03:45 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.002 TEOLA M. LUNAE, saN 257090 I 71?730 San Jacinto Dr., Bldg. (3?3 County of Riverside Ranchc Mirage, CA 92270 T: (760) 83486125 5/14/2918 F: (760) ass-sass E- Martinez By Fax Attorneys for Respondent Emily Steubs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COWTY OF RIVERSIDE, INDIO BRANCH STEUBS, Case NO: 1ND1601666 . . REPLY DECLARATION OF Penman?? RESPONDENT EMILY TO DECLARATION DATE: 5/15/18 EMILY STEUBS, TIME: 8:15 A.M. DEPTJ 3M - Respondent. I, Emily Steubs, am the Respondent in this action and if called upon to testify as a witness I could testify to the following facts which are within my personal knowledge. I submit this Reply Declaration in the reply to the Responsive Declaration filed by Petitioner Justin Steubs (?Justin?). I am in receipt of the Responsive Declaration to the RFO I ?led with the Court requesting, among other things, that a receiver be appointed. I am aware that the appointment of a receiver is a drastic measure, but I don?t believe Justin will comply with any court orders. I also don?t believe that Justin is being with the Court and there appears to be inconsistent and confusing assertions in his Responsive Declaration. 1. Justin?s assertion that I refused to work and wasn?t focusing on my job is false. I couldn?t work at the Of?ce any longer because Justin unilaterally and over my objections hired his girlfriend and her family to work in the of?ce. He also unilaterally changed my salary and started requiring me to track hOurs in order to be paid. He also began yelling at me in meetings and 1 REPLY DEC LARATIDN OF STEUBS 03:46 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.003 L-LUM undermining me in front of four employees. Justin created a hostile and abusive environment. Done so, I believe, because he wanted me to stop worlring so he could take complete control of the business and do whatever he wants which is exactly what has happened. 2. Respondent claims that if a receiver were appointed there would be no money to pay me. That's false. The preliminary report provided by Mr. Kornblatt and filed on March 19, .2018, shows an income stream. The problem is how Justin is managing that money. Indeed, for someone who just returned from a trip to Hawaii, and talren numerous other vacations over the last twelve (12) months, while at the same time not paying child support and spousal support, I find it disingenuous to argue that there is no money. . .how on earth did he spend money for Maddy?s trip to Hawaii without spending money credit card than clearly he should not be in charge as he is not capable of making sound ?nancial decisions. 3. When Justin stipulated to the child support and spousal support amount Iwas already living in Herrera. I had not yet started renting it. I only started renting it because he stopped paying support. Nevertheless, even if my income was greater, Justin hasn?t made a single payment not even $100 toward child support and spousal support since November, 2017. It would be one thing to tell this court he couldn?t afford the hill amount, but I believe the fact he hasnit paid anything at all is a clear example of his complete refusal to comply with Court orders. Again, if he can?t pay court ordered support, he probably shouldn?t be taking all these expensive vacations. It is true that Justin lives beyond his means, clearly, but he is court ordered to carry out certain obligations and he needs to fulfill those obligations first. 4. The Herrera property I?m living in is a property asset. He lives in Carranza, another community property asset, and I live in Herrera. Justin grossly overstates the income on the Herrera property. He also doesn?t account for expenses associated with renting it. It will hopefully gross around $80,000 per year, but I have numerous expenses that must be paid out of that, including the cost of alternative housing, in order to have a net gain. A true calculation of the income earned is attached to the Income and Expense Declaration I filed with the Court. As of the filing of this Reply, I still have not received an Income and Expense declaration from Justin. The report generated by Mr. Komblatt does not suggest that because Herrera isn?t being rented it is 2 REPLY DECLARATION OF EMILY STEUBS 03:46 PM Lunek Lew FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.004 causing the business to lose money. Further, Herrera was not being rented when I moved in so Justin?s suggestion that not being able to rent Herrera is causing the business to lose money is false. Further, his argument seems to suggest that Maddy and I should live is a property we acquired during the marriage and therefore, in separation it makes sense that One of us should be occupying same. Lastly, I was forced to rent Herrera speci?cally because Justin is re?rsing to pay any support. The stipulation order directing the support payments was ?led on October 2, 2017, and Iprayed that I would ?nally have some ?nancial relief. Herrera has been my only saving grace. I have had to sacri?ce (living with a friend) to save money so we could earn something from Herrera. I have worried abOut paying bills and providing for our daughter. Justian ?nancial circumstances, other than what he alleges on paper, remains the same. He drive a $120,000 sports car, has complete access to our business ?mds (and uses same as a piggy bank), takes lavish vacations. 5. I need the Oeurt to focus its attention on this $700,000 loan. The calculations provided by Justin don?t make sense. I have been living in Herrera since July, 2017. Justin did do a remodel before Imoved in but the MK loan was secured after the remodel. In addition I don"t have any idea what the ?Cabbage Loan? or ?TJational Fund Loan? is as I?m kept in the dark. Lastly, I would like to know how Justin paid $350,000 to pay down the loan in such a short period of time. According to ustin?s testimony at his deposition, the loan was secured in or about October, 2017. See Copy of Transcript Attached hereto as Exhibit A. If there is no income, where did Justin acquire $350,000? 6. Lastly, Mr. Kornblatt?s preliminary report, which I recognize is not complete and a tool for negotiation purposes only, suggests that the tax retums and books maintained by our company are unreliable. As previously stated, Justin is the CEO and his mother, Shelley Mast, was the CFO for many years. There is an adjustment on the books which doesn?t make any sense and according to Schedule 7 of the draft, Justin?s cash ?ow for support ending December, 2017 was approximately $20,000, which is consistent with what we paid ourselves before our separation. There is significant income. I do not know what the debts are but there are real prOperty assets, tools, vehicles and equipment associated with the business which can all be liquidated if necessary 3 REPLY DECLARATION OF EMILY STEUBS 03:47 PM Lunsk Law FAX 110.760 834 8596 satisfy obligations and the net divided. 1 don?t want to see that happen with the business but it is an option. I also know that Justin is mismanaging the business and using it to fund his own excursions spending money on things he feels are worthy of payment support is clearly not one of those obligations worthy of payment to Justin. The reduest for Receiver is to take hold of the asset before he completely depletes the resources and ?nther encumbers it with debt because he is not managing things properly. He frequently threatens me with filing for bankruptcy, which would be devastating under the circumstances because this matter would never get resolved. But again. his actions are inconsistent with his assertions. You cannot tell the Court the business is suffering and take a week vacation to Hawaii at the tail end of the busy season. . .tbose two positions are inconsistent and that is the problem here. Justin is not trustworthy. He has not carried out a single promise. He has failed to pay support. failed to honor his end of the agreement regarding the vehicle I?m driving and then maliciously provided the loan company he is supposed to be paying with my physical address and cell number so the vehicle could be repossessed. 7. I need the Court?s assistance to resolve this case. I am asking that a receiver be appointed. Frankly, if Mr. Kornblatt is amenable, I would aslc that he serve as same since he is already familiar with the business and can take the reins fairly easily. I need the proper information provided so we can complete a valuation of the business and ensure that support payments are honored. The restraining order suggested by Justin?s attorney is inadequate. The only way Justin will comply is if control is removed while we preserve the asset and determine our respective interests in same. Justin has continuously shoWn that his default behavior is to disregard rules and obligations when it inconveniences him or costs him money. 8. I recently learned that Justin?s real estate license has been flagged due to numerous indiscretions. I don?t know the specifics of same, but this does concern me because it indicates he?s doing something he?s not supposed to be doing. This jeopardizes the asset I have an interest in and also supports my request to have a receiver appointed. 9. ustin?s failure to pay the vehicle is mischaracterized in his responsive declaration to my RFC). Our Stipulation and Order specifically states that Justin was to continue to pay the vehicle through December 15, 2017. Thereafter, commencing January 1, 2018, he was to pay half. The 4 REPLY DECLARATION OF STEUBS 03:48 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.005 arrears he just paid after I had to file my ex parte (according to Justin) totaled $2535.99, the three (3) months of payments he didn?t make until recently and that I couldn?t make because he wasn?t paying support. His calculation that he overpaid his obligation by $3,381.32 doesn?t make sense. Justin wouldn?t cooperate in a trade-in and as of February, 2018 proposed to continue paying the full amount in lieu of his spousal support and child support payments again, none of which he has paid since November, 2017. The proposal he sent in February, 2018 was allegedly based on items he was already paying instead of support, which was not true. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Justin?s excuse that he gave the loan company my infonnation because we ?don?t comrnunicate? is absolutely false. There are texts attached as Exhibits that show Justin texts and we communicate. That?s how he was able to get my permission to take Maddy to Hawaii. Lastly, his excuse that he took a trip to Hawaii and didn?t pay for anything is not credible. He speci?cally states in his text message to me about his trip ?I?m spending money to include Maddy on this vacation. And I can?t get it back.? See Exhibit to my Declaration in Support of the Ex Parte RFC) I filed on May 8,2018. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: May 14, 201s Emily S?ubs, Respondent 5 REPLY DECLARATION OF EMILY STEUBS 03:48 PM Lunak Law In Re: Emily Steubs v. Justin Steubs Case No.: IND1601666 PM No. 760 834 8596 EXHIBIT P. 007 03:48 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.008 Family Law and Mediation Offices of Fnsosalc s. wmpea 44-100 Monterey Avenue, Suite 203 Palm Desert, California 92260 Telephone: (760) 776-6666 Facsimile: (760) 7766707 Frederic S. Wieder Certi?ed Family Law Specialist State Bar oi? California Board ofLegal Specialization February 26, cows VIA EMAIL and US MAIL teclaf?ilunalclawoom Tecla M. Lunak, Esq. Law Offices of Tecla M. Lunak. A.P.C. 71-760 San Jacinto Dr., Bldg, C-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 RE: Marriage of Steubs CASE NO. IND 1601666 Dear Ms. Lunak: My client would agree to pay the following expenses in lieu of spousal - support and child sUpport: 1. The mortgageftaxesfinsurance on the Herrera home which is approximately $1,609.21 per month; Your client?s BMW X6 payment which is approximately $646.33 per month; Your client?s car insurance which is approximately $112.00 per month; Herrera HVAC system replacement which is 64.40000 in which he is paying $500.00 per month; Herrera appliance payment which is $16,619.76 in which he is paying $712.00 per month; and 6. Emily's health insurance which will be approximately $360.34 per month. P0 My client will pay a total of $4,136.66 per month which is approximately how much the company is paying on his debts each month. This settlement offer is protected under Evidence Code ?1152. 03:48 PM Lunek Lew FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.009 As always, thank you for your professional courtesy in this matter. I look ferwerd to your respense. Very Truly Yeurs, LAW OFFICES OF FREDERIC S. WIEDER like; s. CFLS FSW/rner CC: Client This settlement offer is protected under Evidence Code {51152. 03:49 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 In Re: Emily Steubs v. Justin Steubs Case Nun: IND1601666 EXHIBIT 13.010 03:49 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.011 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE INDIO BRANCH 3 4 5 6 JUSTIN STEUBS, CASE NO. 7 Petitiener, 8 va. 9 EMILY 10 Reependent. 11 l2 VOLUME I 13 (Pages I threugh 238, 14 15 DEPOSITION OF: JUSTIN STEUES 16 DATE AND TIME: February 8, 2018 12:00 p.m. 1? PLACE: One El Paaee Plaza 18 West Building 74?199 E1 19 Suite 202 Palm Deaert, Califernia 20 REPORTER: Brenda S. Ladnier, CSR 21 Certificate ND. 10212 22 JOE NUMBER: 447571 23 24 25 03:49 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.012 JUSTIN STEUBS, VOLUME I - 02/08/2018 Page 199 1 A It would be better for them to discuss it with 2 you. 3 Okay. I do want you to take a look at the 4 last page, which is Page 3. 5 Based on what they have prepared, as of 6 October of 2017, do you see the net income there? 7 A Yes. 8 So as of October 2017, they represented that 9 there was $96,568.17 in net income. 10 And you understand what net income is; 11 correct? 12 A Yes. 13 So that appears to be that you're operating 14 profitably. 15 Do you See that? 16 A Yes. 17 Okay. So you've been talking in great length 18 about the debts of the business. 19 So what is your understanding of the debts of 20 the business? What is the business encumbered by other 21 than the mortgages on the three real properties? 22 A We have an Amer loan, American Express loan. 23 And where is that reflected in the documents 24 that you've provided? 25 A I don't know that it is. Ayotte Shackelford Litigation Services 760~340?2181 psesr?aol.com 03:49 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.013 JUSTIN STEUBS, VOLUME I 02/00/2010 Page 200 1 Okay. And how much is the American Express 2 loan? 3 A It was originally for they gave us 600,000. 4 It was 12 months at 8 percent. 5 When did you secure that loan? 6 A October 2017, I believe. 7 So you've just secured a loan for 500.000? 8 A Yes. 9 Why did you do that? 10 A So we could pay our homeowners. 11 What did you do with the money that the 12 homeowners were receiving from the renters? 13 A What did I do with the money that the 14 homeowners were receiving from the renters? What did I 15 do with the money? 16 The money that we received from credit cards 17 when the guests paid goes into that merchant account, 10 and it's laid out in the merchant account where all the 19 money went. 20 So basically you spent the homeowners' money 21 to the tune of 700.000, is what you're saying? 22 A We owe right now our advanced deposit 23 report shows that we owe homeowners around 700,000. 24 Did you show that advanced deposit report to 25 Mr. Kornblatt? Ayotte a Shackelford Litigation Services I 750?340?2101 03:50 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.014 JUSTIN STEUBS, VOLUME I - 02/08/2018 Page 201 A I believe Shelley gave that tc Mr. he? 2 Okay. I don?t knew. This isn't my area of expertise, 3 finances. Sc we can prcvide whatever you need. 4 Sc currently, as ycu sit here right new, this 5 advanced depcsit repcrt that you haven't prcvided a ccpy 6 cf yet much that you cwe hemecwners? 7 A Around 700,000. 8 What did ycu dc with $700,000 cf the 9 hemecwners' mcney? 10 A Thrcughcut the years cf ccnducting business, 11 the mcney was spent. 12 Throughcut the years? 13 A Carrect. 14 Sc many years wculd yeu say year ever year 15 ycu?ve been in the red swing hcmecwners mcney? 16 A Shelley says we've always ccnducted business 17 like that. We've always been using homeownersT mcney tc 18 cperate. 19 Sc ycu've -- ycu need explain this tc me. 20 As ycu sit here right new, ycu cwe hemecwners 21 in the cemmunity 700,000? 22 A It?s the advanced deposits repcrt. Sc allcw 23 me tc clarify. 24 Yes, please. 25 A Sc when a guest pays, they, perhaps, pay like Ayctte Litigaticn Services 760~340?2181 pacsr?acl.cem 03:50 PM Lunak Law FAX N0.7BU 834 8590 P.015 JUSTIN STEUES, VOLUME I - 02/08/2018 Page 202 1 $3,000; right? And that, perhaps, shouldn't be paid to 2 the homeowner for like eight or nine months. So it's 3 not necessarily due to the homeowner right now, but on 4 paper, it's supposed to be kind of held aside to be paid 5 for the homeowner. 6 Does that make sense? 7 Yes. So in years past, you would wait for 8 additional cash flow to come through to satisfy a 9 homeowner who needed to be paid this month even though 10 there was not a cash reserve there reflecting the 11 advanced pay? So you would use the advances on the 12 payments for whatever you needed, in your mind, to use 13 it for, and then as you were receiving income from 14 additional renters, you would use that to pay homeowners 15 who needed to be paid right away; yes? 16 A Yes. 17 So the 700,000, does that need to be paid to 18 homeowners today? 19 A Net today. 20 Okay. So why did you decide to secure after 21 all these years -- and your statement is that it's been 22 going on like this for yearssudden, in October of 2017, decide to secure a $580,000 24 loan with American Express? 25 A I wouldn?t phrase it as all of a sudden. It's Ayotte a Litigation Services 760?340~2181 pecer?ael.com 03:50 PM Lunak Lawl FAX N0.7BU 834 8595 P.015 JUSTIN srsuss, VOLUME I 02/00/2018 Page 203 1 kind ef been a ticking time bemb. And at that time and 2 place, we really our cash reserves were dewn te a 3 very minimal ameunt, and I had ene specific hemeewner 4 that I ewed almest, yeu knew, 60,000, $70,000 te and was 5 really, yeu knew, threatening an impeding lawsuit. 6 Be it was either get this lean er just pack up 7 shep and, yen knew, say we're eut ef business er 0 whatnot. Se we get the lean, and we were able te pay 9 all the hemeewners, including that ene Stephen 10 Vandervalk fer the 50?, $60,000 that we cwed him. 11 Se yeu paid Mr. Vandervalk 50,000? 12 A I den?t knew if it was exactly 60,000, but it 13 was reughly I was able te negetiate with him a little 14 bit and get that dewn a little bit. 15 I'm geing te shew yeu er draw yeur 15 attentien, rather, te Tab 6. This will he Exhibit l2. 17 MR. WIEDER: 6? 18 MS. LUNAK: Yes, Tab 6. 19 (Exhibit 12 marked fer identificatien.) 20 BY MS. LUNAK: 21 Okay. And this is a letter from Parlew Law 22 Office, and it reads "Final Demand fer Payment en Behalf 23 cf Stephen Vandervalk." 24 Is this the hemeewner that yeu're talking 25 abeut? Ayette Shackelferd Litigatien Services 760?340?2181