sehmid, is that something that you would consider ': 8 post-decree, over 600.
9 or call a dissolution of marriage case? Is that the ~ 9 Q And did you arrive at that nwnber by asstuning
10 term you'd use? ' 10 you handled a certain number of cases per year since
11 A Correct. ! 11 1990?
12 Q And can you explain just in laym~n'e
ma ternis what ' 12 A Yes.
13 a dissolution of marriage case is? ', 13 Q Aside from just practicittg that type of law have
14 A That's where two people are married and end up ', 14 you ever taught classes on it or seminars, given
15 being divorced. ! 15 discussions to other attorneys, that sort of thing?
lfi Q Okay. And there's a statute is Illinois that ' 16 A Yes.
17 governs the dissolution of marriage? ; 17 Q And did any of those classes or diecussi~s or
18 A Yes. '; 18 seminars relate to dissolution of mazriage cases?
19 Q And that statute talks about the process and how ' 19 A Yes.
20 these cases are supposed to be reaolvetl, is that fair? '20 Q How aany classes or seminars have you given that
21 A CorrecC. 21 related to dissolution of mazriage cases?
22 Q In very basic terms. 22 A At least 25, probably ttrore than 30.
23 A Yes. !. 23 Q Have you done theme through a particular
2a Q And you've primarily handled faznily law matters ', 24 organization?
------------------_~__ ___
Page & Page 9 ~
1 A A couple of different organizations. i 1 A Yes.
2 Q What different organizati~s? 2 Q About hav many appeals?
3 A So the Kane County Family Law Cannittee, so I've ! 3 A Just on dissolution of marriage cases?
4 given smeller presentations just to family law cwtanittee 4 Q Yes.
5 mimbers; I've given presentations at Rane County Bar I 5 A Appellant or appellee?
6 Association, seminars that focused on family law; and 6 Q Yes.
7 I've given presentations for Illinois Continuing Legal ! 7 A Just the actual dissolution of marriage itself,
8 Education, IQ,E. I 8 praix~bly six.
I 9 Q And you're obviously licensed to practice law in ! 9 Q And then --
1 10 Illinois? ' 10 A Five or six.
11 A Yes. 11 Q -- Overall how many appeals?
12 Q Your license has never been suspended or 12 A Just family law appeals?
13 rewked? 13 Q Sure.
14 A Correct. ' 14 A Probably 20.
15 Q And then when it cotes to dissolution of 15 Q And then overall have you handled other appeals?
16 at~rriage cases, is there any way for you to estim3.te how 16 A Probably too or three other areas of law.
17 mzny of those have actually gone to trial or a~ybe a ': 17 Q And so we're here because you were Karla
l8 percentage? ~ 18 ScMai.d's attorney during the dissolution of marriage
19 A Percentage, I'd say about 10 percent. '19 proceeding involving her husband, right?
20 Q So we're looking at 50, 60 trials you've had ' 20 A Correct.
21 just for those types of cases. 21 Q And it's my understanding that you still
22 A Correct. `22 represent Karla Schmid?
23 Q And then have you handled any appeals for '. 23 A Yes.
24 dissolution of mazriage cases? 1,24 Q Is she Karla Schmid naa or is she Karla --

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 10..13
- Page 11
1 A Still Schmid. 1 different attorneys throughout the proceedings, right?
2 Q And you're still representing her in relatiots to 2 A Correct.
3 her prior tt~arriage with Mr. Schmid, right? 'j 3 Q I'm going to go through the names of the
4 A Correct. 4 attorneys that represented Mr. Sc}mtid. Let a~ }mow if
5 Q And Rar1a filed with the Court the Petitioner 5 you recall their representati~, just generally, of
6 Ccmglaint to have her mazriage dissolved back in June of 6 their irnrolvement in the case. So first was Nila Von
7 2000 -- was it June of 2010 or vras it earlier than that? 1 7 Keudell?
8 Do you recall? 8 A Correct.
9 A Z'm looking it up right now. If you tell me the ; 9 Q Who represented Mr. Schmid frcmt the beginning in
10 case nwiber, I can tell you pretty close when it was ' 10 2009 up through June o£ 201D. Does that sound right to
11 filed. 11 Yom?
12 t~IIt. SORIII.SEN: 09 D 1439. ' 12 A Correct.
13 THE PIITNESS: So that vrnald probably be in ~ 13 Q Next was Lawrence Manassa?
1~ September, August/September of 2009. !14 A Yes.
15 h42. TANK: Q And Mr. Schmid was represented '15 Q Who represented Mr. Schmid frcmi June of 2010
16 throughout the proceedings, right? 16 only for about tsvo months until August of 2010. Does
17 A Cor_-ect. ! 17 that sound right to you?
18 Q And he had -- ': 18 A Correct.
19 A U7ell, there may have teen, you ]mow, a gap ' 19 Q Then vras FYank Giaamoli. Does that sound
20 l~tween attorneys but I don't remember ever doing !20 familiar?
21 anything substantive on the case while he was '.21 A You know, actually I kid forgotten that Frank
22 unrepresented but there were a couple times he was in ' 22 actually entered an appearance. I don't think he was in
23 between attorneys. 23 very long, either.
24 Q And Mr. Schmid, you just mentioned, had several ';24 Q So he was in fran August of 2010 through January

Page 12 Page 13
1 of 2012. 1 Q Correet.
2 A Oh, really? 2 A Okay.
3 Q Yea. 3 Q And he represented Mr. Sckmud from April -- the
4 A Okay. It didn't seem like he was in very long. ', 4 end of April of 2013 through July of 2014. Does that
5 Q T.iaie flies when you're having fun. And then i 5 sound right to you?
6 Mr. Feria first entered his appearance on Sanuary 13th of 6 A Correct.
7 2012. Does that sound about right to you? 7 Q And then Jeffery M. Leving's office filed an
S A Correct. S appearance and they represented Mr. Schmid fran November
9 Q And that urns just a cwple weeks before the 9 of 2014 through December of 2014. Does that sound right
10 trial urns scheduled to begin, right? We can get to that '~10 to you?
11 later. We'll go into a little mire detail in a mcenent. 111 A Correct,
12 A Did he get the trial continued? '12 Q Hae Mr. Schmid had say other attorneys represent
13 Q Yes. ~,' 13 him in the post-dissolution proceedings?
1? A Yes, right. Okay. Yes. Yes, that was correct. ;' 14 A Yes: His current attorneys.
15 Q And he represented Mr. Schmid fry Sanuary of '15 Q And who are his current attorneys?
16 2012 through April of 2013. Does that sound about right ': 16 A It's the law offices of Terry Mohr, M-O-H-R.
17 to you? 11 Actually they just changed their nam>. It's now Mohr,
18 A Correct. 1 18 Sullivan and Kasper, K-A-S-P-E-R.
19 Q And then after Mr. Feria was Mr. Rrupp who filed ' 19 Q And this litigation against Bill Feria relates to
20 his appearance to handle the appeal but also ended up 20 the a~munt of the jud~nent and the obligations that Sill
21 handling other a~ttera is my understanding. 21 Feria had as a result of the dissolution of carriage
22 A Only he got in after the Judgment for 22 proceedings. its my understanding --
23 Dissolution of Nfarriage was entered and after the ruling 23 A You mean obligations that Pulliam Schrtiid had.
24 on the post-trial motion. 24 Q That William 5c}mud had.

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 14..17
Page 15,
1 A Okay. Correct. i 1 B-R-Y-A-N, I think -- no, I'm sorry. Maybe it's -- I'm I
2 Q It's my understanding that Mr. Leving's office 1 2 not sure -- Bryan Sullivan at Terry Mohr's office -- we I
3 filed a Motion to Reconsider that etas partially granted 3 did end up entering an order on the judge's
4 and reduced his obligations sanewhat. 4 recamnendation reducing his current maintenance
5 A Not correct. ! 5 obligation.
b Q Ie that not correct? 6 Q Okay. And what is his current maintenance
7 A We entered a settlert~ent order. i ? obligation?
8 Q Okay. ', 8 A He is basically -- it's abated and he's paying a
9 A We entered an agreed order reducing his , 9 thousand a ~anth towards the arrearage which includes
10 obligation. 10 interest.
11 Q And has his obligation been reduced any further 11 Q Okay. So the December 2014 order, when did you
12 since then? 12 have that vacated?
13 A No. As a matter of fact, that order was 13 A I think it was around August of 2015.
14 vacated. I take that back. MosC recently here it has ' 14 Q okay. And it xae vacated because Mr. Schmid
15 baen lowered, just recently. ;15 wasn't m~ki.ng the payments he was supposed to be making,
16 Q Okay. 16 is that correct?
17 A But that order fran December of -- was that 17 A Partly, but more because he failed to buy out
18 December -- 18 Karla Schmid's interest in the former marital residence.
19 Q 2014. ', 19 Q Anti if he had bought out her interest, he would
20 A 2014 had L~sically a self-effectuating provision 20 have been able to remain living in that hie if he
21 that we could vacate it if he failed to do certain !21 chose, right?
22 things, which he did do, so then we vacated that order, 22 A Correct.
23 then nothing happened with regards to his obligation 23 Q And haw far in arrearage is he?
2a until mist recently Hryan Sullivan, and that's '; 24 A Right now the balance is around 60,000. I can

Page 17
i tell you we jwst entered an order agreeing on what the ! 1 Q Okay. So lets back up to the beginning when
2 h~lance is but we ended up lumoing together all the ' 2 you first started representing Karla and then we 11 go
3 attorneys fees he's been ordered to pay and the ' 3 fonrard. So one of the isauea during the trial and that
4 maintenance into one order. 4 Mr. Schmid has with the judgu~nt that was entered
5 Q Doea the order break out how aazch for each? So 5 against him was Karla's alleged medical condition, Now,
6 X annunt for arrearage, X aanunt for attorneys fees? 6 do you rimer this beixig an issue during the
7 A No, it does not, and the reason we did that is '; 7 proceedings?
8 because it was getting too hard to track but I crould 8 A Well, he, Mr. Schmid, wanted to keep saying it
9 look at the pleadings which would say and I have some '; 9 was her medical condition and our presentation was
10 notes that we could prokxibly calculate it but as of 10 generally the inability to work which was partly related
11 January 12, 2016, the total amount outstanding is ',11 to her medical conditions but also partly related to the
12 $55,219,86. ' 12 history during the marriage.
13 Q And do you Imow how Bch he's actually paid 13 Q And her lack of xvrk history.
14 P,arla? ; 14 A Correct.
15 A Here, let me get my notes here. Since the 115 Q So I have a list of medical conditions, it's my
16 judgment? ! 16 understanding, that were discussed during the trial.
17 Q Since the judgment. 17 I'm going to go dam them. So first urns Crohn~a
18 A I don't think I could give a good estimate of ,18 Disease. Do you recall that?
19 that. I can -- ' 19 A Correct.
20 Q Would are be talking about thousands of dollars, 20 Q And what is your underatandi.ng of what Crohn's
21 tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of 21 Disease is?
22 dollars? 22 A It's a -- it affects your inmune system and your
23 A He has paid over a hundred thousand total for X 23 digestive system so that you just have periods of tip
24 sure. ~ 29 where -- Karla described it where you hive to be close

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEZ DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 18..21
Page 19
1 to a bathroan and it also can manifest itself, you }mow, 1 approved as chemotherapy drugs but were ling prescribed
2 with other symptans tk~at might not appear to other 2 to her for her ulcer condition because she would get
3 people to be debilitating but for the person that's 3 open sores to the point where you really couldn't wear
4 experiencing it it mskes it difficult to carry on with 4 clothing so she wouldn't be able to leave the house
5 your daily life activities. 5 because she couldn't put anything over the sores.
6 Q And when you were representing Rarla, did you ', 6 Q Did you ever personally observe those sores?
7 have a layman's understanding of what those symptans i 7 A On her arnis and feet and hands I did, but she
6 were? ', 8 also would get them on her Lick and other parts of her
9 A Well, yes, I lid a laymen's understanding. ~I 9 body that would be covered with clothing and that's why
10 Q And did you ever personally obaesve the effects X 10 she wouldn't be able to go out of the house.
11 of those syagt~s? Did you see hav the Crohn's Disease ' it Q Is that all something that she testified to
12 affected her? 12 during the trial proceedings?
13 A I urouldn't say the Crohn's Disease I did ever -- 13 A Correct. Just to keep it clear, mostly on
14 I [man because the only time I ever saw her vras at 14 Cross-Exam because that was not our theory of the case.
15 court, you know, or if we did depositions or sawthing, 15 I mean we obviously put in sane evidence of what medical
16 so I would only see her for two or three hours at a time 16 conditions she had to deal with to Hare cover the
17 at the most. 17 criteria the judge had to consider which was the
16 Q So aside frcm the Crohn's Disease one of the 18 likelihood that she could gain gainful employment going
19 conditions eras ulcerated skin lesions that required 19 forward. Linder the statute our case was primarily based
20 prescription drugs. Do you recall that? !, 20 on the fact that she had never worked outside the home
21 A Correct. ' 21 during the marriage regardless of whether she had
22 Q Including chenntherapy, is that right? 22 medical conditions or not.
23 A Well, I don't know if I -- well, I think she !23 Q So there were two separate but related issues.
24 used drugs that were prescribed to her that were !24 The first is her vrork history and what exQerience she

Page 21
1 may have to get a job and then the second is any other 1 obligation during the marriage to make money to pay for
2 reason why she may not be able to get a job going 2 a~ food they needed and any other necessaries, right?
i 3 forward, is that correct? ~ 3 A Correct.
4 A Correct. ': 4 Q And because Mr. Schmid worked throughout the
5 Q 5o briefly the rest of the u~dical conditions I 5 duration of the marriage and Raria stayed hie with the
6 that came out, there were eye problems? '; 6 kids Rana was out of the vrorkforee for years, even
7 A Correct. 7 decades, right?
8 Q Depression, right, and dental issues. ' 8 A I don't ]mow that she ever actually entered the
9 A Correct. ! 9 workforce because they got married pretty young so --
10 Q And during the trial Karla testified about the i 10 but she definitely oras not in the workforce at all
11 different medications that she eras on? 111 during the marriage. I believe sanetime -- maybe ten
12 A Correct. 12 years before the divorce she had tried -- I can't call
13 Q And they Rar1a'e vrork histozy? What is your i 13 up my old file here -- I don't ]mow whether she tried to
14 recollection of her education background? ':, 14 get involved in real estate. There was saiwthing she
15 A I think she had sane wllege classes. I think ! Z5 tried to do but she never earned income.
16 she maybe even graduated fran college but never -- never ! 16 Q It eras -- I believe it was a~dically related.
17 had any real work history. ' 17 Does that help }rou re¢~~er?
16 Q And that's because during Rarla'a msrriage to ': 18 A Well, the reason she believed she wasn't
19 Hill Schmid he vras the primary breadwinner for the 119 successful is because her medical conditions kept
20 family and she stayed h~ and took care of the kids, is 20 preventing her fran doing what she needed to do to
21 that fair? ' 21 actually do the job.
22 A Correct. ;22 Q And when it comes to her prior experience in the
23 Q And so it vras Mr. Schmid's obligation to make x,23 vrorkforce before the dissolution of her marriage, what
24 money to pay for the residence, it ass Mr. Schmid's ' 24 is your understanding of someone who practices this type

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 22..25
Page 2
1 of law, what is your understanding as to the it~act that 1 A Well, correct, and it had cane up pretrial, not
2 her lack of work experience would have and the judgment i 2 just even before Mr. Fed was representing him, you
3 that urns entered? ': 3 know, in pretrial conferences with the Court about
4 A we11, to be honest with you, it was a no-brainer ; 4 whether or not she was disabled and I remember
5 because of the length of the mmarriage, her age at the 5 repeatedly explaining that although we did not believe
6 tirt~ of the divorce and her lack of work history during 6 she had the ability to orork, we were not claiming that
7 the marriage which was clearly by agreement thzt she 7 she qualified for actual disability because then the
8 stay at home, be the homemaker and caretaker for the ': 8 question urns well, why doesn't she apply for disability
9 children. None of that was even disputed so the j 9 and there were lots of reasons for that, one being she
10 position that bir. Sctvnid took that unless -- basically 10 didn't have enough work history to get anything but SSI,
it this was their position. Unless she could prove she was ~, 11 and if she's getting maintenance or SSI, it mould be
12 disabled, she had an obligation to go seek employnwnt X12 reduced to zero so it would be going through a process
13 and if she didn't seek e~loyment, the Court should 13 just so we could get a piece of paper that said she was
14 impute incase to her. There are cases where that 14 disabled. Our position all along was that's a red
15 happens but not under the facts of this case so even '15 herring because she qualifies for the maintenance based
16 absent any medical cronditions at all, there's no Dray ', 16 on all the other histozy but if we're going to have this
17 that sh= wouldn't have gotten basically ma~cimum 17 discussion, we're certainly happy to put on evidence or
18 maintenance. ':18 go through the issue that she does have these real
19 Q Attd so it's your recollection that the medical ', 19 medical conditions that likewise prohibit her fran
20 condition issue, this is something that urns brought up i20 working.
21 on cross-examination to try to ahaw that she wasn't '21 Q And have you ever been involved in a disaolutian
22 disabled so they could then argue that because she's not :22 proceeding in the past or since this particular
23 disabled, then she should be forced to go seek '23 proceeding where the primazy breadwinner has tried to
24 e~loyu~nt, is that fair? !2¢ make the sazre argtanent?

Page 24 Page 2
1 A Many. ', 1 their incase is on a rmnthly basis so I can determine
2 Q And do you ever recall a situation vrhere it I 2 the shortfall and then try and come up with a plan to
3 actually worked? ! 3 ewer the shorefall, assuming there is one, and then
4 A NoC with this length of a marriage and this work 9 also wz then -- assuming we can get it accurate because
5 history. ', 5 sanetimes when they first present it to me its not
6 Q And the marriage itself was several decades, i 6 accurate so we v~rk on it together and then ere world
7 right? I, 7 then submit it to opposing counsel and ultimately the
8 A Correct. ! g Court if we had a hearing to show what the needs of the
9 Q So one of the d~uments that urns submitted to 9 party are.
10 the Court -- I'll provide you with a copy -- we 10 Q And so that's what this docim~nt is. This is
11 previously marked it ae 8~ibit 2 during Bill Schmid's i 11 Rarla Schmid's Affidavit of $atimated Average Monthly
12 deposition. 12 &xpeneea, right?
', i3 A Okay. i 13 A Correct.
14 Q It's Aarla's esCim~ted average monthly e~cpensea. ' 14 Q And if we look at the very last page, that's her
15 A Okay. i 15 signature on there?
16 Q So is general are you familiar with these types '16 A Yes.
17 of docents as to the average monthly expenses? 17 Q Aud the page before that we have the total and
18 A Yes. This is actually a form from my office 18 it works out to $3,522.80, right?
19 that my office used at the tip. 19 A Correct.
20 Q And so what ie this form? What is the purpose 20 Q Do you recall whether you had to modify that
21 of the document? '21 n~ber before you submitted it to the Court and opposing
22 A Initially the purpose is internally for me to ;22
x counsel?
23 represent the client is for me to get an understanding 23 A This one's not dated so I don't ]rnow if this was
24 of what their needs are on a tmnthly basis and then what ',2? submitted in a preliminary support hearing or whether it

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12j2018 Pages 26..29
__ Page 26
1 was submitted at the trial lrut her expenses never 1 A No, not at a11.
2 changed so if we had done more than one, they would have i 2 Q So let's go through the divorce proceedings
3 been very similar. 3 th~selvea. I'm going to try to nazraw this down so
4 Q Okay. And based on your understanding of 4 we re not talking about evezy single court date. 2
5 itarla's situation in life with -- ! 5 think we can sum it up a little bit. So, first of all,
6 A Actually let ~ interrupt you but i should '; 6 one of the initial things that happened during the
7 qualify that. Her situation did change when she moved ; 7 divorce proceedings vras that an Order of Protection was
8 to i9ichigan, so if we had done one before she moved to '. 8 entered against Bill Schmid. Do you recall that?
9 Michigan her situation did change but I can tell fran i 9 A Yes.
10 looking at this it was done after she rtaved to Michigan. 10 Q Okay. And }roar office prepared the Verified
11 Q And how can you tell that? 11 Petition for the Order of Protection, is that right?
12 A Because it shows rent or [mrtgage payment of ' 12 A I think so, yes.
13 136.70 which I believe was after she had purchased the ' 13 Q I have it. I can show it to you if you want to
14 residence in Michigan. ! 14 review it. This was at~rked as Exhibit 3 during Bill
15 Q Okay. And based on your understanding of where ' 15 Schmid's depoaiti~. If you vrant to take a minute to
16 FCarla was in her life, she toad been married for a long ( 16 look it over.
17 time, she had two children, she was taking care of the 17 A Okay. I recall.
18 children, she eras living in Michigan at the time she i; 18 Q And in general what vras your understanding of
19 filled this out, is it your understanding that the ', 19 why the Order of Protection was sought?
20 average monthly mcpenses that she's claiming in this 2D A Just the two of them living to3ether in the
21 doctim~nt are reasonable? 1 21 house was becaning unbearable for Karla Schmid and Mr,
22 A Yes. 22 Schmid was becane increasingly aggressive in his
23 Q You didn't get the impression that she was just ', 23 approach to her about what she should be doing or not
24 fishing for money. ;24 doing or whether she should be -- wh3t she should be

Page 28 Page 29
1 doing to resolve the divorce case and then there was one 1 of Karla to gain access to marital funds. Do you recall
2 day where there was like three physical confrontations 2 those2
3 in one day during one of which my client either threw or 3 A Yes.
4 sprayed some kind of cleaning or sane kind of material 4 Q And what do you recall about all of those?
5 in his face and she ended up getting charged with 5 A Well, fran the very beginning even when Nils Von
6 battery so it was impossible for the two of them to ': 6 Keudell aras in the case Mr. Schmid Nras difficult. You
7 continue to live in the same house. Our position was, '. 7 kno4r, usually we get these things worked out by
8 as we alleged in the Verified Petition, he was making it !, 8 agreement at the beginning of a case just to maintain
9 unbearable so that's how we proceeded on the Order of 9 the status quo but the first thing Mr. Schmid did eras he
10 Protection. ` 10 had 70,000 or $'75,000 in savings which historically they
11 Q And the Court coded up granting the petition. ' 11 would build up savings )mowing that if he ever lost his
12 P. Correct. ' 12 job, they'd have the savings to cover it because he
13 Q Okay. So the order that you were requesting eras I i3 would oftentimes live three, four or five rcanths in
14 catered, right? I, 14 between jobs. Well, what he did is paid off the hone
15 A Correct. ' 15 equity line of credit on the house down to zero and
16 Q And is all of your e~cperience
cps in doing these l6 closed it so they had zero money and then, of course, he
17 dissolution cases wrould having an Order of Protection "'. 17 said there vras no money to pay this, no imney to pay
18 entered against one party affect that party's 18 that, no Franey to nay attorneys, and he msy have around
19 credibility with the judge that ultimately tries the ' 19 that tip had a goo in employr~nt as well so then it was
20 case? ': 20 like there's ro money to pay anything. "P7e11, if you
21 A No, I don't think so. 21 hadn't closed the hone equity line of credit, you would
22 Q You don't think so? ', 22 have had a cushion there" because there was 70,000 in
23 A No. ' 23 savings.
24 Q So the next issue were atteuQta by you on behalf '24 Q So instead of closing the hce~ equity line of

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 30..33
Page 30 __
Page 31
1 credit he could have kept it open, they could have made % 1 Q Was this an attempt to get Mr. Schmid -- and eras
2 monthly payments, whatever that amount was, and they j 2 Karla present as well?
3 still would have had enough aaney to ewer their other ~ 3 A Correct.
4 living expenses, right? ' 4 Q So ccae this an atteapt to get the parties
5 A Right, or if he was just trying to save the $300 ~ 5 together to txy to resolve it without having to go
6 a ~mnth
m or whatever it kas, he could have paid it down I 6 through the entire court procedure?
7 and left it open. He didn~t Y~ave to close it. ; 7 A well, that would Piave been m~yb= a distant goal
8 Q Right. And did you ever find out thrwgh the '; 8 but not really realistic. '1Cie purpose of the meeting
9 court proceedings why Bill Schmid closed the homo equity 9 was to try and get an agreement for a temporary order so
10 line of credit? 1Q that we cwld keep everything surming without having to
it A I found out in my office upstairs when he came ' it go to court so much with the idea that then we could
12 over the table at me when I suggested he shouldn't have ' 12 settle things down and then we could approach
13 one that he basically said "it's my money. I can do ', 13 settlement.
1? what I want with it." 14 Q Okay. And so if both Karla and Bill agreed to
15 Q So did you have face-to-face meetings with Bill ': 15 an order that said who was going to pay what and how
16 Schmid outside of court? ( 16 much each aide was entitled to, then you wouldn~t have
17 A Yes, with his attorney present. 17 to resort to court intervention to get that resolved,
18 Q How many of those meetittga did you have? ', 18 right?
19 A It might have just baen that one. 19 P Correct.
20 Q Do you remember when that mzeting occurred? ',20 Q And that was the prim~y purpose of the meeting?
21 A It was while Mr. Von Keudell was sti11 ' 21 A Yes.
22 representing him. '22 Q Okay. And do you rea~mber aziy things that Bill
23 Q So it ~+as at the beginning? ' 23 Schmid said during that meeting?
24 A Correct. ' 24 A You Imow, I couldn't quote him but the way -- I

Page 32 Page 33
1 could tell you this. The way it ended is I had to tell ! 1 why not have a discussion about how we should handle
2 him that if he stood up and raised his voice one more I 2 this so --
3 tip, I orould have to have him reimved
ro fran my office. 3 Q And so aside frcm that other 575,000 he had in
4 Q Do you rimer what he was raising hie voice 4 savings were there any other liquid assets that could be ',
5 about? 5 used between Bi11 and Karla to support themselves?
6 A Nbstly ak~out why he had paid off the how equity 6 A Not marital assets. There were sane retirement
7 loan and shut it down without discussing it with anybody ' 7 accounts which, of course, could only be accessed with
8 including his os~m attorney. 8 penalties and Karla Sclvnid inherited sane naney early on
9 Q And did he pswide an explanation for why he did i 9 in the case so she then had sane access to money.
Q And vrae it your position that that was her own
11 P. No, not a reasonable explanation. ll money? That wasn't a aarital asset?
12 Q What unreasonable explanation did he give? i 12 ACorrect, that was non-marital.
13 A That it arcs his money and he could do with it 13 Q And do you laiow hav the judge resolved that
14 what he wanted. ! 14 issue?
15 Q And vrae he the only person on the line of 15 A Before we ever got to trial we had -- we did do
16 credit? ( 16 an agreement to let Mr. Schmid move lack into the house.
17 A No. It was a joint line of credit with my !17 Karla Sciunid agreed to eve out of the house, move to
18 client, with Karla Schmid. ' 18 Michigan and used her inheritance to buy a residence in
19 Q So if Karla eras on it as well, then it vrasn't ! 19 Michigan and we did -- and I'm not sure where Atr. Schmid
20 just his xroney, right? '; 20 got the money from but he had started vrorking again and
21 B Well, the line of -- you }mow, on a balance ' 21 he paid 10 -- I think $10,000 to give Itarla Sclvnid the
22 sheet it didn't make any difference because they had a 22 additional money she needed to close an the purchase of
23 70 or $75,000 line of credit and they had $75,000 in i23 the house and move.
29 savings so the real issue was why pay it off ar at least 24 Q And did he get a credit for providing that?

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 34..37
Page 34 Page 35
1 A He got a credit for that 10,000 in the ultimate 1 full-tip, he would have made well over $200,000 a year.
2 division of the marital estate. 2 The reason he didn't average wer $200,000 a year is
3 Q And there was also an issue with Bill Schmid , 3 because none of these jobs ever went for a long perio3
4 dissipating marital assets. Do you recall that issue? 4 of time, but he could never account for the incase he
5 A Correct. ' 5 earned while he was working and so -- and he started
6 Q What do you recall about that issue? 6 doing things that made it evzn more canplicated to trace
7 A We11, anytime he would get a job -- and now I i 7 because he mould take out large cash advances on credit
8 get confused what was before the divorce and after the 8 cards and move -- and what we eventually figured out is
9 diwrce but generally when he got a jd~, the most it '. 9 he was trying to chase, you know, zero percent for 12
10 vnuld nan mould be like two years, some would be si.x 10 month type cards or whatever so he was always moving
11 rtanths, nine months, whatever, so historically he would ' 11 money on the credit cards and then he would eke large
12 save a lot of the money he was making while he was ',12 paymEnts on credit cards and we would gave a hard time
13 working }mowing that there could be a period where he ~13 discovering exactly how much he was getting per diem
14 had no income. He was also paid a per diem which was , 14 because it didn't always show up as the lull amount on
15 pretty generous. All of these jobs he k~uld get would ;15 his paycheck stubs so he -- to account for this money he
16 pay a per diem because he basically would work at powzr 16 started preparing these spreadsheets which were
17 plants during construction or renovation or repairs and ' 17 impossible to decipher but we spent a significant amount
18 have to be on site or nearby and it could be anywhere in 16 of time going over these spreadsheets that he had
19 the country so -- but what he would do is rather than 19 prepared and ultimately I think successfully we showed
20 staying in a hotel or doing a short-term rental he took 20 that he really wasn't accounting for substantial amounts
21 an RV and o~ould drive an RV or trailer and live in the ! 21 of money. He was just proving it around. So I can't
22 trailer so he was getting the per diem but he didn't I 22 remember the ultimste amount ttutt the judge found as
23 spend near all the per diem and, plus, he was getting a ''23 dissipation but it basically came right off of his own
24 pretty healthy income. I mean if he always worked 24 spreadsheets which is whit we ended up using to show how

Page 36 Page 3
1 aa~cti was unaccounted for. i 1 that's standard, right, for a trial to occur a couple
2 Q Was it about $20,900? ': 2 days one month and then maybe a couple days another
3 A That sounds about right, yes. I 3 month?
4 Q Okay. And you were able to use Bill Schmid's 4 A Well, this was not standard. A couple things
5 crvn documents, documents that he created, to aharr that ~; 5 happened. Part of it was we estimate how long we think
b you couldn~t account for all that money? 6 a case wi11 take so initially when you set it, yw say
7 A Correet. 7 okay, we think we can do it in two days or three days,
8 Q And the trial on the dissipation claim, that 8 whatever it is. I seem to recall because it was
9 occurred before the rest of the trial proceedings, do 9 continued by Atr. Feria when he first got in the case the
10 you recall that? 10 judge gave us a pretty quick date but he really couldn't
11 A I'm sorry. What? ~ 11 give us enough time to where we could finish it. We
12 Q There toss a hearing to resolve the dieaipation ' 12 kind of knew that but we thought at least fran
13 claim and that occurred before the rest of the trial. '1 13 representing Karla Schmid, even if I ]mow we can't
14 Does that sound right to you? ;14 finish it in the time he's given us, at least if we can
15 A I'd be guessing. I don't recall it necessarily 15 get it started we'll get priority over trying to finish
16 that way. 16 it so that's what we did because if we had said we need
17 Q Okay. So then let's talk about the actual trial ' 17 four consecutive days, it would have been set out
18 proceedings. So they ocourred over a period of several i 18 into -- you kno4r, it might have been set out into
19 months, they started in February and they went until ! 19 September and then if we didn't finish in September we
20 October which vras when closing azgunwnts were heard. Do 20 could have gone out further, right, so because of the
21 }rou recall that? 21 continuance we kind of got out of kilter about getting
22 A Yes. 22 time with the judge but it's not imcomron, especially in
23 Q Okay. And just so we have an e~lanation on the 23 Bane County, because they won't move cases that are
24 record of why trials like this are tried that way, x
;24 already scheduled if they have a trial in progress so if

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 38..41
Page 38 Page 39
1 you don't finish in the allotted time, you have to find 1 trial started, right?
2 a date on the judge's calendar that they hive free which 2 A He got a little bit blindsided so I got kind of
3 can sorneti~s be difficult. 3 felt bad for him at that point because, of course, he
4 Q And so goittg back Co the beginning of the trial 4 got into the case only having the history frarn William
5 Mr. Feda appeared the first week of January 2012 and at 5 Schmid so what he didn't realize is that the judge was
6 that time the trial urns eet to begin the third week of 6 already growing ia~atient so I do not think at all he
7 January 2012. Does that sound about right to you? 7 expected that his motion for continuance wild be
8 A Correct. 8 granted but that we'd still have to start on February 7
9 Q Okay. And he got it continued to February 7, 9 so, yes, he was kind of under the gun but --
10 2012, and that was the first day of the trial. Does 10 Q Wae it --
11 that sound about right to you? 11 A -- but he was -- I mean he had, you lmow, the
12 A Correct. 12 priar attorney's file and I gave him everything I had so
!I 13 Q And that was about one month after Mr. Feria 13 it wasn't like he didn't have access to the inforn~tion.
14 filed his appearance? i 14 He just had kind of a condensed aunt of time to digest
15 A Cor_-ect. 15 it.
16 Q Okay. And once that occurred Mr. Feria had •i 16 Q And this was a deadline that was iuQosed by the
17 almost three years of trial proceedings to get caught up 17 Court, right?
18 on, right, or court proceedings? 16 A Correct.
19 A Correct. '. 19 Q Wae it }roar understanding, based on your
20 Q And he also had to get caught up on Mr. Schmid 20 conversations with Lfr. Feria, that Mr. Schmid didn't give
21 and Karia's marriage which had gone on for decades, 21 him a ca~lete and accurate history of both the court
22 right? ,: 22 proceedings and his marriage with %arla?
23 A Correct. 23 A Definitely true.
24 Q So he had a lot to get caught up oa before the '24 Q Okay. And is there anything in particular that
_. _ _
Page 40 41
1 stands out that leads you to believe that? '! 1 right.
2 A well, I mean discussions I had with Air. Feria '. 2 A Right. Justice delayed is justice denied. I
3 about like orders that had been entered for the payment I 3 mean that's the way we felt. I mean the ultimate
I a of fees, orders tBat had been entered that enabled my 4 conclusion was pretty much inevitable and -- well, tv~o
5 client to move to Michigan, what we had had to go 5 things becarc~ clear between the time Mr. Feria got into
6 through to get all the information on what his incam~ 6 the case and then at the time we started the trial and
7 had been while the case was pending. He came into the 7 that is he was not going to be able to prove what
8 case with the impression that maybe I had been somEhow '; 8 William Schmid had told him was the facts of the case as
9 bullying the prior attorneys or sanehow manipulating the I 9 far as what his incase was or what ICarla's situation was
l0 proceedings to where Karla was winning everything. we ; l0 or, you know, what this accounting was for the monies
11 v.~ren't winning everything. I ~an it wasn't -- I 11 tYiat he had received during the case that we ultimately
12 s~l.dn't describe it as having been going great far my i 12 determined were dissipation.
13 client, right, because of the -- just because or the 13 Q And based on all of your experience in
14 art~nt of fees. It's not going well when you have that ~'I l4 representing clients in proceedings like this, one of
15 kind of a fee bill and no way to pay it. So he came in i15 the most ia4wrtant things for yw to }aww before you
16 with this idea that his client was disadvantaged somehow i16 appear is court is all of the Eacta, even the bad ones
17 by what had been going on when it really wasn't the 17 for your client, right?
18 case. Other than the dissipation argument, everything 18 A Correct.
19 was pretty straightforward. 19 Q And you cant rebut argtmunts ar~de by the other
20 Q So it was -- 20 attorneys if you're not fully avrare of all of the £seta
21 A Or slxiuld have keen straight=orvard. 21 that may support those arguments, right?
22 Q It was more that Karla was disadvantaged because ! 22 A Correct.
23 she vrasn't getting what she Eras entitled to and then she 123 Q And so when you say Mr. Feria was blindsided, one
24 kept having to go in to court to try to make things 24 e~ra~le of haw he may have been blindaided is Mr.

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 42..45
Page 43
1 Sebmid
m~. wase't up-front with him about the situation he % 1 A Correct.
2 had with P.arla, right? 2 Q And during the trial evidence was presented oa
3 A Correct. !. 3 both aides about Mr. Sclmiid's work history, his ability
4 Q Do you generally have an independent i 4 to find work at the tip, right?
5 recollection of the actual trial praceedinga? 5 A Correct.
6 A Pretty good. 6 Q And evidence was presented by both aides on
7 Q Okay. So we donut have a transcript
a fray
am the ' 7 Rarla's work history and her ability to find vrork going
6 trial so I'm going to ask you acme basic questions I 8 forward, right?
9 abort -- i 9 A Correct.
10 A Sure. ,10 Q Evidence was also presented on her medical
11 Q -- the evidence that was presented. So both ,11 hietary pri.m3rily through cross-examination by Mr. Feda
12 Mr. Schmid and Karla testified during the trial, right? X12 to support the defendant's theory of the case, right?
13 A Correct. 13 A Correct.
14 Q And you were able to direct-examine Karla, you '14 Q Or the respondent's theory, right? Evidence was
15 mere able to cross-examine Bill Schaud, and Mr. Feria was ' 15 presented by both parties on the value and the condition
16 able to direct-examine Bill Schmid and cross-Pvam+ne 16 of the u~rital residence, right?
17 I{arla. Do you recall all that? 17 A Correct.
18 A Correct, and actually I'm sure I called -- I I~ 18 Q Evidence was presented by both parties on the
19 recall I called Mr. Schmid as an adverse witness and X 19 college expenses for their daughters, right?
20 Mr. Fed did clarification and then also had multiple !20 A Correct.
2Z opportunities to recall him as his own witness which is 21 Q And evidence urns presented by both parties on
22 one of the reasons the trial dragged on. '22 the value of aarital property and non-msritai property,
23 Q And Mr. Feria was able to keep calling Mr. 23 right?
24 Sc}miid back? 24 A Correct, and debts.

Page 4a Page 45
1 Q And debts. 1 in to apply for a mortgage.
2 A That was a big part of it, too. 2 The second problem was, though, that he kept
3 Q One thing we haven't talked about is the marital 3 taking this position as to how the assets should be
a residence, and it sounds like that had beett an going 4 divided that was going to basically allow him to keep
5 issue throughout the proceedings, right? i 5 the house without doing a lump sum payment for the
6 A Correct. 6 equity and, I mean, that's not unusual to have those
7 Q So what is your recollection of the issue with ' 7 kind of discussions for settlement because sanetimes
S the marital residence, who was living there, who vranted ~ 8 there's reasons to defer payment of the equity but at a
9 to live there, whether it was going to be sold, all of 9 trial with the choice of selling the property or having
10 that? 10 the people in effect stay tied to each other because
11 A At the time of the trial Mr. Schmid occupied the ~ 11 they have a deferred interest in this residence the
i
12 residence and Karla Schmid had already moved to Flint, ':. 12 judges just don't do that and I know Mr. Feria oras not
13 Michigan, and Mr. Schmid oras insistent on trying to keep j 13 recarer~nding that to Mr. Schmid and, you know, it was
1? the residence which I believe the position he task at i 14 clear -- let's put it this way. It was clear that
15 trial overplayed his hand in two respects: One, he 15 Mr. Schmid was adamant about the positions he wanted to
16 really could not present any credible evidence that he ! 16 take at the trial even if they wire unrealistic and I
17 had a realistic ability to obtain a mortgage to buy out 117 don't think he realized if you persist in all these
18 Karla Schmid's equity in the residence. i 16 unrealistic positions, you're not giving the judge
19 Q Is that because he couldn't even present 19 really much choice as to ultimately has to decide the
20 evidence as to why he couldn't pay Itarla's maintenance? 20 case because you're not giving him a viable alternative,
21 A Well, right, and he had these periods of 21 and I Imow just fran things his attorney tried to do,
22 unemployment. On the one hand he's saying he shouldn't i22 what Mr. Feria tried to do during the trial is kind of
23 hive to pay maintenance because he really doesn't make 23 make him look a little better and make him samd a
2a tnat much ttnney so what are you going to do when you go i 24 little mire reasonable but then he would becom= his a~m

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 46..49
_........._........
Page ?6 Page 47
1 worst enemy with his testimony, you know, so -- 1 Q And he was held in conteuQ~t of court?
2 Q Can't put lipstick on a pig? ', 2 A Yes.
3 A Right. Well, there's another third issue with 3 Q Ha speat a night in jail because of that, right?
4 the house is they had lots of projects because it was an ~ 4 A Yes.
5 older house mist of which never quite got a hundred I 5 Q And then after spending the night in jail he
6 percent complete so that would have been another issue i 6 actually signed the paperwork, right?
7 he wanted -- I can't remember hair far apart we were on ', 7 A Correct, and I think Mr. Krupp was the attorney
8 the value of the house but -- 8 at that time.
9 q There was one valuation where the house vras I 9 Q One thing that Mr. Rrupp testified to was that
10 $250,000, and it'a my understanding that Mr. Schmid had " 10 at some point during this whole process Mr. Sekmud went I
11 an opportunity to sign paperwork so the horse could be 11 to the house and actually started taking it apart, in ~
12 sold at that tip. 12 see instances taking the drywall down. Were you aware
13 A Listed for that amount. ', 13 of that?
14 Q Listed for that aununt. And he declined to do ': 14 A Well, he went in there saying he was completing
15 that. Do you recall that? ~ 15 sane of these projects because he thought that wand get
L6 A Yes. 16 the value back up but, again, these are all things that i
17 Q Okay. And then when the opportunity was '. 17 could have been discussed but his positions were just so
16 presented to him again and he was ordered to sign the ' 18 far away fran what could be considered reasonable that
19 paperwork, the value of the house was only $160,000. Do ', 19 it was always impossible to have a meeting of the minds
20 you recall that? X20 so we would have keen happy to discuss doing work
21 A Correct. 21 recommended by the realtor that would result in bring ',
22 Q Okay. And Mr. Schmid refused to sign the 22 able to list it for higher but he had his own idea as to
23 paperwork, right? 23 what he wanted to do and it wasn't in any way tied to
24 A Correct. 2a what the realtor was recommending. Asa matter of fact,

Page 48 Page 49
1 by the time he signed the listing agreement the realtor 1 the sale and then you divide the aaney between the two
2 said she didn't want to have anything to do with it 2 parties, right?
3 anymore kncause she realized she could not work with him I 3 A Exactly.
4 so, you lmow, there was a crack in the chimney which, li 4 Q And that's what the Court wanted to do and
5 you )mow, maybe it rrould have cane up on a professional ' 5 Mr. Sclunid wrouldn't ccmg~ly with the order, right?
6 inspection or saaething. I think he did it to sabotage 6 A Correct.
7 getting it listed because he decided it was dangerous ', ? Q There eras an issue with Bill Sck~mid's gold
8 and reported it so then they had to put in an insurance 6 coins. Do you recall that issue?
9 claim and have the chimney vrork done so, of course, he 9 ?1 Other than him claiming -- I think he tried to
10 couldn't list: the house during the tip that was going i 10 claim that Karla had them and she said she didn't.
11 on so there was -- I think a tree limb fell on the roof, 11 Q Yes.
12 too, around that same time so there's a lot of things 12 A Yes.
13 going on but it was clear he did not want to sell the 13 Q And do }rou recall anything else frcan that?
14 house -- during the trial it was very clear he did not 14 A No, other than she didn't have them. He
15 leant to sell the house. After the trial even after it 15 said/she said.
16 was ordered it was very clear he was rot going to 16 Q So ultimately when deciding that issue it cotes
17 cooperate with the process. j 17 dawn to the credibility of the witnesses and who's going
18 Q And sellutg the house vras part o£ the judgment 18 to believe who.
19 oa the diaeolution of the marriage, right? 19 A Correct.
20 A Correct. 20 Q There eras also an issue with bank transactions
21 Q And one way for courts to divide up assets, and 21 initiated by Karla back in 2006. Do you recall that ',
22 particularly real property, is you can't likerally cut 22 issue?
23 it in half and give one side to one gamy and one aide 23 A It wasn~t really an issue. It was an issue for
24 to the other so you sell it and you get the money from 24 Mr. Schmid. The Court was not interested in it. ~'nere

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 50..53
..... ...__.
Page 501 Page 51
1 was really no evidence of any dissipation on her part. 1 the one that Raria and Bill vrere involved in, you~re
2 Q Do you recall what the claim vras? j 2 looking at the lam and not what Mr. Schmid believes,
3 A I don't really remember. Basically an 'i 3 right?
4 undercurrent in this whole thing which I said when we 4 A Correct.
5 tried to have the conference in my office is he wasn't 5 Q Bill Schmid claimed that Karla left the ar~rital
6 shy about expressing it this way. He really honestly ! 6 residence itt a deplorable edition. Do you recall
7 believed that all of the money was his and that nobody, 7 that?
8 including his wife or children, should be spending any 8 A Yes.
9 of the money withait his approval so in his mind she was '! 9 Q And what do yon recall about that?
10 doing something wrong if she wrote a check without him 10 A Well, first, she left the residence way before
11 }mowing about it but she never signed his name to a 11 the trial and then he was in the residence for a
12 check. She never took money out of his account in his 12 substantial periai of time before the trial so the first
13 name. 13 problem with his allegation is what difference would
14 Q Under Illinois marriage laws any money that's !14 that make anyuray? I think he'd been there close to two
15 made after the pazties are married is a marital asset, ',15 years by the tip we had the trial. If it was in bad
16 right? ~ 16 condition, he had tom years to clean it up.
17 A Correct. ! 17 The second issue was both parties, Rana and
18 Q It's her aaney as much as it's his money and !. 18 William Sclvnid, never threw away anything, right, so
19 vice versa, right? 19 they would store stuff so one person's deplorable
20 A Exactly. ' 2D condition is another person's storage, right, so when
21 Q Sa as Bch ae Bill Schmid wants to believe that '. 21 Karla moved to Flint, Michigan, she, I think, lid --
22 it's all his aaney under the law it's not, right? '22 sanebody vras helping her, they had rented a truck, they
23 A Correct. 23 could not get all of what would be half the personal
24 Q And in a dissolution of carriage proceeding like ' 24 property so basically reserved the issue of the division

Page 52 Page 53
1 of whatever was left behind, then she made a list of ! 1 I like to do and what Judge Pilm~r ordered in this case
2 what she wanted and then Mr. Schmid would never 2 was to submit proposed judg[nents prior to him rendering
3 cooperate to let her in the horse so he's complaining 3 his decision. I can't remember if the order specified
4 that she left it in a deplorable condition but he really 4 to give it to him in 4]ord forn~t or submit it on a thwnb
5 never cooperated to enable -- we even had court orders ~I 5 drive or whether we emailed it to him, I can't remember,
6 entered prior to trial designating a couple dates that 6 but the idea was -- my thought process in requestirn~
7 she could go in and get the property and it never worked 7 this in all the cases that I try is it's the best way to
8 out. I think one time there was a snowstorm which 8 avoid the judge forgetting something or messing
9 prevented her fran making the trip and then it never got 9 something up. If both attorneys sutxnit proposed
10 -- that was like in Novemb=r before the trial, but 10 judgments, you can identify N~here the differences are
11 anyway, so -- and there was part of the problem with the 111 but then you can kind of use what they have drafted to
12 condition eras these projects that had been started but ' 12 make sure you cover evezything so that's what -- I think
~' 13 not finished so there~s a lot of reasons the house could il3 we did closing ~gu~nts with a date to submit proposed
1? have been in better condition at the time of trial but 14 judgments after that.
i5 it wasn't fair to say it oras because Karla left it in a !15 Q And so proposed judgments aren't a standard
16 deplorable condition two years ago. I 16 court procedure in which the proposed judgmeate are
17 Q So once the actual trial vras over, the cases in 17 required to be filed is the court Eile, right?
18 chief of the respective parties, the parties were !18 A Correct.
19 ordered to submit proposed judga~eata, right? !19 Q Okay.
20 A Yes. i 20 A It's basically part of the closing argument
21 Q Okay. And in general what is that process? ' 21 process if the judge requests it or orders it.
22 What does each party do and what does it lead to? 22 Q And so one of the azg~ents that Bill Schmid is
23 A Well, every judge is a little different and then ; 23 making in this case is that when he looked is the court
24 the attorneys can suggest different ways to do it. What 24 file, Mr. Feda's proposed judgu~nt vrasn't filed with the

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 54..57
Page 54
1 Court and, therefore, he did acm~ething that's inproper. 1 though, right?
2 The fact that he didn't actually file the proposed 2 A Yes.
3 judgsrent is the court file, that doesn't mean that he 3 Q And did you as well obviously.
4 failed to follow Judge Pilmer's procedure or that he 4 A Actually I'm alRast posiCive the proposed
5 didn't get the proposed judgment in front of Judge ~ 5 judgments were after the closing arguments.
6 Pilmer, right? ! 6 Q Okay. During the closing arg~mienta both you and
7 A As a matter of fact, I'm sure my proposed ! 7 Mr. Feda made your arg~ents to Judge Pilmer?
8 judc~mnt wasn't in the file, either, b`cause they 8 A Yes.
9 vrouldn't be filed. They would just be delivered to the ' 9 Q And during the closing arguments both you and
10 judge. And I recall his was delivered to the judge ; 10 Mr. Feria went over all of the evidence that had been
11 because I recall being upset because wa had a deadline 11 presented during the trial, right?
12 date to do it. 1"ne idea is you're supposed to do this ' 12 A Correct.
13 simultaneously so you can't read the other side's and ' 13 Q Yw made your respective argimwnts based oa the
14 then change }roars, right? ' 14 facts that were introduced into evidence?
15 Q Right. '. 15 A Yes.
16 A And Mr. Feria turned his in a couple days later. 16 Q And it's your recollection that Mr. Feria argued
17 Q Aa far as you Jmaw, did the judge still consider 17 everything that he could in response to or in support of
18 hie proposed judcg~nt even though it was late? ~ 18 Mr. Schmid's positions, right?
19 A Oh, yes, Z'm sure he did. 19 A I would say he did the knst he could with what
20 Q And then when closing arg~m~ente were held on 20 he had and there were a couple things that he argued
21 October 3, do you ranember if closing arguments were 21 that, you know, the judge was kind of inclined to go
22 before or after the proposed judc,~nts were aubmi.tted? 22 along orith but I ~an I'm obviously not privy to any
23 A I don't remember. I do not remember Chat. 23 canmunications b=tween Mr. Feria and Mr. Schmid but sane
24 Q Mr. Feria participated in the closing arguaw.nts, 24 of the arguments that Mr. Feria was making ware also
_.,_ __.
Page 56 Page 57
1 clearly directed by Mr. Schmid because I l ow Mr. Feria. ' 1 Q Okay. So the actual judgu~ent ends up getting
2 I've had cases with him over the years, I've probably 2 entered, and in the judgment Mr. Sctmtid was ordered to
3 Jmown him since 1990 and, you Jmow, I would know if it ', 3 pay Karla $1500 per month or 40 percent of his inc~,
4 eras just him making the argument what he mould argue for '; 4 whichever was greater. Does that sound right to you?
5 versus what Mr. Schmid had lien persistently requesting ! 5 A Correct.
6 fran the beginning even before Mr. Feria was in the case ': 6 Q And do you recall engaging in a pretrial
7 so I could tell the parts of the argument were "hey, I'm 7 settlement conference with Judge Pil~x before the case
8 the client. This is what I want you to argue for," and ', 8 west to trial?
9 in my opinion that's what ultimately directed the 9 A At least one. I did one with Mr. Feria but I'm
10 astcane of the case because Judge Pilmer used basically ; 10 sure I did others with the prior attorneys.
it my proposed judc~.nt because he didn't get enough ' 11 Q And during the pretrial settlement conferences
12 reasonable stuff out of Mr. Feda's argument and proposed '~~112 do you recall that souls of your demands asked for money
13 judgment to mike
ma it worthwhile to do a whole separate ! 13 that urns actually greater than what the judgmFnt
mF urns
14 doclunent. 14 that was ultimately entered?
15 Q Right. And the proposed judgment, is that 15 A Yes.
16 sarething that you run by your client before you send it 16 Q Okay. So the results of the trial proceedings
17 in? 17 were that Mr. Sckunid ended up having a judc~gnent entered
18 A Yes. ! 18 against him that required him to pay less thaz~ what you
19 Q Because obviously you need your client to sign ; 19 were initially demanding through the pretrial aettleu~ent
20 off on what you're asking for from the judge, right? ' 20 conference, right?
21 A Yes. ! 21 A Correct.
22 Q And you would have expected Mr. Feria to run his 22 Q And do you also recall ---
23 own proposed judgment past Mr. Scl~mi.d as well, right? 23 A Well, let me say one more thing. So the
24 A Yes. 24 proposed judgment fran a strategy standpoint needs to k~

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 _. _ __ __

MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 58..61

Page 58 Page 59
1 something that y~ seriously think the judge might sign i this was e~hat made, I think, the decision easier for
2 so it's completely different than the position you would 2 Judge Pilmer is he did before trial flat out tell
3 take at a pretrial rnnference or even in your openi~ 3 Mr. Schmid that no matter what, he was going to be
4 stat~nent because by then -- by the time you get to '; 4 paying tt~intenance. He wasn't canmitting himself to the
5 doing the proposed judgment, the judge has given hints '! 5 amount ar the fos~mtla but he said he was going to be
6 one way or another as to where he's headed urith the case - 6 paying maintenance and he had to accept that fact.
~ and if you do a proposed judgment that's just your 7 Q And the amount of maintenance that Judge Pi].mer
8 client's wish list, you might as well just throw it in ', 8 ordered Mr. Schmid to pay, that fell within the
9 the trash can. 9 boundaries of the Illinois statute which describes what
10 Q Do you renw.~ber Judge Pilmer giving hints about 1D the reasonable aaaunt is, right?
11 his position on the ease before the trial ever even !11 A Correct.
12 began? ' 12 Q Okay. And aside fry the specific amount of
13 A Yes. j 13 maintenance the Illinois statute also sets out hav other
l4 Q Okay. And do you recall Judge Pilmer actually '14 types of assets should be divided, right?
15 stating to the patties that if the case goes to trial, '15 A Correct.
16 he's going to order Bill Schmid to pay $1500 per annth? !16 Q And the rest of Judge Pilmer's order fe11 within
17 A I donut think he kmzld have -- I don't recall i17 the boundaries of what the statute says as well, right?
18 him identifying that number but what he had clearly said j 18 A Yes.
19 is "we're not going to have a situation where he's ': 19 Q And ultimately the judge has discretion to
20 paying maintenance for six months and then because he's '; 20 decide how such to avrard vrithin the boundaries of what
21 unemployed for three months he doesn't pay anything and I21 the law says he can do, right?
22 then when he gets a job he starts paying again." He '22 ACorrect.
23 says "we're going to camp up with a way to spread that '23 QAnd Judge Pilmer used his discretion to award
24 out across the times that he's unemployed" and -- but 24 Rana an amount of Haney and to divvy up the assets in a

Page 60 Page 61
1 vray that c~lied with Illinois law, right? 1 received the money to nay down -- to pay off the credit
2 A Correct. 2 card debt.
3 Q And the obligations that Bill Schmid vras ordered 3 Q And where did tk~at money come frcan?
4 to ccm~ply with, those obligations complied with Illinois a A FYo~n the sale of the house.
5 law, right? ', 5 Q So it eras eventually sold?
6 A Correct. ( b A Correct.
7 Q You mentioned debt before. One of the things 7 Q Do you remember haw much it was sold for?
B that the order c~tained was an order that Bill Schmid 6 A I believe it was about 190, 190,000. If you
9 gay the debt that Karla accumulated while the divorce ' 9 give me a second, I'l1 look it up.
10 was pending. Do }rou recall that? ': 1D ¢ Sure.
11 A well, not -- some debt but cast of it was '. 11 MR. 50?2INSEN: Finat was that?
12 allocated to be paid off the top of the sale of the ': 12 MR. TANK: 190K.
13 house which in effect would cause her to pay more 13 MR. SORENSE~t: For the sale of the house?
14 1~cause I think she was getting 60 percent of the net 14 MR. TANK: For the house.
15 proceeds, so if you lwk at it that way, so he did ', 15 THE WITNESS: The closing was in April of 2017 and
16 allocate sane debt just to 6ir. Schmid but the majority 116 the contract price was 188,000.
17 of the debt was to be paid out of the proceeds of the 17 MR. TANK: Q And b=cause it took another four
16 sale of the house. 18 years for the house to b= sold, interest on the debt
19 Q But since Mr. Schmid didn't authorize the sale ! 19 that had to be paid off for the money gained fran the
20 of the house the debt couldn't be paid off, right? ' 20 sale of the horse was accumulated during that tip,
21 A Correct. 21 right?
22 Q Was the debt ever paid off? ' 22 A Well, I think Karla Schmid managed to make
23 A Yes. Well, I take that back. I don't ]rnow if '23 interest-only payments on the debt pretty much up till
24 my client actually paid the credit cards yet but she '24 just about the closing. The balances might have gone up

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1 -800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 62..65
Page 62
1 a little bit based on late payments and stuff like that. 1 finding or one part of his ruling and entered the order
2 Q But if she wasn't paying -- making interest-only 2 saying that Mr. Sclvni.d was not precluded fran filing a
3 paymeats, then she could have been paying dam the ; 3 petition to modify his m~ntenance obligation if he
4 principal instead, right? a_ cold show that it was warranted apart fran anything
5 A Correct. ; 5 that -- based on som=thing that happened after the
6 Q Okay. So money wasn't unnecessazily spent to 'i 6 judgment so ultimately that is what happened.
7 pay down the debt, is that fair? i 7 Q And that happened in December of 201n, Judge
8 A Correct, yes. '8 Pilmer modified the maintenance obligation, right?
9 Q After the judgment on the dissolution of 9 A Well, it wouldn't have been Judge Pilmer
10 marriage was entered Mr. Feda filed a Motion to ',10 anyrtare. No, that isn't what happened in December of
11 Reconsider, right? j 11 '1a. We never got to that issue in December of X14 --
12 A Correct. I 12 Q That was the settlement.
13 Q And it went through and it remade all of the ' 13 A -- because we ended up doing it by agreement but
14 arguments that had been made during the trial '14 just here this past sw~ner the order abating his
15 proceedings up to that point, right? 15 maintenance obligation was based on Judge Kruse
16 A Mast of them, yes. !: 16 (phonetic), o~ho's the current judge, finding that that
17 Q And Judge Pilirer heard the motion and denied it, ~ 17 provision of the nzling on the post-trial rmtion
18 right? ': 16 basically enabled Mr. Schmid to get out of the $1500 a
19 A I 4~ish. He denied it initially and then 19 month minimum and Judge Kruse granted it based on the
20 entertained further argum=nt an one issue which was the 20 fact that his most recent period of unemployment was
21 modifiability of the maintenance because the way Judge ' 21 more extended than previous ones and due to his age in
22 Pilmer lid worded it was no matter what, Mr. Schmid had 22 the industzy, which is primarily coal power plants, he
23 to pay a minimum of 1500 a month regardless of his 23 fmuid that he wasn't bound by tk~at 1500 anymore, He
2? employment status so the judge reconsidered that one 24 abated it so --

Page 64 Page 65
1 Q And so does he have a maintenance obligation if 1 additional docw~ntation about financial issues?
2 he's e~Qloyed? ', 2 A Not that I'm aware of, and I dan~t }mow how that
3 A Yes. Well, I shouldn't say that. His i 3 could be raised ire than 30 days after the ruling on
4 maintenance obligation is subject to ]ring 4 the Motion to Reconsider.
5 re-established when he's employed. Right now there's 5 Q If Mr. Schmid did have s~ additional
6 nothing auta~tic. 6 docwnentation but he didn't give it to Mr. Feda before
7 Q So if he gets a job and you fiad out about it, 7 the trial started, then obviously Mr. Feria couldn't have
8 then you have to go in to court and say "ttaw that he has 8 used that during the trial, right?
9 a job we want him to pay aaintenance." 9 A Correct.
10 A Correct. ' 10 Q All right. So now let's talk about any opinions
11 Q But he does still have to pay the amount of ill you may have, and you understand the standard to which
12 aaney that he had been ordered to pay but did not, 12 you have to provide your opinions, to a reasonable
13 right? `: 13 degree of certainty?
14 A Correct. 14 A Yes.
15 Q And that's the 50,000 and amie change that you ' 15 Q All right. So first regarding the issue of
16 talked about earlier in your deposition. '16 Razla's medical conditions, that's one of the issues
17 P. 55,000 and sow change, yes. i 17 that Hill Schmid has raised in this lawsuit against
~ 18 Q In December of 2013 the parties appeared in !; 18 Mr. Feria. is it your opinion to a reasonable degree of
19 court and Bill Sclmiid told the Court that he vras seeking ~; 19 certainty that Bill Feria should have retained a medical
20 proofs of a number of financial issues in other 20 expert to opine about Rarla's health editions?
21 doewrentation relative to the judgment on the i21 A Definitely not.
22 diasolutioa of marriage. Do you recall that? ', 22 Q Okay. And is it your opinion to a reasonable
23 A Na i23 degree of certainty that even if Bill Feria had retained
24 Q Do you Imow if Mr. Schmid ever came up with 24 a medical experE that the outeou~ of the judc,~a~nt on the

Epiq Caurt Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1 -800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018
Page 66
olution of marriage would have changed?
A 7t would have been worse because he world have
punished. I mean judges are pec~le, right, and
zney don't like ling jerked around so he insisted on
pursuing that issue and the judge perntitted him to put
in whatever evidence he wanted on that but if he had
gone to the next step of hiring an expert and tzying to
put on evidence when the judge had already said no
matter what, she's getting maintenance, I think the
judge vmuld have dinged him harder.
Q So the next issue has to do with Bill Schmid's
attemmta to find ~loyment. During Mr. Setmtid's
deposition in this case, he testified that he wanted
Mr. Feria to retain an eamert to opine that President
Harack Obau~ ruined the economy and that's why he wasn't
able to get a job. Is it your opinion to a reasonable
degree of certainty that Bill Feria should have retained
an employment expert to opine that President Barack
Obaaia ruined the econcany and prevented him from finding
a job?
A That would have been suicide of trying to do
that.
Q Do you think that would have had a vrorae effect
on his case than if he didn't have an expert at all?
Pages 66..69
-Page 67
1 A Yes, because, as I said earlier, Mr. Feda had to
2 do two things at trial. One is he had to present
arguments tY~at Mr. Schmid was insisting be advanced
a while at the same time protecting Mr. Schmid from
5 himself to a certain extent so if he had crossed the
6 line and tested the judge's patience, I think it would
have had negative repercussions for Mr. Schmid.
Q Do }rou have an opinion to a reasonable degree of
certainty as to whether Mr. Feria should have hired any
10 kind of euQloyment expert at all to fiiy to exQlain why
11 Mr. Schmid vrae not getting a job to pay Rarla's
12 maintenance?
A I don't see -- I donut see how that could have
been helpful. That would not lave been a goal decision
by Mr. Feria to retain arty such expert.
Q Okay.
A I mean -- and the facts bear out he cLd --
subsequent to these proceedings he did get employment
and he made the same money he always made before for
about two straight years.
Q So any e~cpert testia~up that Mr. Feria had
! 22 presented which would have had to be paid for because
i23 experts get paid for their services, that would have
24 been controverted by the later facts, right?

Page 68 Page 69
1 A Correct. 1 any reason, if its not clear or it's hard to heaz ~ or
2 Q Okay. And ie it your opinion to a reasonable 2 for whatever reason, Ism relying on you to let me ]moor
3 degree of certainty that Mr. -- that Bill Feda's g and I'il be happy to try to clarify or rephrase or
4 representation of Bill Schmid ec~lied with the standard ', ¢ repeat it but I rely on you to let me ]mow eo if you
5 of care that attorneys ogre to their clients? 5 answer the question, I'll aesu~ you've heard a~ all
6 A Yes, that is my opinion. I 6 right and you're just trying to answer to the beat of
7 Q I don't have any other questions but we're going 7 your ability, fair enough?
8 to go around the roan. Ism sure you'll get sane oars. ! 8
A Sure, yes.
9 AtR. SORENSII+I: I'm going to ask yw a quick question ', 9
Q Okay. Great. Going to the Judgment for
10 wtside real quick.
i10 Dissolution of Marriage, I noted that there ~vae a
11 MR. TANK: Sure,
11 finding in there and its on -- you don't necessarily
12 MR. SORENSE.N: If we can just take one second.
12 have to go to this, 2 can read it to you, but it's page
13 (break?
13 five of 11 of the judgment of dissolution which was
14
': 14 entered on November 15, 2012, and it says that -- it's
15 EXAMINATION
' 15 Section F of the judge's ruling: "The husband has
by Mr. Sorensen:
' 16 contirrued to pay substantial aaqunts on his unnthly
16
'17 credit card balance including payirents in the thousands
17 Q Mr. Doyen, my nay is Dave Sorensen. I
16 represent Robert Krupp who's one of tha other attorneys ' 18 of dollars despite claiming that his only source of

19 who's being sued by Mr. Schmid. 2 apologize in advance. j19 funds is his weekly une~loyment compensation attd that

20 I'll probably juap around a little bit. ' 20 he has no money left in savings which the Court finds to

21 A That's okay. i21 be incredible." I'm wondering urns that your xrord
22 Q And for mQ, although you laitxv the instructions, 22 choice, was that taken fry your proposed ruling, was
23 probably the most is~ortaat thing that I just want to X23 that something that the judge -- the judge clearly
24 remind you of is if you don't understand my question for 24 adopted it but urns that his own word choice?

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - X4/12/2018 Pages 70..73
Page 70 ___
Page 7
1 A That was probably my Ord choice in the proposed 1 identify the total amount of cash that came into his
2 judga~nt. 2 hands. What we could never identify is where all the
3 Q Nonetheless, did }rou find that with the 3 cash went, and he never answered that question.
4 dissipation issue or the conduct of Mr. Sclmnid
m' in 4 Q And particularly in a dissolution of marriage
5 general during the pendency of the case and the trial 5 trial where you have a bench trial and the judge is the
fi did }rou -- did you come to think that the judge found 6 ultimate decider of the merits of the case and the
7 Mr. Schmid to not be a credible witness? 7 division of the assets, credibility, would you say, is
8 A I am confident that Judge Pilmer felt that Mr. 8 an iag~ortant thing for yaur witness to have?
9 Schmid was not credible and, you Imow, we dan't have the 9 A Mm-Ivn. Most important issue, correct.
10 transcript anyvray. I don't knoer that he ever said 10 Q If we walked you through each page and each
11 anything on the record but -- and again, this gets back 11 paragraph of the Judgaestt for Dissolution of Marriage, I
12 to why the trial took so long. So with Mr. Schmid's a~m 12 take it you cwld explain to us hoar
0 -- the argim~ents you
13 spreadsheets we vrould show these big gaps and what 13 made to ask the judge to arrive at that ruling and the
14 happened with cash, right, and how he was able to do 14 rationale for the judge arriving at that ruling?
15 these credit card transactions. He'd say "v~ell, I had 15 A Yes.
16 to put it on a credit card" but then the next month it 16 Q Okay. I don't want to take all the titre to do
17 would be a payment on the credit card so what difference 17 that now but if we needed to do so at a later date we
18 does it make? He would then go back and do a new 1s could. There urns no transcript at the trial. Wae there
19 spreadsheet to try and just corer that one thing you 19 atty particular reason for that? Is it the cost or
20 caught him on, like sanehow it wasn't his -- we weren't 20 s~thing of that nature?
21 understanding what he was saying so let me say it to you 21 A Yes, the cost.
22 again, he'd do another spreadsheet, so he basically wore 22 Q Okay.
23 drnm the judge's patience with this shell game because, 23 A Because the Court will not provide a court
24 as we identified in the findings, we could easily Za reporter. You had to have a private court reporter.

Page 72 Page 7:
1 Q Okay. The appeals that you've been imrolved in, 1 Q Okay. And can you recall --
2 I think you said in the area of dissolution of marriage 2 A You're talking about for all divorce work or
3 as an appellant or an appellee you've been involved in 3 just appeals?
4
five or mix at least? ,': 4 Q For the appeals.
5 A Of the actual trial on the divorce case, yes. 5 A To be honest with you on appeals, I probably
6 Q Okay. So there have been five or six cases i 6 have represented rmre men because I tend to get appeals
7 where }rou were actually involved in the underlying trial 7 of business valuation issues.
8 and then it was taken up on appeal attd }rou were imrolved ` 8 Q And that was what I was going to get into next.
9 on either ane side or the other. 9 I was going to say -- i was going to ask you on those
10 A Correct. ~i 10 appeals that you~ve been ittvolved in, whether it was for
11 Q Okay. Were there acme -- are there s~ cases 11 appellant or appellee, if you could kind of break that
12 where you have been insrolved in a dieaoluti~ of 12 dcnm ae to was there a particular e issue in a lot
13 a~rriage appeal where sr~eone else tried the underlying ': 13 of thy? I take it business valuation might have bey
14 case and then you were involved in the appeal? 14 one of the most c~aion?
15 A Yes. 15 A Yes. I'm trying to think back. For sure the
16 q How many of those would you say you have? 16 tvro biggest appeals I did both had to do with issues in
17 A I think just one. valuation of a small business, and also kind of related
is Q Okay. to that is issues of whether property is marital or
ig A For an actual trial -- divorce trial that I did non-marital which oftentimes becanes ire complicated
20 an appeal. when there's a sm~11 business that existed before the
21 Q Okay. Do you typically represent the husband or marriage so I kind of, I guess, have developed a little
22 the wife in the cases or the petitioner versus the bit of expertise with regards to small businesses, and
23 non-petiti~er? not to be sexist or anything but in the majority of
24 A Probably 50J50. cases the husband is the owner of the small business.

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 74..77
__ Page 74 Page 75
I Q Okay. And how did those appeals generally turn 1 Q Okay. And that was what I wanted to get to.
2 out if you can recall? 2 First let a~ ask you in terms of a dissolution of
3 A Well, the one was terrible because I knn i 3 marriage case -- and I'm not sure if it was the same in
everything at the trial and then lost everything on the ! 4 these appeals that you were involved in but itt
5 appeal because I had successfully at trial corrvinced the - 5 Mr. Schmid's case had an appeal actually been pursued,
6 trial court that the business was non-marital as were 6 the -- i.n the legal tezminology there is a term standard
7 all of the spin-offs fran the business and assets that 7 of review and just, you ]mow, as a lawyer and for the
8 had been acquired during the marriage all derived from 8 record can you just explain ywr understanding of that?
9 the business. The trial court agreed. The Appellate I! 9 A Well, for almost every issue in a divorce case,
10 Court reversed. 10 and certainly all the issues in this divorce case the
11 Another one I did which I had told the client ! 11 standard would have been abuse of discretion so that
12 even going into it that it was a little bit unrealistic '12 vra~ld have been a pretty tough hurdle for any appellant.
13 but with the amount of money fnvolved he felt it was 13 men if another judge might have done it a little
14 xnrth the appeal and that was with regards to valuation ! 14 differently, there's no way an Appellate Court wand
15 of a professional dental practice but it wasn't so mach ' 15 have reversed what Judge Pilmer did as abuse of
16 the valuation of the dental practice as it was ! 16 discretion.
17 underlying real estate that was owned by the dental i 17 Q And that's what -- }rou can obviously see that's
18 practice so we lost that appeal, too. ! 18 ultimately what I'm getting at but let me just break it
19 Q How many -- let a~ ask you it this vray. Whether '. 19 down a little bit --
20 you won or lost, hasa away of the appeals in which you !,20 A Sure.
21 were imrolved vrere actually -- actually resulted in the '21 Q -- before we -- before we aimmarize. Abuse of
22 Appellate Court overturning the trial court? Was it ',22 discretion is the asst difficult standard to overccmme on
23 just the one? i23 appeal.
24 A Just that one. 24 A Correct.

Page 76 Page 7
1 Q Because that means that the Appellate Court 1 reversed but, boy, it's very rare.
2 actually has to m~]ce a deternunation that the judge went 2 Q Would it be fair to say it's something, }rou
3 wtaide the bounds of his discretion -- his or her 3 know, like 99.9 percent of the time abuse of discretion
4 diacretio~n in arriving at a given ruling. 4 on the type of issues that Judge Pilax~s decided in this
5 A Correct. No other reasonable person could have ' 5 case with Mr. Schmid, they're just not going to get
6 arrived at tl~t same conclusion. 6 Overturned by as Appellate Court?
7 Q Right. And that standard allata for a great i 7 A Correct.
B deal of latitude for the judge in the underlying case to ! B Q So had Mr. Schmid appealed the Award, for
9 render a decision. I 9 exanple, the issues involved here of aaintenance or the
10 A Correct. I mean to be honest with you -- and I ', 10 division of assets, is there any question in your mind
11 do a fair amount of appellate work, I'm not an appellate i 11 that the appeal by Mr. Schmid would have failed?
12 attorney, buC i wont take a case if the only issues 12 A It mould hive failed, in my opinion.
13 that can be raised is abuse of discretion. The only 13 hIl2. TANK: To a reasonable degree of certainty?
14 appeals I've taken where I've been the appellant is when 14 Tf~ WITNESS: Yes, and S mean not -- this is not to
15 there was a question of law or a question of fact that x,15 the question that's pending but the test here is if you
16 had a manifest way to the evidence standard like, for ! 16 took swneb~dy that Imew nothing about either of these
17 example, classification of property as marital or ;'17 parties, nothing about the history of the case and just
18 non-marital based on the docunu~nts, not the credibility 18 asked them to read the judgment, there's nothing in the
19 of a witness or sanething like that, so -- because I I. 19 judgment that would pop up as saying ~~oh, wow, that
20 don't really -- I can't really think of hardly any '20 dcesn~t sound fair." It looks pretty fair without
21 situations, especially in an original divorce case, 21 Jmowing any of the history.
22 where you could establish abuse of discretion. I mean 22 tqt. SORENSEN: Q And that was one of the questions
23 I'm not saying it's never happened. You can look at the i23 I wanted to ask yau. Just looking at this judgment with
24 Appellate Court cases. There are sane that the judges 24 the history of Sarla and William Schmid, would this }~

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018
1 the normal and typical result that you would generally
2 expect a court and a judge in Kane County to have
3 rendered in a case like this?
4 A Yes. I could have predicted this result the day
5 my client walked into my office, and I'm sure I did
6 within a certain range. I alvrays identify as early on
7 in the case as I can the best you can do and the v»rorst
8 you can do and reconznend that ywz settle somewhere in
9 betvreen and this result is sct~wwhere in that range.
10 It's not outside that range at all.
11 Q Now, I Irnow you're not privy to the
12 conversations that Mr. Schmid had individually with hie
13 attorneys, Mr. Feda and Mr. Rrupp or the others, but I
14 will set out for }rou that there's see testimony by Mr.
SS itrupp in this case and it's not -- I won't get into all
16 of the details of it but Mr. Schmid, i think, agrees at
17 least to s~ extent with it that Mr. Rrupp and
is Mr. Schmid had diecussi~a that Mr. Krupp cam to
19 believe that an appeal would not be successful and he
20 recommended to Mr. Schmid that the better strategy for
21 the would be to focus on the state court and in
22 attempting to get Judge Pilmer originally in the case
23 but ultimately Judge Rsyse to try to change the
24 maintenance obligations, try to seek further relief from
Page 8(
1 Q And also during that time -- this vrould be, you
2 ]maa, in 2013 then, in the springtime and into the
3 summertime and, you 1mow, moving tovrard 2014, I guess by
4 referring to that sort of post-trial period I know you
5 had indicated earlier swnetimes that, given the nwaber
6 of cases you handle and the events of this case
7 particularly, s~times it'e hard to distinguish what
8 ha~~ned pretrial and post-trial, Mr. Krupp and I think
9 the records indicate that there were a number of tim>s
10 where you vrere filing m~tione in the state court when
11 Mr. Krupp was representing Mr. Schmid because Mr. Sck~mid i 11
12 was not doing eertaia things, not doing -- follaaing
13 through obligations with the college paya~ats or doing
14 certain -- not doing certain things with the home.
15 There are some letters in the record and if we ever need j 15
16 to ask yw about those, I can certainly pull the letters
17 and me can go through those with you but is it your
18 understanding that Mr. Schmid even after Judge Pilmer
l9 had rendered his decision was causing there to be a fair
20 annum of litigation in the state court still going on,
21 still fighting or squabbling wer things that the judge
22 had already decided that Mr. Schmid was not willing to
23 comply with?
24 A Correct.
Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
1-800-868-0061
Pages 78..81
1 the judge in those respects, to you would that semi
m to
2 have been a wise strategy given what you've already said
3 about the c2~ancea o£ the appeal?
4 A well, correct, especially once Judge Pilmer --
5 prolxbly the only issue he could have had on appeal was
6 the future modifiability of the maintenance and when the
7 judge changed that finding and changed that ruling and
e granted that small portion of the post-trial motion, I
9 think -- and Mr. Krupp got in immediately after that and
10 he identified that as basically hey, if he did lose his
11 job again and he filed a petition to modify, the Court
'! 12 would have to hear it, not have to grant it but they'd
1 13 have to hear it and that seemed to be the best chance of
i 14 getting sane relief fran the m~
maintenance award and none
'. 15 of the other issues -- and there was nothing wrong with
': 16 the division of the property or the allocation of the
17 debt so -- and I ]mow from conversations I had with Mr.
18 Krupp that -- I ~an obviously I'm not privy to
19 discussions he hid with idr. Schmid but the biggest
i 20 hurdle they had in even moving fonrard with the appeal
21 is putting together a bystander's report, and I got the
! 22 impression Fran talking to tdr. Krupp that Mr. Schmid was
:23
x very unrealistic about what could be included in a
24 bystander's report.
Page S1
1 Q That took up time and expPnae for everybody?
i 2 A Correct.
3 Q You mentioned that Judge Kruse entered an order
4 abating Mr. Schmid's obligation -- maintenance
S obligation. Does that a~an -- and I think just -- I
6 think I understand it because I thixilc you explained it a
7 little mire. That meatta that he currently has no
', 8 maintenance obligation. If and when he does obtain new
9 employment, whether it be doing hie old job at the power
10 plants or whether it would be working at A~ Depot or
acanething like that, then it can be revisited in the
'; 12 court whether or to what e~ctent he'll have an ongoing
' 13 maintenance obligation?
14 A Yes.
Q And that maintenance obligatian going forward,
16 if he does get new eag~loyment, vron't ttecessarily be a
', 17 permanent maintenance obligation, is that correct?
18 A Well, we tzy and not use the word permanent like
19 we used to because the age that people quit working is
' 20 changing so it's not like age 65 is retirement so,
21 right, it would -- the length of it would be na,~ as
22 years have gone by his age would be a significant issue
1 23 on any re-determination of maintenance.
24 Q Once a persan retires -- once a person like
www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 82..85
Page 83
1 Mr. Sclmiid officially retiree maybe abort of some 1 4 N~ --
2 part-time work, does the maintenance ~ligatiari 2 A i mean he probably did one motion for extension
3 generally change? i 3 at a tip where I think he vras trying to get Mr. Selvnid
4 A Well, it's a change -- that issue is changing so 'i 4 to just drop the appeal because I remember saying to
5 the general rule is if there's a goad faith retirement ! 5 him, I said "why are you doing another motion for
6 at or after normal retirement age, then you can seek to ! 6 extension° and he says "well, because I vrant him to give
7 modify or ternunate maintenance based on that ! 7 me permission to just dismiss the appeal and he didn~t
B retirement. 8 and the deadline was up so I did the motion for
4 Q Okay. To your Imovrledge Mr. Sclmud has not '!~ 9 extension" but that wasn't to Mr. Schmid's prejudice.
10 officially retired? 110 It was to my client's prejudice because I then had to
11 A Correct, and I don't think he's -- I think he's 11 screw around with the appeal still pending even though
12 62 or 63 so he hasn't reached norn~l retirement age, 12 he had basically told me it was going to be dismissed.
13 either. ' 13 Q Right. And that was -- when you were referring
14 Q Would you agree that ae an attorney yw vrould j 14 to that, you're just saying that tihat's -- he didn't
15 try to dissuade a client frcmi pursuing a course of ' 15 like the way that that played out. It could have -- but
16 litigation that would be both costly and uiti.m3tely a i16 it cr~a not necessarily a standard of care violation. It
17 course that would fail? 17 was just something --
18 A Yes. { 18 A Correct.
19 Q Again, I ]mow that you're not privy to all the 19 4 -- that was --
20 conversations that Mr. Krupp and Mr. Schmid may have had 1 20 A well, yes, I mean it's --
21 but do you have any reason to believe khat Mr. Krupp did !21 Q FruatratingP
22 anythittg with respect to his representation of 22 A Yes. If he's telling me that the appeal's going
23 Mr. Schmid that did not meet the standard of care? '23 to be dismissed awl then he's filing a motion for
24 A No. i 24 extension, I've got to go based on the motion for

extension, right?
Q Right.
A So --
Q Right. Nav, I don't want to go through every
page -- I'm not going through every page of this.
There's a specific answer ott this docent and aaybe we
can mark it as H~chibit -- was it 3 or 4?
MR. TANK: we11, I didn't introduce any new exhibits
during this deposition.
MR. SORENSEN: Oh, you were just referring to the
prior deposition. So maybe we could call this Doyen
Exhibit 1?
(document marked as requested)
Q So we're on the saw page?
A Yes.
Q Okay. I will represent to you that this
docu¢~nt that you're looking at, Bxhibit 1, as you can
certainly see -- and you can take the time if you
wish -- it's tir. Sehmid's aaswera to the interrogatories
that my client, Mr. Krupp, had sent to him and it was
previously Exhibit 34, I think, in Mr. Schmid's
deposition and it's verified by him at the end of the
docua~nt.
So question nwnber 17 that I'd like you to take
Page 85
1 a look at and I'd like to walk you through parts of it
2 is the question that asked him, Mr. Schmid, what
3 injuries he believes he had sustained and since quite a
4 lot of this refers to the underlying divorce matter, I
5 kind of wanted to walk through a few of these paragraphs
6 and get your take -- }roar opinion of these, and I think
7 you've touched on sane of them a little bit. To the
6 extent that saw of them are unclear to you or it's not
9 clear what his reference is then we can sort of skip
10 over it but the first paragraph where he says "there is
11 no -- " officially the second paragraph, I gases --
12 "there is no dissipation per judc„~ment cash flea
13 analysis," so he's referring back to -- this appears to
14 refer back to your testimony and to hie preparing
15 various types of spreadsheets to try to Pxplain where
16 hie funds went and to claim there was no dissipation.
17 The judge concluded even after reviewing all that that
ie there definitely did seem to be a dissipation.
19 A Correct.
20 Q Okay. I Imcnv a lot of this is going to sound
21 like Mr. Schmid's, you lmow, rearguing hie case but the
22 next paragraph, $10,000 Chapski trust account paya~nt,"
23 so he's saying that -- in this paragraph apparently that
24 he's saying that Karla used it for extraordinazy

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com

1 expenses. Do you recall this?
2 A I think wl~t he's referring to is way early on
3 in the case, the July 27 court order of 2010, prior to
4 tl~t I think it was incase tax refunds and -- m,
maybe just
5 income tax refunds but ar!yway, I was holding money in my
6 trust account that ultimately was divided 50/50 between
7 the parties and I think what he was saying is she was
8 able to use her money for whatever she vranted and he had
9 to use his money to pay the real estate takes and repair
10 damage at the house so in effect he didn't really get
11 the 10,000 because it all went out for marital expenses
12 but, yai }~ov~, my client testified at length so the
13 issue -- let me step back. He never understood what the '13
1a Court actually had to consider so what he was thinking
15 is that should have been -- he shwld have gotten credit
16 for that 10,000 because she received 10,000 and got to
17 keep it, he received 10,000 and had to spend it but in
18 order for him to succeed on that he would have had to
19 prove that she dissipated the 10,000 she received so
20 they each spent the 10,000 before we got to trial. She
21 spent hers on living expenses, other reasonable expenses 1 21
22 bacause she didn't have money from him and we didn't
23 dispute that he Y~ad spent the ttroney to pay the real
24 estate taxes and fix the lwuse, right, but the fact is
Page 87
the whole 20,000 was gone. He doesn't get a credit
against her ten. He wanted a credit to get 2~alf of her
ten back.
Q The next tyro paragraphs on that page appear to
relate to per diem eag~loyment or une~layment expeases
and Air. Schmid suggests in this answer here that he was
not allayed to fully explain it is court or at trial.
In your recollection did Mr. Schmid have acre than able
opportunity and use of deannstrative exhibits to the
Court to try to fully explain his inccm~e cash flay and
his unenaloyment or e~lcrya~nt situation?
A Yes.
Q So the Court clearly considered, in your mind,
% 14 all of these issues in arriving at his decision?
15 A Yes. He testified at least three times longer
16 timewise than Karla Schmid.
' 17 Q I think the next paragraph then where it talks
18 about $145,000 -- $145,425 indicated to be a 50/50 split
19 of marital property, I think he's talking about their --
. 20 not their h~ asset but their collection of their
various accounts but he talks about a 50/50 split.
22 Given the history of this marriage, just going into a
23 divorce in FCane County at the tiu~e in question was not
24 si.aq~ly going to automatically result in a 50/50 split of

Page 88 Page 89
1 the msrital property, would that be fair to say? 1 P No. He's completely cronflating issues there.
2 A Correct. 2 Q Do you have a recollection of what you -- what
3 Q &specially given Rarla's particular history you 3 the rough split of the assets really was in the end,
4 would have vralked in assuming that there vrould gave been 4 whether it was, you lmow, 55 --
5 a split that would have been more vreighted toward Sazla. 5 A Y~ know, the actual division of the assets was
6 A Correct. 6 fairly close, including the debt, was pretty close to
7 Q And that urould lave been the normal and expected 7 50/50 depending on how you look at the division of the
B sort of outcmte. 6 equity of the residence. You ]mow, you can do tyro
9 A Well, it caould have been arranged between 9 separate balance sheets, one is the allocation of the
10 50 percent to 60 percent for Harla but not less than 10 assets and the other is the allocation of the debts or
11 50 percent to Karla. 11 you can put all them on one balance sheet, but the way I
12 Q Right. And then the nrxt paragraph he talks -- 12 looked at it is with all the debt being paid off the top
13 he's still talking about the dissipation charge so I 13 of the sale of the house and then Karla getting -- okay,
14 guess that we don't need to go into that but it looks 14 it was 50/50, yes, so it was Uasically 50/50 but he got
15 like this may be relevant in a few paragraphs later. He 15 charged for the cash he couldn't account for and I think
16 aeea~ to be adjusting the n~bers based on, you Imow, 16 there was a previous award or attorneys fees, you }mow,
17 what he thinks was -- should or should not have been 1? but that theoretically ~,as being paid by the marital
18 avrarded. 18 estate, not paid by him.
19 Let ~ go to the last paragraph of that page 19 Q And then going to the next page vrhere he -- at
20 where he says in the last sentence "Karla actually 20 the top where you can see he's kind of whittling this
21 received from plaintiff's earnings 75/25 of $263,366' ao 21 dam is the first three paragraphs, the second paragraph
22 he's trying to make an argua~nt that Karla actually 22 talks about "$44,282 as Karla's stolen marital funds,~~
23 received a 75/25 split I think is what he seems to be 23 do you recall a discussion about that or what that
24 claiming. Did you evaluate this as a ?5/25 split? 24 relates to?

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 90..93
_.
Page 90 Page 9
1 A I have no idea what he's talking about there. maybe taken into account in the judge's division of
2 Q Attd they the next paragraph where he comae down assets?
3 to -- where he concludes in the last aenteace saying A Correct.
4 that Karla received a 92/6 split of the total mzrital Q On the next page, the third paragraph, he talks
5 estate, do you find say credibility to that sentence? in December of 2010 receiving a letter fry his
6 A No, no. It's not -- attorttey, Giampoli, indicating that Judge Roateltty,
7 Q Okay. You can see in that paragraph he's still R-O-S-T-S-L-N-Y, in a pretrial indicated maintenance of
6 talking about Rarla not vrorking and he talks about a $2500 a month and no indication of Plaintiff inc~,
9 $100,000 FIBIIAC, home equity line of credit, that Rarla uneunlaya~nt or length of maintenance, et cetera. Do
10 denied Plaintiff in 2006. Do you recall anything about you recall the prior judge indicating that he would be
11 that? inclined to award 2500 a aanth in maintenance?
12 A No, no recollection ox" that at all. A It was a she, yes, and that was actually a
13 Q And whether or not she agreed to enter into a reccinnw_ndation that was very favorable to him. I was
14 home equity line of credit with him in 2006 didn't have not happy with that recamnendation at a11.
15 any bearing on the judge's ruling on the dissolution of Q Ia there a tiu~ prior to even Mr. Feria
16 uaxriage here, did it? representing Mr. Schmid that Mr. Schmid could have
17 A They did have a hone equity line of credit in resolved this divorce on terms more favorable to himvelf
18 2006. I have no idea what he's referring to. than vrhat ultimately happened with Judge Pi].mer?
19 Q A little further down that page, I guess twn A Well, I thin}: yes because he's referring to my
za paragraphs from the bottom, it says Rarla's inheritance, letter in December 2010. I don't remember exactly what
21 $132,204, that inheritance came at a tia~ where it vras we demanded for the division of property and all that
22 not subject to becoming marital property, right? but we definitely did. We were not happy with -- xarla
23 A Correct. It was her non-marital property. Schmid and I were not happy with Judge Kostelny~s
24 Q So he ae~d to be frustrated that that was not recarm~ndation but being realistic we wanted certainty

Page 92 Page 9,
1 that there would not be gaps so we actually proposed a 1 Do you recall if that was actually 4D percent of his
2 lower number but withwt any gaps, 2,250, and the way 2 gross?
3 Sudge Kostelny had made the recetm~ndation is pay 2500 a ! 3 A Yes, that was correct.
4 month and if there's a change in circumstances, either ', 4 Q Okay. And so this would not be -- this was not
5 party can file a petition to modify which would have 5 a surprising or unreasonable result based on the way
6 meant we wnuld have just been back in court every time ! 6 these decisions are typically ode in Rane County?
7 he had a gap so tl~t's why we said well, if we can avoid :`' 7 A No. I mean typically on this length of msrriage
8 the gap, let's go for the 2250 and that offer was e if you're representing the recipient, you'd argue for an
9 rejected. I 9 equalization of the cash flow and then, of course, the
io Q A little further down it says "adding Sarla's i 10 other side wants to try and get it to 60/40 ar whatever
ii identified inheritance and stolen marital funds," et 11 so I can't tell you exactly because if we did a ca~uter
12 cetera, and it says "probably squandered on vintage 12 calculation of -- because it dwsn't always work out
13 clothing." Does that ring any bell? 13 exactly the same leased on the tax brackets but I waald
14 A No, she did not -- there was no credible 14 expect if we too};. 40 percent of his gross and he pays
~5 evidence that Karla Schmid ever dissipated any funds at 15 his maintenance, it would probably end up at about 55/45
16 any time, and a lot of what he kept going back to is he '~ 16 on the division of the cash flow which is in that --
17 granted to go back to 20 years which you cant do under ;17 v;hich is =n that range }rou vnuld expect for a marriage
18 the law anyway so -- lg this long.
X
19 Q The next paragraph he talks about the judge -- '19 Q I'm going to jug aver to --
20 Judge Pilmer's ruling itt Nov~nber of 2012, although it ' 20 MR. TANK: Ib you vtant to talk about the Elder
21 vras actually, I think, Deceaber of 2012 -- I'm sorzy, '21 Index?
22 November 15, 2012, requiring Mr. Schmid to pay 22 h4Z. SORIIJSEN: Yes.
23 40 percent of his gross income ittcludusg per diet for 23 Q I guess on the next page, the second paragraph,
24 life with a minims of 1500 a month when ttot working. 2@ the Elder Index, I guess he's -- I don't recall exectly

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018
1 if there's testiagny fray him about this but it looks
2 like he's trying to research what the sort of monthly
3 cost of living is in Michigan?
a A He had sane database where what would a person
5 Karla Schmid's age with her medical history what would
6 be the average earnings if she was employed. I don't
7 think he was ever able to get that into evidence because
6 it wasn't like fran a learned treatise or a government
study. It was just sane web, you know, Internet thing
10 he had found.
11 Q Did there just seem to be kind of a big
12 disconnect between Mr. 5ckanid and not kind of -- not
13 kind of being an the saa~ wavelength as everybody else
14 in the courtrocm and realizing that the judge was not
15 buying his arg~ente and the judge didn't feel there was
16 sufficient evidence for his arg~nnents and that he didn~t
17 lmow well enough when to give up making those axg~ents?
18 A Absolutely, correct.
19 Q And I can go through each paragraph for you if
20 vre need to, ultimately if there's a trial and we're
21 talking at that point, but I don't want to belabor it
22 but let's see if there's anything. The college coat
23 point a little further dovm toward the bottcm~ of the
24 page, I guess about the third paragraph, again, for a
Pages 94..97
Page 95
1 couple like William and Karla Schmid with their
2 history -- with the particular history of this couple
3 going through a divorce in Kane County, Mr. Schmid
4 aee~d to have -- take issue with, you ]mocv, his
responsibility for his portion of the college costa for
their two daughters. Was there -- do you recall this
issue?
A Well, yes, that's a perfect example of what we
were just saying. He doesn't listen so what he was
asking for was to be reimbursed for half of what he had
paid for college expenses prior to trial. Well,
everything that had been paid prior to trial was with
marital money so you're not entitled to reimbursement
fran the other spouse. It's paid. It's done. So then
the judge did allocate the expenses going forward and
allocated sane of those expenses to Karla Schmid, I
believe, or limited his exposure l~cause the yo;uigest
was, I believe, a freshman in college at the time the
judgment vras entered. She just started.
Q And then the ne~ct page toward the bottom of that
page, I guess about the third paragraph up, it says "the
judga~nt November 2012 gives Karla approximately from
memory 160,004 for the house valued at 160,000 due to
Karla credit card debt, 54,OD0, et cetera." Do you see

Page 96 ; Page 97
1 that paragraph? 1 A Absolutely. Xarla testified at length as to how
2 A Correct. 2 the credit card debt was incurred and it wasn't even all
3 Q Doea that ring correct to you? 3 just incurred by her. A lot of that was joint debt.
4 A No. 4 Q And the judge heard that testianm and gave it
5 Q Okay. Can you elaborate just briefly? 5 due consideration and there vrae nothing untoward shout
6 A c4e11, if the house -- first at the tires of the 6 it?
7 trial we valued the horse, I think, at 225 is what the 7 A Correct.
8 judge valued it at, and off the top would be paid sane 8 Q Would it be fair to say that in your opinion
9 rmney
m to Karla Schmid to offset assets that were awarded 9 Mr. Schmid eras not damaged by Mr. Krupp not filing an
10 appeal?
10 to William, pay off the credit card debt, which was
11 A biy opinion is Mr. Sctunid was not damaged at ail
11 marital debt, it wasn't just Karla's debt, and then
12 by failure to pursue the appeal.
12 payment of attorneys fees to my fine which then would
13 Q I think that's all I have for you. Counsel say
13 have left -- you }mow, after expenses would have left
14 have eon questions. I tried to go pretty fast.
14 maybe 120,000 to 130,000 to be divided between the two
15
15 parties so obviously the amount to be divided between
16 EXPMINATION
16 the two parties went down when the house value went down
by Ms. walczyk:
17 to 160 because you still have those same numbers that
18 have to be paid off the top but they still would have
Q All right. As I introduced ayself earlier, I
19 each gotten about 35,000 and then the house went up in
represent William Schmid. So again, I may j~ around a
20 value so he must have been going by what it was when he little bit, too, just because of scratches and
21 was forced to sell the listing agreement or sanething. everything ail wer. So going back to the trial, as to
22 Q In the middle of the page he says "Karla never the s~dical conditions of Karla, do you recall seeing
23 discussed what the $54,000 in credit card charges were any medical records being placed into eachibite at the
Zc for." Do you remember that issue c~ixtg up? trial?

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL bOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 98..101
Page 98 Page 99',
1 A No. 1 records were ever subpoenaed by any of Mr. Setmiid'a
2 ¢ Okay. Do you recall ever seeing azzy medical i 2 attorneys?
3 records fran Aarla as to her u~dical conditions? ' 3 A They were not. There may have been a discussion
4 AActual medical records? No, I don't think so. ' 4 with the judge about whether or not he would entertain
5 Q Do you recall a~ybe what you saw? ~ 5 letting subpoenas be issued but I don't think there was
6 A Prescriptions. All of her prescriptions. 6 ever actually a pleading or a court order. I think it
7 Q Do you recall if she was ever actually diagnosed i 7 was sanething that was more discussed inforn~ally in
8 by a doctor as to any one of those medical conditions 8 cha~ribers and it was suggested that they not try and do
9 that we went through earlier? ': 9 that for two reasons: One was they waited too long and,
l0 A All of them, yes. 10 tv~, it wasn't going to really be relevant anyvray.
11 Q She was diagnosed? it Q Looking at the Judga~nt for Dissolution of
12 A Yes. 12 Marriage, do you recall hav you calculated Mr. Sclmdd'e
13 Q But there's no actual medical record of that 13 incca~ when drafting your proposed jud~nt?
14 diagnosis, correct? ! 14 A Well, we didn't -- that's why we did it as a
15 A No, there is. There are medical records. I ': 15 percentage because it was so hard to figure out his
16 just haven't seen the medical records. ' 16 exact incase but we did take about a three-year history
17 Q And then they weren~t introduced at trial? 17 which covered three different jobs and included at least
18 A Cozrect. lg two gaps where there was unemplo}m~nt compensation.
19 Q Haw do you Imav that there are medical records 19 Q And that's how you reached his inetane? You took
20 then if you haven't seen them? ! 20 an average of the three yeazs, correct?
21 A Well, because I had the prescriptions that she ~21 A Correct.
22 wes prescribed for those conditions which were 122 Q Okay. You previously had testified as to that
23 prescribed by her treating physicians. !23 $10,000 that Mr. Sehmid had taken out as a cash advance.
24 Q And do you recall if any of these medical 24 Do you recall that?

Page 1.00 Page 101

1 A He took out a lot of cash advances. 1 that's what his position -- I don't remember -- maybe he
2 Q Specifically in the Judgment for Dissolution of 2 testified Co that at trial but the point being it had
3 Marriage there's the cash flaw analysis and that 3 already been resolved by a court order. She got her
4 indicated a $10,000 cash advance against his interest in I 4 ten, he got his ten. She had spent her ten as well
5 the msrital estate pursuant to court order. Do you i 5 so --
6 recall that? b Q And she spent it prior to trial as well,
7 A No. He received $10,000 -- ~ correct?
9 Q Right. S A Correct.
9 A -- out of either my trust account ar fran i 9 Q Okay. And you had previously testified that the
10 sarewhere. It was considered an advance to him out of ' 1Q Judcgnent for Dissolution of Marriage that was ultimately
11 the marital estate. ! 11 entered by the Court was similar to the judgu~ent that
12 Q Aad -- 12 you had -- proposed judgment that you had aulanitted, is
13 A I thought you meant a cash advance on a credit 13 that correct?
14 card. '! 14 A Correct.
15 Q No. Sorry. I should have clarified it. The ~ 15 Q And you testified that was -- you think that the
16 $10,000 cash advance was what you previously testified ' 16 judge perhaps used yaur judgment versus Mr. Feda's
17 that he had spent previous to trial, correct? " 17 because he didn't have enough in hie judgment, is that
16 A Correct. 18 correct?
19 Q And then that was used towards real estate taxes ': 19 MR. TANK: Objection. Foundation, form.
20 and homy iaQroveaieata? 20 T IE WITNESS: I can answer it. His proposed
21 A I was reading off his Answers to Interrogatories 21 judgment was too unrealistic so in my experience when
22 where he was saying that's what he spent it on. 22 the judge does it this way where they request to receive
23 Q Okay. 23 those judgments in Word forn~t which is key because sane
2a A So I don't lmow what he spent it on. I mean 24 judges don't want it in Word format because they 4rant to

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 102..105
Page 103
1 do their own document and you laww they're going to do j 1 A Correct.
2 their own documznt so they request it just in a PDF, but I 2 Q 0}cay. And do you recall what factors, I guess,
3 when they request it in Word, they're going to do one of ~ 3 you used in your proposed judgment to come to the
4 three things. They 7e either going to use the 4 40 percent?
5 petitioner's proposed judgment and rework it 1~ased on 5 A Well, the way I arrived at the 40 percent was by
6 what they think needs to be changed or they're going to 6 using a computer program we call Fin Plan where you non
7 use the respondent's proposed judgment and rek~ork it to ~ 7 scenarios so they're in different tax brackets
8 make whatever changes the judge thinks needs to be made 8 theoretically. You know, if you're getting Che right
9 ar they're going to read both and then just still create 9 number for his income, he's still going to be in a
10 a third document which is their own document. So I~ve 10 higher tax bracket and he's got to pay self-employment
11 seen it all three ways ~t generally if you can te11 the ','ll tax where she doesn't have to pay self-employment tax on
12 judge is using your proposed judgment,
me that means yours 12 the maintenance. So basically if you do a 60/40
13 was closer to what the judge was looking for than the ' 13 division of the gross incane, you~re going to end up
14 other side's but they still make changes to it and so 14 with about a 55/45 division of the net available cash
15 that's all I think happened here is there was so little 15 flow and that's generally -- as a petitioner you ask for
16 in Mr. Sctunid~s proposed judgment that the judge was '; 16 50 and you're hoping to get 55 and probably the worst
17 actually going to implement so you're just -- it's 17 you'll get is -- I mean you're hoping to get 45 and the
18 really just what's quicker, righC, so it's easier to j18 worst you'll get is 40 so this vras right in the middle
19 start working off a petitioner's proposed judgment ', 19 of that range for the rt~intenance.
20 because I'm not goi~ to make as many changes to it. ;20 Q And in your experience is an inheritance ever
21 M5. WALCZYK: Q And then going bacl: to the 21 considered a marital asset?
22 maintenance award, the 40 percent of his gross incase, '22 A Never, unless sanebody does sanething to convert
23 the 40 percent, this wasn't a statutory nwnUer, correct, 'i 23 it but the inheritance is always non-marital.
24 like, for example, on child support? 24 Q And what would someone knave to do to convert it

Page 104 Page 105

1 into a marital asset? ~ 1 Q Okay.
2 A Use it to buy property that~s titled jointly '. 2 A As I said before, I could have told you the
3 between the two parties is the biggest example. You ' 3 results of this case the day my client walked into my
4 ]mow, you get an inheritance, you buy a house, you put 4 office in 2009.
5 the spouse's name on the house, y~ basically converted ' S Q Do you think that at that tune prior to the
6 the inheritance to a m~sital asset. 6 trial starting in Februazy would the judge consider
7 Q And in this case the inheritance was never ' ~ continuing the trial again?
8 converted. 8 A No. i~tell, the only thing that surprised me
9 A Never co-m?ngled, never converted. 9 was -- it didn't surprise me that the judge granted the
10 Q Okay. You had also previously testified that 10 continuance over my objection. I eras sanewhat surprised
;11 he was able to find us a date so soon after but it was a
11 Mr. Feria really had about a month to prepaze for this
12 full four weeks and, you }mow, if you have atrial
12 trial, is that correct?
13 caning up, T mean, I wouldn't have started trial
13 A I think -- and it's a while ago but I'm pretty
14 preparation ti11 a couple weeks before, either, right,
~ 14 sure that he was hired at least a week before the court
15 so --
15 date because I remember being contacted and asking ii I
16 MS. WALCZYK: I think that's all for me.
16 x~uld agree to continue the trial and telling him no 1~
MR. TANK: I've got one c?uick follow-up.
17 l~cause he wanted to take that into consideration before i$
18 deciding to get into the case, so wh=_ther that was a
19 FURTHER EXAMINATION
19 week before or -- it 4ras sometime before the date he
by Mr. Tank:
20 entered his appearance. ; 20
21 Q Do you think that was a reasonable azmunt of i21 Q You mentioned that a person once they reach the
22 time to prepare for a trial, the amount of time that 22 age of retire~at if they have a good faith retirement
23 Mr. Feria had? 23 they can ask Y,he Court to modify or end their
24 A Yes. 24 maintenance obligation. At what age would it be

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Pages 106..109
Page 107
1 appropriate for someone to go in to court to make that 1 Q Okay. And that was after the house had sold,
2 request? 2 right?
3 A Well, it's changing so it also depends on the 3 A Correct.
4 occupation so if it's heavy wank, you ]mow, police 4 Q So is it fair to eay that Mr. Schmid was not
5 officer, fireman, I have one right now in Cook County 5 going to be able to get the judge to agree to abate his
6 where it's an FAA air traffic controller, it's msndatoiy b maintenance or alter his maintenance until he started
7 retirement so obviously that's good faith so -- but 7 ct~lying with the requiremettta that the Court was
8 generally that age has probably been pushed back fran 65
8 asking hiss to c~ly vrith, like particularly with his
9 to 67 over the last ten years.
9 house?
10 Q Okay.
10 A Correct. Let's -- in the discussions I had with
11 FURTHER EXAMINATION
11 his attorney they only agreed to get into the case if he
by Mr. Sorensen:
12 wild come to his senses because they basically pointed
12
13 out to ium "if we go in to court and the horse still
13 Q ltivo last questions and I~11 tzy to be as quick
14 hasn't sold and you still haven't paid any of these
14 as I can. Mr. Sclmtid did not c~ly with the
15 arrearages and you only show up when you're not ctivrking,
15 obligations of -- the obligations of the December 30,
16 when you are working we can't find you, he's not going
lb 2014, order entered by Judge Rruse. That was the order
17 that said that he would make a payment of $135,000 to 17 to do anything for you" so his attorney actually
18 buy out an interest and that if he didn't ecagly, this 18 approached me to do an P.greed Order to streamline the
19 order could then be stricken or, you Imav, changed? 19 sale of the house before making a pitch to the judge to
20 A Vacated, right. 20 allow the maintenance to be at~ated.
21 Q Vacated. My question is -- and ultimately he 21 Q So Mr. Schmid before -- until he started
22 did get hie maintenance abated, and I can't recall the 22 ccmglying with the court orders and there was -- chances
23 date of that. Was that in 2017? 23 vrere slim to none that he vrould get any ability to
24 A That was effective July 1, 2017. 24 affect his maintenance obligation.

Page 109
1 A Correct. 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 1

2 Q Okay. And could we get a copy of that most ss:

3 recent order? 2 don't think we have that. 2 COUNTY OF COOK )

4 A Sure.
5 Q Before we leave? The within and foregoing deposition of the
aforementioned witness was taken before REGINA E.
6 A Yes.
GEBERT, CSR and Notary Public, at the place, date and
7 Q Okay. Thanks.
time aforementioned.
8 MR. TPNK: I'm all set. Signature? You understand
There were present during the taking of the
9 signature?
deposition the previously named counsel.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
The said witness was first duly sworn and was
11 MR. TANK: Waive or reserve?
then examined upon oral interrogatories; the questions
12 THE WITNESS: I'll waive signature.
and answers were taken down in shorthand by the
13 {WHEREUFY~N the deposition was concluded at 3:40 p.m.1
undersigned, acting as stenographer and Notary Public;
19
and the within and foregoing is a true, accurate and
15 complete record of all of the questions asked of and
16 answers made by the aforementioned witness, at the time
17 and place hereinabove referred to.
18 The signature of the witness was waived by
19 agreement of counsel.
20 The undersigned is not interested in the within
21 case, nor of kin or counsel to any of the parties.
22
23
24

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 MICHAEL DOYEN - 04/12/2018 Page 110
Page 110
1 Witness my official signature and seal as
2 Notary Public in and for Cook County, Illinois, on this
3 20th day of Anril, A.D. 2018.
4
5
6
7

9 REGINA E. GEHERT, CSR

CSR No. 084-002972
SO 311 South Wacker Drive,
Suite 350
11 Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: (312) 386-2000
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago

1-800-868-0061 www.deposition.com
 Page 1 Page 3
STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 1 I N DEX
SS: 2 WITNESS: PAGE
COUNTY OF KANE ) 3 ROBERT J. KRUPP
4 Examination by:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 16TH NDICIAL CIRCUIT g MS. WALCZYK............................ 4
KANE COUNTY,ILLINOIS
MR.TANK............................... 40
) 6 MR. SORENSEN........................... 44
WILLIAM F. SCHIviID,
~ MR. TANK............................... ~5
~ 7 MR. SORENSEN........................... 55
Plaintiff,
8
vs. )No. IS L 395 9
~ 10
ROBERT J. KRUPP,THE LAW ) 11
OFFICES OP ROBERT J. KRUPP, ) 12
P.C., WILLIAM A. FEDA,and ) 13
McNAMEE & MAHONEY,LTD., ) EXHIB I TS
14
Defendants. ) NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION
15
The discovery deposition ofROBERT J. KRUPP, Krupp Deposition Cxhibit No. 1 .............. I S
taken under oath on September 13, 20]7, at 990 South 16 Krupp Deposition Exhibit No. 2 ..............23
Bartlett Road, Bartlett, Illinois, pursuant to the
Krupp Deposition Exhibit No. 3 ..............24
Rules ofthe Supreme Court ofIllinois and the Code of 1~ Krupp Deposition Exhibit No.4 ..............44
Civil Procedure, before Kerry L. I:napp, a CSR. License
No. 084-003613, pursuaz~t to notice. 18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Page 2 Paqe 4
1 APPEARANCES: 1 (Witness sworn.)
2 THE GOOCH FIRM, 2 ROBERT J. KRUPP,
BY: MS. SABINA D. WALCZYK
3 209 South Main Street 3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
Wauconda, Illinois 60054 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
4 for the plaintiff;
5 EXAMINATION
5
LAW OFFICES OF EDW~1FtD J. KOZEL, 6 BY
6 BY: MR. DAVID SORENSEN 7 MS. WALCZYK:
333 South Wabash Avenue, 25th Floor
g
7 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Q All right. Good afternoons Mr. Krupp• Can
for the defendants 9 you please state and spell your name.
8 Robert J. Krupp: and 10 A Robert J. Krupp, K-r-u-p-p.
The Law Offices of Robert J. Krupp,P.C.;
g 11 Q And have you ever been deposed before?
10 LIPE LYONS MURPHY NAHRSTADT & PONTIKIS, LTD., 12 A No.
BY: MR. JORDAN TANK
11 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 2260 13 Q Okay' Have you ever taken a dePosition
Chicago; Illinois 60606 14 before?
12 for the defendants 15 A Yes.
William A. Feda and
16 Q OkaY• And You understand how this works
13 McNamee &Mahoney, Ltd.
14 17 that you wait for me to ask my full question and then
15
18 you give the answer so we're not talking over each
1.
6j 19 other; correct?
18 20 A Yes.
19
20 21 Q Thank you.
21 22 Ho~v long have you been licensed for?
Zz 23 A 1983 I was licensed.
23
24 24 Q Okay. And what type of law do you practice?

1 (Pages 1 to 4)
EXHIBIT
URBANS ~ PANY
a
.
9
 Page 5 Page 7
1 A Generat practice. 1 MS. WALCZYK: Sure.
2 Q Do you do a lot of appellate work? 2 THE WITNESS: Do you have a bill?
3 A A lot, no. 3 MR. SORENSEN: That's the last couple pages.
q Q Roughly, per month, how many appeals do you 4 THE WITNESS: ]f you have a bill. I don't know.
5 have? 5 I truly don't know.
6 A Per career? 6 BY MS. WALCZYK:
7 Q Per month. 7 Q Okay. Do you recall if you and Mr.Schmid
8 A Per career, maybe half a dozen to a dozen. 8 executed a written retainer agreement?
9 Q Per career. Okay. 9 A We did not.
l0 What is your current hourly rate? 10 Q Did not. Okay.
11 A I don't know. I can ask, but I don't know. 11 So is it true you and Mr. Schmid
12 Q Okay. Do you recall the hourly rate or the 12 entered into an oral retainer agreement?
13 rate you were charging Mr. Schmid? 13 A Yes.
14 A I do not recall, but if I look at a bill -- 14 Q Okay. Do you recall the terms of that oral
15 do you want me to look at a bill? 15 agreement?
16 Q Please. 16 A I suppose that I told him my hourly rate and
17 A 225 for non-court, 275 for court. 17 that we would send out bills and he had to pay a
18 Q Okay. And do you recall if this is the same 18 retainer.
19 hourly rate you charged 1►im for fhe appellate work you 19 Q And you would send out bills monthly?
20 were doing? 20 A No. Bill didn't have a lot of money, so I
21 A Same rate for whatever 1 did for him. 21 think we -- I thought we maybe tried to do it, butI
22 Q Okay. And eve are currently in your office; 22 don't -- maybe every few months he got a bill. You'd
23 correct? 23 have to look at the bill. I don't have much to do
24 A It is. 24 with the billing.

Page 6 Page 8
1 Q Okay. And what is the address of your 1 Q Okay. And do you recall what the retainer
2 office? 2 amount was?
3 A 990 South Bartlett Road, Bartlett, Illinois. 3 A $6,000.
4 Q Okay. And hotiv long have you been at this 4 Q And was that paid by Mr. Schmid?
5 location? 5 A Somebody paid part -- different people paid
6 A 1992. 6 different parts of it.
~ Q Okay. And how do you know Mr. Schmid? 7 Q Was it paid in full?
8 A Mr. Schmid was a refen•al from a very good 8 A Yes. I want to say part was on a credit
9 friend of mine. 9 card and maybe somebody -- a relative gave him a
10 MR. TANK: No longer friends, right? 10 check. I don't recall. But it was paid in full.
11 THE WITNESS: No. He is my dear friend. 11 Q Okay. And was filing the appeal part of
12 BY MS. WALCZYK: 12 your retainer agreement?
13 Q Did Mr. Schmid contact you? 13 A Yes.
14 A Yes. 14 Q And that was covered by the $6,400 retainer?
15 Q Okay. Do you recall when that was? 15 A Well, yes. 1 would bill against that
16 A I do not. 16 retainer.
17 Q Okay. Do you recall the year Mr. Schmid l~ Q Right.
18 contacted you? 18 A Hm-hmm. Yes.
19 A I do not. Icould guess. Would you like a 19 Q And then after the $6,000 was gone, you
20 guess? 2D would send him a bill for more money; is that correct?
21 Q No, thank you. That's all right. Thanks. 21 A Correct.
22 MR. SORENSEN: You may refer to your billing if 22 Q Okay. Did you end up sending him a bill for
23 that would help or something else maybe. 23 more money?
24 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to look? 24 A I thought we did. Our records showed that

2 (Pages 5 to 8)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 9 Page 11
1 he still owes about $5,000 that has never been paid, 1 Q I'm sorry about that.
2 but... 2 Do you recall what documentation you
3 Q Okay. And do you rec:~ll for what purpose 3 had asked him to prepare?
4 Mr.Schmid hired you? 4 A Probably the first thing would be to
5 A Mr. Schmid had wanted to prosecute an appeal 5 familiarize himself with the appellate court website.
6 from a dissolution of marriage proceeding -- 6 I told him where the appellate court was located so he
~ Q Okay. 7 could do the running around and prepare a bystander's
e A -- among other things. 8 report.
g Q And did you agree to represent Mr. Schmid in 9 Q Do you recall when you asked Mr. Schmid to
10 the -- 10 prepare these reports?
11 A I did. 11 A No,I don't recall.
12 Q Okay. And do you recall why you agreed to 12 Q Okay. Why did you tell Mr.Schmid to
13 represent Mr. Schmid? 13 prepare these bystander reports?
14 A He relayed the facts to me and it sounded 14 A Because he was of limited resources and T
15 like he got a pretty bad deal on a divorce, I want to 15 thought this would be a way for him to keep his costs
16 say, settlement -- I don't want to say settlement -- 16 down.
17 judgment. 17 Q Did Mr. Schmid prepare these bystander
18 Q Did you believe that filing an appeal had 18 reports that you asked?
19 merit? 19 A He prepared documents, yes.
20 A At our first meeting, l suppose I did. I 20 Q Okay. Did you get a chance to ►•eview the
21 don't know. 21 bystander reports?
22 Q Okay. Do you recall what facts he stated? 22 A I'm sure he andI did, yeah, together, yes.
23 A He would have stated that he was paying 23 Q Okay. Did you have any input as to the
24 maintenance, that his ex-wife got a disproportionate 24 reports that he prepared?

Page 10 Page 12
1 share of assets, that he had to pay for college, and 1 A No. He would prepare what his thoughts were
2 that he was unemployed. 2 and then drop them off here.
3 Q Do you recall telling Mr. Schmid that the 3 Q Okay. And then going through those reports,
4 appeal would be a surefire win? 4 when he would drop them off, did you call him
5 A No, ma'am. 5 afterwards or have any communication --
6 Q Do you recall telling Mr. Schmid that the 6 A I would imagine we would have called or
7 appeal was easily winnable? 7 texted or emailed, yeah. Bill didn't have -- I don't
8 A No, ma'am. 8 recall bill having a motor vehicle. So it would be
9 Q And do you recall telling Mr. Schmid that 9 hard for him to come here very often.
10 the appeal was a slam dunk? 10 Q Okay. And were you aware that Mr. Schmid
11 A No. 11 did not have a legal education?
12 Q And did you file the notice of appeal? 12 A That he was -- are you asking me did I know
13 A No, I did not. 13 that he was not a lawyer?
14 Q Do you recall who did? 14 Q Correct.
15 A Mr. Feda did, F-e-d-a. 15 A I did know that he was not a lawyer.
16 Q Did you ask Mr. Schmid to prepare any 16 Q Okay. And then you mentioned that you had
17 documents to support the appeal? ~ 17 instructed Mr. Schmid to go to the appellate court
18 A I told Mr. Schmid, because his resources 18 website; correct?
19 were very limited, that, yes, there was work he could 19 A I did.
20 do to limit costs. 20 Q And did you speak to him about preparing the
21 Q Do you recall -- sorry. Were you finished? 2i bystander reports after he had gone to these ~veUsites?
22 A No, but that's okay. 22 A I suspect at some point we talked about
23 Q Go ahead. 23 that, yes.
24 A No. Now I've lost my train of thought. 24 Q Do you recall what was said?

3 (Pages 9 to 12)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 13 Page 15
1 A Specifics, no. 1 A Well, it was over in the corner at that
2 Q Okay. And did you ask the trial court to 2 time.
3 approve these bystander reports that Mr.Schmid had 3 Q Okay.
4 drafted? 4 MR.SORENSEN: C-r-u-z?
5 A No. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. Judge Cruz.
6 Q Why not? 6 MS. WALCZYK: All right. I am going to mark
7 A Because we didn't prepare the bystander 7 this as Exhibit 1.
8 reports. 8 (Whereupon, Krupp Deposition
9 Q And why weren't they prepared? 9 Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
10 A Because we decided to take a different 10 identification.)
11 approach on his case. 11 MR.SORENSEN: It's, for the record, marked
12 Q Do you recall what the different approach 12 Bates stamped Krupp, K-r-u-p-p, 670 to 671.
13 was? 13 BY MS. WALCZYK:
14 A I do. 14 Q I've handed you Exhibit No. 1, Mr. Krupp.
15 Q Can you please describe it? 15 Do you recall ever seeing this document?
16 A Well, but this --you're going to need a 16 A I do not recall today, but ifthis is what
17 timeline to understand it. Do you want me to get into 17 Mr. Schmid said he prepared, then I'm sure he gave it
18 that detail for you? 18 to me.
19 Q Sure. 19 Q Okay. Can you identify what the document
20 A Okay. The more research 1 did on this case, 20 is?
21 the more 1 saw that an appeal was going to be an 21 A Well, it purports to be a four-way
22 uphill battle. This would be a Sisyphean task. 22 settlement conference -- no. I guess it's his notes.
23 I had to do that just because you don't 23 How's that? Mr. Schmid's notes.
24 know llow to spell Sisyphean. 24 Q Okay. And then you did not prepare this;

Page 14 Page 16
1 THE COURT REPORTER: Right. Thank you. 1 correct?
2 THE WITNESS: So 1 told him that I think the 2 A No, ma'am.
3 better approach -- and we`re jumping ahead now -- the 3 Q Okay. Do you recall asking Mr•. Schmid to
4 better approach would be to approach the trial judge 4 prepare this type of document for you?
5 via motions and not do an appeal. 5 A Probably I would have, yeah.
6 I didn't think, based on what I read of 6 Q Does that look like, perhaps, one of the
7 his transcripts and the judgments and the case law, 7 bystander reports that Mr. Schmid --
8 that it would be successful. And that's what I told 8 A Could be.
9 Mr. Schmid. 9 Q Okay. Do you recall when you first saw this
10 BY MS. WALCZYK: 10 document?
11 Q That the appeal would not be successful? 11 A 1 do not.
12 A Correct. 12 Q Okay. Mr. Krupp,if you could look at the
13 Q Okay. Do you recall what Mr.Schmid said to 13 bottom of the first page and there's a line that
14 you after you explained everything to him? 14 starts with, Bob.
15 A Well, we went -- I'm sure we talked about 15 A Yes.
16 this at length. And at one point -- I'm thinking it 16 Q Is that referring to you,short for Robert?
17 was in April or so right before Iwithdrew -- I said, 17 A I didn't prepare this, so I can't answer
18 I'm not going to -- We're not going to pursue the 18 that.
19 appeal, Bill. I would rather attack this case in the 19 Q Okay.
20 state court with Judge Cruz, C-r-u-z. And he 20 MR.TANK: What's the number?
21 acknowledged fine, that's okay. In fact, I sat right 21 MR.SORENSEN: 670 to 671. It's the bystander
22 in that chair in the corner and had that conversation 22 report from April 6,?010 -- or it says 4/6/2010 in
23 with him. 23 the top left.
29 Q Not in your chair? 24
.r~ ., ~ .._~, ~. ,..,~w..~ _.A~ .~~., ,. ~~ ~.~,, ~~. ~ .. . ~ ... ~
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 17 Page 19
1 BY MS. WALCZYK: 1 texts and phone calls.
2 Q And, Mr. Krupp,if you could please review 2 Q Okay. And do you recall how many times you
3 that Inst statement, it continues onto the second 3 spoke with him on the phone?
4 page,that starts with, Bob,this is extremely 4 A I do not.
5 important. Let me know when you finish. 5 Q Okay.
6 A Am I supposed to read all ofthis on Page 2? 6 A A lot.
~ Q Just until the dot, dot, dot, right before 7 Q A lot. Okay.
8 .02. About six lines in. 8 Do you recall ho~v many times you
9 A Okay. l read it. 9 communicated with Mr.Schmid via email?
10 Q Okay. And do you think -- do you believe 10 A I do not.
11 that this statement, perhaps, is a note to you from 11 Q Okay. And you had mentioned that you have
12 Mr.Schmid? 12 received texts from Mr.Schmid?
13 A I don't have an opinion. 13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. And did you talk to Mr.Schmid about 14 Q And do you recall how many text messages you
15 this? 15 received?
16 A I don't recall. I truly don't recall this, 16 A I'm sorry. I do not.
17 so... 17 Q Okay. Did you always respond to Mr.Schmid
18 Q Okay. The statement states that -- the 18 when he would email you?
19 first line, I am missing gold coins. Feda asked Carla 19 A 1 thought so, but I thought there was
20 at trial. 20 something -- l thought 1 was very accessible and
21 Did you file anything with the tc•ial 21 responsive, yes.
22 court regarding these gold coins? 22 Q Okay.
23 A Nope, 23 A 1 don't remember him ever complaining that I
24 Q Okay. Do you know if the gold coins have 24 wasn't.

Page 18 Page 20
1 been found? 1 Q Okay. Did you always respond to Mr. Schmid
2 A i do not. 2 when lie would text you?
3 Q Okay. Do you recall how many times you met 3 A Whether it's emails, text or phone calls,
4 with Mr. Schmid after he retained you and before you 4 yes, or if he appeared here in person, yes, 1 would
5 withdrew? S respond.
6 A I do not. 6 Q Okay. And I think, Mr. Krupp, you touched
7 MR. SORENSEN: How many times he what? 7 on this previously.
8 MS. WALCZYK: Met with him. 8 Do you recall having a conversation
9 MR. SORENSEN: Oh,okay. 9 with Mr.Schmid that the ne~v trial court judge vas
10 BY MS. WALCZYK: 10 coming in place of Jadge Pilmer?
11 Q Approximately, do you know? More than I O 11 A Weil, the case got assigned to Judge Cruz.
12 times? 12 Judge Pilmer, I think he left that courthouse. So I
13 A I'm sure it was more than l0 times. 13 think the case just got assigned to Judge Cruz.
14 Q More than 50 times? 14 Q Okay. I understand.
15 A I'm sure it was more than 50 times. 15 Do you recall what you told Mr.Schmid
16 Q Okay. 16 about the reassignment, if anything?
17 A Mr. Schmid would come to my office here and 17 A I don't.
18 wait for me if I was in court. And even if he didn't 18 Q Okay. And you had mentioned that you spoke
19 have an appointment, he would just sit here and wait 19 with Mr.Schmid in regards to focusing more on motions
20 to talk to me. So I usually didn't bill him for all 20 in trial court rather than filing an appeal; correct?
21 that. So I don't know how many times. But it was a 21 A In the fall of whenever I started with him,
22 lot. 22 April of 2013, in the fall is when I figured this
23 Q Okay. 23 appeal is not going to wrork, so we should approach it
24 A I also was available to him via emails and 24 through Judge Cruz.

5 (Pages 17 to 20)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 21 Page 23
1 Q Okay. Then do you recap what Mr.Schmid 1 your recollection as to the first date?
2 said? 2 A I'm sure there is somewhere in this world,
3 A He agreed that that strategy was a better 3 yes.
4 strategy. 4 Q Okay. And you filed a motion for extension
5 Q Were you done? I'm sorry. 5 of time to file the appellate brief; correct?
6 A Because I took a breath, you thought I was 6 A Several, yes.
7 going to say more? 7 Q Do you recall when the first time was?
8 Q Yes. 8 A l do not.
9 A No. 9 Q Okzy. Do you recall why you filed it?
10 Q 0►cay. Do you know if Mr. Schmid told you — 10 A Probably becauseI was still doing work and
11 or strike that. 11 research.
12 Did Mr. Schmid tell you that he still 12 Q Okay. I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 2.
13 wanted the appeal? 13 (Whereupon, Krupp Deposition
14 A He did not. The conversation was forego the 14 Exhibit No. 2 was marked for
15 appeal, focus on the trial court. And he understood 15 identification.)
16 that. We talked for several minutes and he said, 16 BY MS. WALCZYK:
17 Okay. 17 Q Mr. Krupp, I'm handing you what 1've marked
18 Q So he agreed to forego the -- 18 as Exhibit 2. Have you ever seen this document
19 A He did. 19 before?
20 Q Okay. And this was in fall 2013? 20 A Probably, yes.
21 A Yes. 21 Q Do you recall preparing this document?
22 MR. SORENSEN: Just hang on until she's done 22 A I do not recall preparing it.
23 with her question before you answer. You're -- 23 Q Okay. Is that your signature on Page 2?
29 THE WITNESS: I'm just excited to answer. 24 A Yes.

Page 22 Page 24
1 MR. SORENSEN: Iknow. 1 Q Okay. And what is the date of this
2 MS. WALCZYK: Thank you. 2 document?
3 MR. SORENSEN: Just give her that extra second. 3 A Do you mean the file date?
9 It will be a clearer record. 4 Q Yes.
5 BY MS. WALCZYK: 5 A May 20, 2013.
6 Q Do you recall telling Mr. Schmid that 6 Q And can you please identify this document?
7 Judge Cruz would be more favorable to him? 7 A It says, Motion For Leave To File Substitute
8 A Yes. The context of that was we were 8 Appearance And To Extend Time To File Appellant's
9 getting inundated with motions by Mr. Schmid's ex-wife 9 Brief.
10 and her attorney. So I was appearing a tot in court 10 Q Okay. And, Mr. Krupp, if you can look at
11 defending him. And we started to win some of those il Paragraph 3 of this document on Page 1.
12 motions. 12 A Yes.
13 So that told me that Judge Cruz was at 13 Q Can you read that to yourself, please.
14 least listening to our arguments. Biil Schmid was 14 A Yes,I did.
15 disliked by all the other judges that heard this case. 15 Q Okay. And does that refresh your
16 That was very clear to me, judges whoI considered to 16 recollection as to why you filed a motion for
17 be very bright, judgesIknew as lawyers, and they 17 extension of time during this time?
18 didn't believe a thing he said. Well, here is a judge 18 A My recollection is not refreshed, but I
19 who is actually listening to us. 19 would imagine that's a good reason.
20 So, yes, I did say that and that's why. 20 Q Okay. I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 3?
21 Q Okay. Do you recall the first due date of 21 (Whereupon, Krupp Deposition
22 the appellate brief? 22 Exhibit No. 3 was marked for
23 A Ido not. 23 identification.)
24 Q Would there be anything that would refresh 24

6 (Pages 21 to 24)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 25 Page 27
1 BY MS. WALCZYK: 1 that -- various motions for extension...
2 Q Mr. Krupp, I have handed you Exhibit 3. Can 2 MS. WALCZYK: Okay. Yeah, so then T don't have
3 you please state the date on the document. 3 to go through each one and ask the same thing.
4 A July 26, 2013. 4 MR. SORENSEN: Yeah.
5 Q Okay. And do you recall drafting this 5 BY MS. WALCZYK:
6 document? 6 Q Do you recall if Mr. Schmid physically went
7 A I do not. 7 to the appellate court to file motions?
8 Q Did you draft this document? 8 A I can't say that I saw him go, but I'm
9 A I'm sure I did. 9 pretty sure when he left here with documentation that
10 Q Okay. And are you able to identify this 10 that's where he drove to.
11 document? 11 Q And would he email you or mail you or --
12 A It says, Appellant's Second Motion To Extend 12 A He wasn't really real email savvy on
13 Time To File Appellant's Brief. 13 documents. He could correspond. So he would mail it
14 Q Okay. And if you could please turn to 14 or probably drive -- if he had access to a vehicle, he
15 Page 2 of the document and review Paragraphs 5 and 6. 15 might have driven it back. I don't know.
16 A Okay. 16 Q Okay. Do you recall why he did that?
17 Q And Paragraph 6,that adds a little bit more 17 A Why he drove to the appellate court?
18 information as to why you requested an additional time 18 Q Correct.
19 to file the appellate brief; is that correct? 19 A Well; that was part of our -- my suggestion
20 A Additional information? 20 was to limit his costs that he do the footwork.
21 Q Yes, as compared to the previous exhibit? 21 Q Okay.
22 A Yes. This Paragraph 6 ~~~as not in the other 22 A So that would be why he would have done it.
23 one. 23 Q So you asked him to drive to the appellate
24 Q Okay. And Paragraph 6,the first sentence 24 court or did --

Page 26 Page 28
1 states, Further, it has come to light that there are 1 A Well, I would have suggested -- it's up to
2 additional documents that will be necessary for 2 him. If you want to save money, that would be --
3 appellants counsel to review with appellant. 3 Q Did he offer to go?
4 Do you recall what those documents 4 A I don't recall if he made the offeror I
5 were? 5 suggested that he'd save money that way.
6 A I do not. 6 Q Okay. Do you recall seeing the May 7th,
7 Q Okay. And the last paragraph — excuse me, 7 2014, appellate court order that gave the appellant 10
8 the last sentence states, Furthermore,the appellant 8 days to file tl~e appellate brief?
9 has not yet completed a bystander's report. 9 A I do.
10 At that time, is it true that 10 Q Okay. And was that appellate filed by the
11 Mr. Schmid had not drafted a bystander report for you? 11 due date?
12 A Well, he probably drafted documents forme 12 A No.
13 to put into the form or shape of a bystander's report. 13 Q Do you recall why that did not happen?
14 So 1 would imagine that's what it means. 14 A Because prior to that Mr. Schmid and I
15 Q Okay. Thank you. 15 changed our plan of attack, our strategy, if you will.
16 Sorry. I want to see which ones we 16 Q Do you have any documentation from
17 can -- 17 Mr.Schmid agreeing to not go forward with the appeal?
18 MR.SORENSEN: No problem. 18 A No,I don't have a piece of paper that he
19 She's trying to avoid the Sisyphean 19 signed off on.
20 task of going through atl of this. 20 Q Your recollection is that he orally agreed
21 THE WITNESS: I get it. That's a very good 21 to this?
22 idea. 22 A It is.
23 NIR. SORENSEN: I think we could probably 23 Q And the appellate court ultimately dismissed
24 stipulate that if you have court stamped documents 24 the appeal; is that correct?
C

7 (Pages 25 to 28)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 29 Page 31
1 A I believe that's true. 1 or thoughts that come into my head or theories and put
2 Q Do you know why that vas? 2 those on that tape. From that tape, then I construct
3 A Because we didn't prosecute it any further, 3 what -- my memo or brief or whatever it is I'm working
4 I would assume. 4 on.
5 Q And did you file anything with the appellate 5 Q Was there anything else that you had done?
6 court asking the court to reconsider dismissing the 6 A No. That was a lot. Because I also had to
~ appeal? 7 go through the court file and every -- this case went
8 A I did not. 8 through many attorneys. So I had to -- I went through
9 Q Why not? 9 all the stuffthat went on before to bring me up to
10 A Because we had changed our strategy. 10 speed. That's when I came to the decision this isn't
11 Q And that.vas the strategy that Mr.Schmid 11 going anywhere.
12 agreed to; is that correct? 12 Q Okay. And did you bill Mr. Schmid for all
13 A Yes, that is the strategy he agreed to. 13 those hours?
14 Q Okay. Again, you don't have any 14 A I billed him for most, but I did trot bill
15 documentation showing that he actually agreed to this; 15 him -- did not even bill him close to all I spent. He
16 correct? 16 never got billed for telephone calls or emails or
17 A 1 have nothing in writing that says that. 17 texts or things ofthat nature. Even if he showed up
18 All I have is my word. 18 here, if he was only here for five or ten minutes, I
7- 9 Q Other than filing the motions for extension 19 didn't send him bills.
20 of time,can you tell me what else you did in 20 Q And do you recall how much time you spent
21 furtherance of filing an appeal? 21 researching?
22 A In terms of work on the appeal? 22 A Well, the preparation work, Iwould -- I
23 Q Correct? 23 think I spent about 15 hours or so.
24 A Is that what you're asking, more of a 24 Q And does that include the drafting of these

Page 30 Page 32
1 generic thing? 1 motions for extension of time?
2 Q Yes. 2 A Yes. When you say drafting, you have to --
3 A T would have spent time and research 3 my drafting is dictating.
4 reviewing the court file. The issues that this case 4 Q Okay.
5 presented were maintenance, alimony, and allocation of S A Until very recently I dictated to a
6 assets and debts. So my research would have been into 6 secretary with a steno pad. So I don't write stuff
7 those areas. 7 down. Or when 1 do my tape, then I give it to them
8 Also, they imputed income into 8 and they'll type it up. That's how it works in this
9 Mr. Schmid's side of the ledger by saying he could 9 office anyway.
10 work and he chose not to work. There was also 1D Q Okay. And then so that includes your
11 arguments about dissipation of assets, that he was 11 dictations within the 15 hours; correct?
12 paying bills, although he didn't have any income with 12 A Everything.
13 which to pay the bills. All of those topics are 13 Q Okay.
14 topics that I researched. 14 A Truthfully; I would say t spent upwards of
15 Q Was there anything else that you had done? 15 20just on the appeal stuff, but...
16 A I'm sure there was, but that's -- you asked 16 Mr. Schmid was very good at creating
17 for the generic what I did and that's it. 17 reams of paperwork. He had a lot offree time on his
18 Q What about the specifics? 18 hands. I'm not saying that in a disparaging ~vay, but
19 A Well, typically, when I do research, I 19 he spent a lot oftime percolating about this case.
20 dictate what I do. So I have a little Dictaphone, 20 And he would write stuff down and drop it off.
21 which you probably don't know what it is, but it's a 21 Q And what did you do when he would drop these
22 little recorder. And I go to the library and I do my 22 documents off?
23 research at the library. 23 A Well, you would get an eye roll because
24 And I will write down -- or say cases 24 that's what I do because I don't need more documents

8 (Pages 29 to 32)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 33 Page 35
1 to go over, but I'd look at them and chat with him. 1 A You want to know why?
2 Q Did you review the documents? 2 Q Yeah.
3 A Yeah, unless it -- have you ever seen 3 A Bili Schmid, very bright guy, but Bill
4 Mr. Schmid's writing? It's quite small and it's very 4 Schmid considers himselfthe smartest guy in any room
5 meticulous. And it's hard to read after a while. 5 that he's in. And 7 can live with that for a while.
6 Generally, yes, I would read because he took the time 6 But in this case I told him things he
7 to do it. 7 needed to do if he wanted to be successful. And he
8 Q Okay. And did you file a motion to withdraw 8 did not accept any of my advice. So after a while of
9 as counsel for Mr. Schmid? 9 beating my head against the wall, I had had enough.
10 A At some point I did, yes. 10 Q Okay. And you had mentioned you had told
11 Q Okay. Was that in the appellate court? 11 him things to do. Did any of those things include any
12 A No, no. In the state court. 12 work towards the appeal?
13 Q The trial court? 13 A No. Those things were a little more
14 A Trial court. 14 practical. I told him he needed to get a job. ]f
15 Q Do you recall when that was? 15 you're going to argue that you can't afford to pay
16 A No. Spring of14. 1 don't know. 16 alimony, you've got to show the judge that he can't
17 Q Okay. And were you given leave to withdraw 17 keep imputing money into and making you pay alimony
18 as counsel? 18 when you can't get a job to pay the alimony.
19 A Yes. 19 So go get yourself --maybe -- he only
20 Q Okay. In the appellate court as well? 20 wanted to be an engineer in the coal business. And
21 A Again, we didn't do it there. 21 that wasn't going to work. So I said go to a retail
22 Q Why not? 22 store and get a job, something, so we can go back and
23 A Because that case was done. It was closed. 23 show Judge Cruz I can't work in my field.
24 Q Did you speak to Mr. Schmid prior to your 24 He's a trained engineer in that field.

Page 34 Page 36
1 withdrawal? 1 I get it, but that's a dying industry. You're going
2 A Do you have a specific date or do you just 2 to have to -- you can't just sit at home. And that's
3 mean in general? 3 advice that fell upon deaf ears.
4 Q I mean,did you talk to him and let him know 4 Q Okay.
5 that you were planning on withdrawing? 5 A Do you want more examples?
6 A Oh, I'm sure 1 did. 6 Q Sure.
7 Q Okay. Do you recall what that conversation 7 A I told him to execute documents relating to
8 was? 8 the sale of his house. He wouldn't do that either.
9 A I don't. 9 Instead, he took it upon himself to start taking his
10 Q Okay. Was he in agreement with you 10 house apart, I assume,to reduce its resale value and
11 withdrawing? 11 to make it difficult to sell.
12 A I don't remember. I'm going to -- I don't 12 ]said don't do that. I went to his
13 remember. You know, sometimes if I have a parting of 13 house. I wanted to see what was so special about this
14 the ways with a client, I'll do an agreed order to 14 house and why he was doing it. He had taken his house
15 withdraw and they'll sign off on it. Maybe that's 15 down to the bare studs. Not going to be able to sell
16 what happened here. I don't know. 16 a house doing that. He knew that.
17 If not, we would have sent out a notice 17 Things like that when you're not going
18 of motion on a motion and the judge would enter the 18 to listen and sabotage the case, then I have problems.
19 motion. I'd have to look at the court file. 19 Q Okay. Was your motion to withdraw -- so did
20 Q Okay. Do you recall why you filed a motion 20 that have anything to do with finances as in
21 to withdraw? 21 Mr. Schmid --
22 A I think I had had my limit ofBill Schmid. 22 A You know what, no, because these last bills,
23 Q Okay. And when yov say your limit, does 23 7 think, Mr. Sorensen and I were talking, T don't
24 that mean -- 24 think I even sent them out. He owes like another

9 (Pages 33 to 36)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 37 Page 39
1 $5,000. 1 Q Do you recall what you said to him?
2 He has no money. I probably stayed in 2 A No, but somewhere somebody said that I said
3 the case too long trying to help the guy out. We just 3 you don't know who you're messing with. I don't
4 wrote it off. He's not going to pay it. So, no, he 4 recall saying that, but I was pretty mad. I was
5 exceeded his retainer by $5,000. 5 really tired of Bill Schmid.
6 Q And those were the bills that Mr. Sorensen 6 And I do remember slamming my fist
7 had given us; correct? 7 down. And you can ask the secretaries because they
8 A Today. 8 were all here. And I did.
9 Q Yes. 9 Q Okay. And do you recall, other than having
10 A Yeah, I guess. 10 enough of Mr.Schmid, why that conversation -- the
11 Q So you're not looking for Mr. Schmid to pay 11 yelling conversation happened?
12 these bills? 12 A Well, the yelling was only on my end.
13 A Well, if he did, I would be shocked. I 13 Mr. Schmid never yelled.
14 don't know that we --1 suppose we mailed them to him, 14 Q Okay.
15 but he's not going to pay them. I don't know. I 15 A I'm sorry. What was your question?
16 don't even know if he's working anymore. I don't even 16 Q Do you recall, other than you having enough
17 know where he lives. 17 of him, why his presence brought you to a yell?
18 Q Okay. One step back, Mr. Krupp. 18 A There had to be something that triggered it.
19 The final order from the appellate 19 I don't.
20 court, do you recall discussing that with Mr. Schmid? 20 Q You don't recall --
21 A I don't. I'm sure we did, but I don't. 21 A It will probably come to me tonight about
22 Q Did you explain to him what that means? 22 2:00 in the morning, but I don't remember right now.
23 A I imagine we did, but I don't recall 23 Q So you don't recall if he said something?
24 specifically. 24 A He could have. 1 don't know.

Page 38 Page 40
1 Q Okay. So you don't recall what he had said 1 Q Okay. And do you recall sending Mr.Schmid
2 to you that -- 2 invoices?
3 A l don't. 3 A I don't. The secretaries do. So,
9 Q Okay. Do you recall if he pushed you to 4 personally, no, I don't recall that.
S still try to file something within those 10 days? 5 MS. WALCZYK: Oka}'. I think I'm done.
6 A No. No. He -- l know he didn't do that 6 THE WITNESS: That's it?
7 because then we would have -- no,there would have 7 MS. WALCZYK: Yeah, From me at least.
8 been more discussion. No, because the mold was set at 8 MR.TANK: Don't worry. I have some.
9 that point. 9 EXAMINATION
10 Q Okay. Did yon ever refuse to communicate 10 BY
11 with Mr.Schmid while he was -- 11 MR.TANK:
12 A No, no, no, no. 12 Q Sir,I introduced myself earlier. I
13 Q Okay. 13 represent Bili Feda.
14 A Is he saying that? I would be shacked. 14 You mentioned some advice that you gave
15 Q Okay. Just asking. 15 Bill Schmid that he didn't follow such as getting a
16 Do you recall when Mr. Schmid came 16 job, executing documents for his house.
17 up -- came to your office to pick up his file? 17 Can you think of any other advice that
18 A I do. 18 you give Bill Schmid that he didn't follow?
19 Q Okay. Do you remember having conversations 19 A Offthe top of my head, I don't, but I'm
20 with him? 20 sure there ~~~as.
21 A I was yelling. 21 Q When you said that he destroyed his house,
22 Q Okay. Do you recall why you were yelling at 22 can you give us some more detail about what happened?
23 him? 23 A You're putting words -- did I say destroyed?
24 A I had enough of Bill Schmid. 24 Q I don't want to put words in your mouth.

10 (Pages 37 to 40}
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 41 Page 43
1 A I said he was taking it apart. You said 1 I've got to put you in jail, he said. Bailiff, take
2 destroyed. 2 him away. And he did. He went for a day or two, I
3 Q Can you give us a better description of 3 think, and then he finally signed. Just stuff like
4 that? 4 that.
5 A Yeah. He took the drywall -- I didn't go 5 Q Did Schmid tell you why he wouldn't sign the
6 upstairs. It's a beautiful old house if it was 6 agreement?
7 restored. But he had taken -- I remember seeing the 7 A No. Everyone was against him. I don't
8 walls down in studs and just the wiring. I was 8 know. Tt gets convoluted with Bill at times.
9 like... 9 Q As far as you know,was there a legitimate
10 Q Aside from the drywall, can you think of 10 reason for Bill Schmid not to sign the agreement?
11 anything else he did to take the house apart? 11 A Not that I knew of. There was a court order
12 A It didn't look very good. T wouldn't have 12 that said he had to sign it.
13 wanted to stay overnight. 13 Q Were you recommending him to sign it?
14 Q Do you have any criticism of Bill Feda? 14 A Oh, gosh. I said, Otherwise you're going to
15 A No. I like Bill Feda. 15 jail.
16 Q You said that after you reviewed the record 16 Q And he refused to listen to you or refused
17 of the case and the case law that applied to it, you 17 to listen to the judge?
18 didn't think that an appeal would be successful. 18 A Correct.
19 Do you believe anything Bill Feda did 19 Q Bitl Schmid wouldn't take no for an :answer;
20 or did not do was a cause of the appeal not being 20 is that fair to say?
21 successful? 21 A That's very well put, yes.
22 A No,I don't blame anything on him, no. 22 Q Even if it was recommended by his attorneys
23 Q You believed a better course of action would 23 to do something, even if he was ordered to do
24 be to revisit the issue with Judge Cruz? 24 something by a judge, he still wouldn't do it; is that

Page 42 Page 44
1 A The judges that Schmid appeared before 1 fair to say?
2 obviously hated him. So he must have been a terrible, 2 A I think that's fair to say.
3 terrible witness. He wasn't believable. I think the 3 MR.TANK: No further questions.
4 one judge said it's incredulous what he's saying. 4 MS. WALCZYK: No follow-up.
5 That was Bill Schmid's downfall, in my opinion. 5 MR.SORENSEN: I have a couple offollow-ups.
6 Q In your conversations with Bill Schmid,did 6 First of ail, I'm not sure, did we mark
7 you ever tell him that you thought the judges didn't 7 the additional bills that I presented you guys with
8 like him? 8 before we started?
9 A Oh,I'm sure I did, absolutely. 9 MS. WALCZYK: No, we didn't mark them. We_just
10 Q Did he believe you? 10 talked about them.
11 A I think he -- well, he thinks everybody 11 MR. SORGNSEN: Okay. Can sue mark that? Do you
12 doesn't like him. But I'm sure he agreed. 12 have a copy to mark as an exhibit?
13 Q As far as you know,did he do anything to 13 (Whereupon, Krupp Deposition
14 change his behavior so that the judges would be more 14 Exhibit No.4 was marked for
15 amenable to him? 15 identification.)
16 A This is a guy who wouldn't -- Judge Cruz is 16 EXAMINATION
17 one of the nicest men in the world and he's trying to 17 BY
18 get Bill Schmid to sign off on the sale ofthe house. 18 MR. SORENSEN:
19 This is right around Christmastime of whatever year. 19 Q Okay. So just for the record, Mr. Krupp,
20 He gave him time and time again to sign 20 for the record, I'm handing you what's been marked as
21 this listing. It was a listing agreement. Schmid 21 Exhibit 4. And it's a group exhibit. It has three
22 wouldn't do it. I said, Bill, there's an old court 22 pages,invoices from your office to Bill Schmid dated
23 that says you have to do it. 23 January 22,2014, May 22,2014, and June 28,2014.
24 Finally, Ifelt -- Cruz looked pained. 24 These are bills that were not in

11 (Pages 41 to 44)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 45
1 your -- the original production we made on your
2 behalf. They're bills, though,that in further
3 searching in your office you found and have presented
4 to us today; correct?
5 A I asked the secretaries to run off all of
6 the -- because in the back of my head I thought he
7 owed money. So I said run off all the bills. And
8 this goes back three, four years.
9 So they ran this off. And it looks to
10 us like he owed another 5. I said, Did we bill him?
11 They said, No, we just -- we wrote it off:
12 Q Okay. Sut the question,just to be clear,
13 is these were documents you found on some further
14 investigation in preparation for the deposition tod:~y?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q Okay. So these will be documents that we
17 will formally supplement to the Bates stamped
18 production we've already made. ThaPs your
19 understanding; correct?
20 A That would be a good idea.
21 Q Okay. And you understand that the appellate
22 court in May of2013 entered that order directing a
23 brief be filed witt►in l0 days, you've indicated in
24 your prior testimony tl►~t you had conversations with
Page 47
1 your opinion that the appeal would not be successful?
2 Did that have to do with the standard review on the
3 issues that were to be appealed?
4 A Yes,that would be just -- there would leave
5 to be proof of an abusive discretion. The record was
6 so strong that these otherjudges had with respect to
7 Mr. Schmid, I didn't feel we were going to go anywhere
8 with it.
9 Q When you have a trial judge who has heard
10 evidence, who has reviewed the testimony of the
11 parties, listened to arguments of counsel and entered
12 findings in an order, what is your understanding,
13 based on your knowledge,training and experience, of
14 the likelihood ofsuch a finding being overturned on
15 an abusive discretion standard?
16 A It was not -- it was going to be a Sisyphean
17 task. That was not going to be easy to do because
18 they observed his demeanor, they reviewed all ofthe
19 records, particularly pertaining to his income and the
20 dissipation of assets. I didn't see it happening.
21 Q Now, you filed a number of extensions
22 including info 2014?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q So did Mr. Schmid not agree to drop the

Page 46 Page 98
1 Mr. Schmid prior to May of 2014 about dropping the 1 appeal until later in --you know, in 2014 as opposed
2 appeal. 2 to 2013?
3 Let me refer you to Page 2 of the 3 A Yeah, that's -- I don't recall specifically,
4 exhibit you've just been shown, Exhibit 4. That 4 but that's probably the scenario.
5 reflects, for example, a conference in March with 5 Q Had he agreed earlier to drop the appeal,
6 Mr. Schmid. The previous page reflects conversations 6 you probably wouldn't have filed additional
7 with Mr. Schmid in December. 7 extensions?
8 Would these --would the dropping of 8 A Correct.
9 the appeal be the sort of thing tl►at you would have 9 Q Okay. And had he refused to drop the
10 discussed with Mr. Schmid that would be reflected in 10 appeal, you would have filed a brief when one was due?
11 these conferences? 11 A Or bid adieu to Mr. Schmid.
12 A Probably not in December, but certainly the 12 Q Via withdrawal through the appellate court?
13 other one that you've marked in March because these 13 A Right.
14 would have been discussions we had then. 14 Q Okay. None of which was required because he
15 Q Because you indicated that in the fal! of 15 had agreed to drop the appeal?
16 2013 -- 16 A Correct.
17 A We(1, it could have been. 17 Q You -- in those invoices that you're looking
18 Q You indicated in the call of 2013 you came 18 at there and also in a document -- I'm not going to
19 to the conclusion that the appeal would not be 19 mark it as an exhibit, but it's Krupp Page 557, which
20 successful? 20 is an invoice that was produced in the production,
21 A Yeah, I did. So it could have been in 21 between Exhibit 4 there and this Page Krupp 557, you
22 December. You're right. It could have been in 22 have a number of items on here related to services
23 December. 23 that you provided to Mr. Schmid that were not related
24 Q And can you elaborate on the reasons for 24 to the appeal; correct?

12 (Pages 45 to 48)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 49
1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q Can you describe some of the things you did
3 for Mr. Schmid that were not related to the appeal?
4 A Yes. The ex-Mrs. Schmid was filing motions
5 to hold him in contempt for failing to abide by the
6 judgment for dissolution of marriage and orders
7 entered subsequent thereto.
8 So while he came in here initially to
9 handle this appeal, in my review ofthese documents
10 maybe 25 percent of my time was spent on the appeal,
11 the rest was plugging holes in a crumbling dike to
12 prevent hitn from going to jail.
13 So I would have to respond to motions.
14 I had to appear in court. I would have to have
15 hearings. A lot of time, in my opinion, the bulk of
16 my time was spent doing that with him.
17 Q Okay. But the time entries will reflect the
18 time you spent on each thing; right?
19 A Yes.
20 Q As far as the percentages, we could go
21 through that and 25 is percent more off the cuff, is
22 that your -- just an estimate off the cuff?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Okay. I don't want you to guess.
Page 51
1 would make it difficult to persuade Judge Cruz to take
2 pity or a liking to Mr. Schmid if he is doing things
3 in direct contempt of Judge Cruz's orders?
a A I'm not looking for pity. I'm just looking
5 for somebody to listen to a reasoned legal argument.
6 And my argument could be one thing, but the actions of
7 Bill Schmid would reveal something else. And that was
8 the problem. I wasn't attempting to gain favor. I
9 just wanted him to be fair.
10 Q You said earlier in your deposition in
11 response to questions by Ms. Walezyk that you believe
12 you might have told Mr. Schmid that it sounded like he
13 got a bad deal?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q You mean the judgments by Judge Pilmer?
16 A Typically, in a divorce case, you're going
17 to get alimony, the woman -- or I shouldn't say that.
18 1 guess that's politically incorrect.
19 Q The non-working spouse? The non --
20 A Not even that.
21 Q Non-employed outside the house?
22 A Well, some don't earn enough money,
23 underemployed. You'll get alimony and ~0 percent of
24 the assets. To get alimony and a disproportionate

Page 50 Page 52
1 But the besE record of what you did and 1 share of the assets, that's very unusual in my
2 when you did it is reflected in those invoices; 2 opinion.
3 correct? 3 So that's ~vhy 1 would have said that
4 A Yes. And since you're taking that away from 4 didn't seem -- doesn't seem fair to me. There has to
5 me, usual]}~ -- I probably did way more work than is on 5 be something else going on.
6 here, again; because the fellow had no money and 1 6 Q In your knowledge, training and years of
7 just didn't bill him for it. 7 experience in this field, do you find that it is
8 Q Okay. I'li take that one page back. We 8 generally more likely and more typical that :~ litigant
9 didn't mark it. It's Page 55?. Just to keep that in ~ 9 like Mr. Schmid will have a court finding in a divorce
10 my file. 10 against him,that the proportions will weigh against
11 In fact, the Exhibit 4 — is most of 11 him when the non-employed or
12 Exhibit 4 reflective of state court work that you did 12 non-employed-outside-the-home spouse leas health issues
13 for Mr.Schmid not related to the appeal or meetings 13 and in situations where litigants like Mr.Schmid are
14 with Mr.Schmid that might have involved the appeal as 14 believed to have dissipated assets?
15 well? 15 A Dissipated assets, yes, I agree with al! of
16 A Yes. 16 that. And his ability to work and refusal to work
17 Q Okay. The actions of Mr.Schmid that led to 17 doesn't help.
18 his being found in contempt of court, not once but 18 Q These were all things that Judge Pilmer
19 rivice during the time you represented him in December 19 concluded in his findings in the case?
20 of 2013 and in June of 2014,these were the types of 20 A Correct.
21 things that would poison the water with a judge such 21 Q So when you say that you might have told
22 as Judge Cruz? 22 Mr. Schmid it sounded like he got a bad deal in the
23 A Yes. 23 trial court, you were not referring to any work that
24 Q 1n other words, by poison the waters, it 24 Mr. Feda did?

13 (Pages 49 to 52)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 53 Page 55
1 A No,sir, I am not. 1 FURTHER EXAMINATION
2 Q You're just referring to the fact that 2 BY
3 Mr.-- or that Mr.Schmid had a rather stringent or 3 MR.TANK:
4 harsh order entered against him in the divorce? 4 Q You were licensed to practice law in 1983.
5 A He had a harsh order against him in the 5 Have yon worked full-time ever since?
6 divorce, he did, yes. 6 A Yes.
~ Q But Judge Pilmer had rationale listed for 7 Q And that includes regularly appearing in
8 his findings? 8 court on behalf of clients, things of that nature?
9 A That was my take, yes, sir. 9 A Yes.
10 Q You were asked if you recalled telling 10 Q So when you talk about what typically
11 Mr.Schmid if this ~ti~ould have been -- if you thought 11 happens in court, you have a strong basis for your
12 the appeal would be a surefire win or easily winnable 12 opinion; correct?
13 or a slam dunk. 13 A I believe so, yes.
14 Would you ever tell any client any of 14 MR.TANK: I'm good.
15 those things? 15 MR. SORENSEN: Actually, one point to clarify in
16 A No,sir. I've been in practice for 30-plus 16 follow-up on that. That was a good question.
17 years. You don't talk like that. 17 FURTHER EXAMINATION
7-8 Q So if anyone were to testify that you said 18 BY
19 any of those things to them,they would be mistaken? 19 MR.SORENSEN:
20 A Correct. 20 Q For how many years have you been doing legal
21 Q The bystander reports and any of this 21 work in the area of divorce?
22 assistance work that Mr. Schmid did for his own case, 22 A 30-plus.
23 you were not expecting Mr.Schmid to act as a lawyer, 23 MR. SORENSEN: Okay. That's alt I have.
2q were you? 24 MS. WALCZYK: Okay. Thanks.

Page 54 Page 56
1 A No. Oh, no. 1 MR. SORENSEN: Signature reserved.
2 Q You were not going to simply -- if an appeal 2 MS. WALCZYK: Okay.
3 was to be filed with the appellate court, you were not 3 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT...
4 going to simply take his bystander reports and just 4
5 attach them to the appeal, were you? 5
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. You were going to utilize the benefit 7
8 of the fact that Mr. Schmid was there in court, you 8
9 were not, he would have recollections to help prepare 9
10 these bystander reports, and there was no court 10
11 reporter,so this was a practical way for you to try 11
12 to Help create a record for the appeal, if one vas to 12
13 be filed? 13
14 A Correct. 14
15 Q And you were going to -- if an appeal vas 15
16 going to be filed, you were going to take those 16
17 bystander reports from Mr.Schmid and put them into a 17
18 proper format or incorporate them in some way that 18
19 would be proper using your expertise as a lawyer? 19
20 A Yes. 20
21 MR. SORENSEN: I think that's all the questions 21
22 I have. 22
23 Any follow-ups? 23
24 MS. WALCZYK: I don`t. 24

14 (Pages 53 to 56)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 Page 57 Page 59
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ~ 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
S5:
2 COUNTY OF KANE ) J SS:
3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THE 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 COUNTY OF COOK
9 xnNE couta'rY,~Lt,tNors 3 Kerry L. Knapp, being first duly sworn, on oath
WILLIAM F. SCHMID, ) 4 says that she is a Certified Shorthand Reporter, that
5 Plaintiff; )
5 she reported in shorthand the testimony given at the
6 ~ 6 taking of said deposition, and that the foregoing is a
vs. )No. 15 L 395 7 true and correct transcript of her shorthand notes so
~ ROBERT J. KRUPP> et al., ) 8 taken as aforesaid~ and contains ali the testimon}'
e ) 9 given by ROBERT J. KRUPP at said deposition.
9 Defendants. )
10 Further, that she is not connected by blood or
10 I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing 11 marriage with any ofthe parties to this action, ilOI'
11 transcript of my deposition given at the time and
12 place aforesaid, consisting ofPages I to 60,
12 is she a relative or employee or attorney or counsel
13 inclusive, and 1 do subscribe and make oath that the 13 of any ofthe parties, or financially interested
14 same is a true, correct and complete transcript of my 14 directly or indirectly in the matter in controversy.
15 deposition so given as aforesaid, and includes
16 changes, if any,so made by me. 1S That the preceding deposition shall be read by
l~ Correction Sheets) Attached 16 said deponent, and any and all corrections which the
18 ROBERT J. KRUPP 17 dePonent desires to make shall be dulY made bY the
19 18 deponent on the enclosed errata sheet(s), indicating
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
20 before me this day 19 page and line to be corrected, and that the
of —AD,20». 20 explanation, if any, given by the deponent for said
21 21 cot•rections, sha11 be thereon noted.
2z 22
Notary Public
24 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter

Page 58 Page 60
1 ERRATA SHECT 1 URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
46o Lake avenue
2 I herebY make the followinb ehanges tom Y dePosition: 2 Crystal Lake, lllinois G0014
3 RAGE LINE (8]5)356-6140
3
9 _CHANGE: 4 September 25,2017
5 REASON: 5
6 LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD J. KOZEL
6 _ CHANGE: MR. DAVID SORENSEN
7 REASON: ~ 333 South Wabash Avenue,25th Floor
e Chicago, Illinois 60604
8 CHANGE:
9 REASON: Dear Mr. Sorensen:
9
10 _CHANGE: Re: Schmid v. Krupp, et al.
11 1o Deposition of Robert J. Krupp
REASON:
11 It is our understanding that you will arrange for the
12 _CHANGE: review of the above-entitled transcript by the
12 witness. Accordingly, we are enclosing errata sheets
13 REASON: and the original signature page ~~.~ith your copy ofthe
14 CHANGE: 13 deposition transcript.
19 Please note that Amended Rule 207(a)of the Illinois
15 REASON: Supreme Court provides that depositions may be used
16 CHANGE: is fully as if signed if they remain unsigned for more
than 28 days after having been made available to the
17 REASON: i6 deponent. We,therefore, would appreciate your
1g handling this matter within the 28-day limit.
i~
19 Please return the executed signature page and errata
20 ROBERT J. KRUPP DATE 1$ sheets, ifany, to the above address.
19 Sincerely,
21 20 URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
22 Correction Sheet Page of 21
22 Kerry L. Knapp
23 23 enclosures: Transcript, signature page, errata
24 sheets)
24 ccs: Attorneys of Record

15 (Pages 57 to 60)
URBANSKI REPORTING COMPANY
312-977-1777
 William Schmid Bystander Report for: Dissipation of marital assets

52-27-11 COURT ORDER

1. Karla shall provide all 2010 tax return documents and cooperate in prep of amended joint return

2. Karla/Amelia to complete FAFSA by Jan 17, 2012

3.Wm to pay $1400 by Dec 28 and 1/2 weekly unemployment wjo prejudice

4a. Karla "...shall prepare an accounting of receipt and disposition of inheritance (and GIFT) monies...

4b. Wm prepare acct of receipt and disposition of income from employment and unemployment for
period Nov 1, 2010 through Dec 31, 2011 both (K&Wm} accountings to be provided by Jan 13, 2012

S. "Plaintiff shall provide proof of disability or/and SSI application or efforts to locate employment."

Bystander Report CO 12-27-11 (William Schmid not allowed IN courtroom this day)

Well before the court date, 1 asked Giampoli what he needed to prepare for the court date.
Giampoli replied: 1 do not have to prepare, it is only a 15 minute hearing.

prepared a spreadsheet and made four copies before the court date.

On the day of court, Giampoli had me sit in the court anteroom while he and my spreadsheet were in
court with Doyen and Judge Pilmer. Giampoli came out and told me Judge Pilmer does not understand
why I had almost $6000 in mobilization expenses fora 6 month job.

M y explanation to Giampoli outside the courtroom was that I grouped Nov/Dec 2010 AEP headquarter
(Columbus, Ohio) living expenses ($2300) into mobilization as they are not typical living expenses at the
job location.

1-3-12 Notice of Claim of Dissipation, 1-3-12 Notice of Filing -Notice of Claim of Dissipation

1. Wm received over $72,000 in compensation from employment Nov 1 to present

2. Wm received over $15,000 in unemployment compensation

3."That during the time(Wm)was working he had almost no living expenses as he was living in a trailer
ha me owned by the parties."

4. Nov 1(2010)to present Wm paid only $9400 to Karla for support

5. Wm now claims to have no funds left from any income or unemployment compensation

6. Wm should have a minimum of $30,000 remaining from funds from income and UE comp for period

a. put Wm on notice of her claim that Wm has dissipated a minimum of $30,000 in marital funds

'
> •~Y

~ Y~i
r

~
~~ ~ :;'S
i '~ , ~
:~
:J
 BYSTANDER REPORT FOR 1-13-12 Notice of Claim of Dissipation

and WHATEVER DATE THIS SUBJECT WAS DISCUSSED AT TRIAL, If it ever was discussed at trial

BOB: My first conversation with Feeda included the comment: You need to show where every penny
was spent for the claim of dissipation.

prepared a new spreadsheet file: 2011 sht 12 rev 3-8-12 that showed:

A.(1)Total MOB/DEMOB hire/training expenses $2821 with categorized lodging/meals,fuel/other,

mob-fuel, demob-fuel and

B.(2)Total Truck and Trailer $2822 with categorized trailer repair/rebuild/upgrade, trailer setup/travel
to winterize, trailer ins, truck ins, and truck repair/parts.......

C. TOTAL(1) and (2) $5643

D. This new spreadsheet format is the basis for DefEX 8 updated 7-22-12 (BOB: I need to check which rev
was submitted) which by necessary calculations for the Nov 2010/Feb 2011 timeframe shows work
related expenses:

(1) CC Total MOB/DEMOB $2,821

(2) CC Total Truck and Trailer $2,821

(3) CC Total R&R $688

(5)CC Total Road Lodging expenses $538

(A)Chks Road Lodging expenses $1,880

(4a)CCJob area fuel calc'd increase $1,631 of (4) CC Total Road/Home Living Expense $7967

(4b)CCJob area Groc&restaurant c inc $1,165 of (4) CC Total Road/Home Living Expense $7967

(B) ATM Cash no receipt calc'd increase $3,573

SUBTOTAL work related expenses $15,117

Vs. Doyen:"That during the time(Wmj was working he had almost no living expenses as he was living in
a trailer home owned by the parties."

(6) CC Total non-recurring expenses $6769

BOB: NOTE $20,831 CC Total non-recurring expenses July 2010 thru Feb 2012

After trial, Atty Feeda commented to me that Atty Doyen told Judge Pilmer that William does not have
any living expenses while working because he parks his trailer at the jobsite.

BOB:This is an absurd idea on many levels esp insurance regulations.

" 1 1 1.