United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
DARRELL L. DEEM, et. al., Plaintiffs,
TRACEY BARON, et. al., Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Sam United States District Judge
case came before the Court for a bench trial beginning June
10, 2019. The Honorable David Sam presided. Mark A. Larsen
appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Stephen K. Christiansen
appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
parties presented evidence through witnesses and exhibits
from June 10-13, 2019, and in subsequent submissions of
identified deposition testimony on June 20, 2019. The Court
heard live or electronically transmitted testimony at trial
from Tracey Baron, David Law, Gretchen Pan, Stephen Medford,
Bart White, Darrell Deem, Michelle Baron, Cynthia Morris,
Kyle Lattimer, and Rob Hausner. The Court also received
identified portions of deposition testimony from Jeff Long
and Ronald Stendahl, with accompanying objections to those
submissions. (ECF Nos. 287-89.)
parties then submitted their amended proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law to the Court on September 13,
2019. Having heard the evidence and arguments at trial and
having received the parties' written submissions, the
Court determined that it was sufficiently apprised such that
subsequent argument of counsel would not materially assist
the Court in rendering its decision and closing arguments
were therefore unnecessary.
being fully advised, and for good cause appearing, the Court
hereby enters the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law in this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1).
Tracey Baron created a real estate investment model that
underlies this dispute. His model centered on the homes of
bankrupt debtors with no equity who were going to lose their
properties in the bankruptcy. He observed that bankruptcy
trustees did not want to deal with the dual hassle of
managing debtors' homes during the bankruptcy process and
litigating against questionable lienholder assertions at
great cost to the estate when there was no equity involved.
Baron purchased the homes outright from them for a nominal
agreed amount. The trustee received the benefit of additional
cash in the bankruptcy estate in exchange for an asset with
no equity that had threatened to cost the estate additional
resources to handle. Mr. Baron, meanwhile, received the
benefit of a home he could lease to third parties while
negotiating or litigating with the lienholders. In exchange
for his purchase price, he would receive the benefit of
monthly rental income plus the chance to recover equity
through a favorable settlement or litigation outcome.
purposes of the transactions at issue in this case, Mr. Baron
worked on this model in the Portland, Oregon, area. He
undertook his bankruptcy-related efforts in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon (the
“Oregon Bankruptcy Court”).
2009, Plaintiff David Law (“Mr. Law”) and
Defendant Tracey Baron began a long-distance working
relationship. Law was buying Utah real property and Baron was
operating a short sale negotiation/processing service. A
short sale is where the underlying debt secured by a trust
deed or mortgage on a residential property exceeded its fair
market value, and to resolve the debt, the lender would waive
the unsecured balance.
2009 to 2012, Tracey Baron assisted Law with Law's short
sale business in Utah using Mr. Baron's software.
or about 2012, Mr. Baron transitioned from short sales to the
bankruptcy-purchase business model described above. He used a
variety of lenders to fund the initial purchases. Among these
was Mr. Law.
made his first loan January 30, 2013 and later that year
Plaintiff Darrell L. Deem (“Mr. Deem”) became
involved in financing some of Tracey's purchases of
residential properties from bankruptcy trustees for small
amounts of money.
and Deem entered into numerous contracts with different
Defendants, which basically consist of two different types of
contracts: (i) Joint Venture Agreements; and (ii) two
Promissory Notes and a Supplemental Loan Agreement.
Initially Mr. Law's relationship with Mr. Baron was
profitable. During the years of 2012 to 2013, Mr. Law
received significant returns on his investment. He testified
that in many cases, he had made 100% to 200% of his money
back in 90 days. He and Mr. Baron trusted each other, worked
well together, and communicated.
Like Mr. Law, Mr. Deem made loans to Mr. Baron in furtherance
of his business model, received significant returns on his
invested funds, and trusted Mr. Baron.
Both Mr. Law and Mr. Deem, as well as Mr. Law's wife
Janine Law, loaned monies to Mr. Baron's entities both
personally and through entities and using their self-directed
Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”). Mr.
Baron's entities would use the borrowed funds to purchase
a property. In exchange, the Law and Deem Plaintiffs would
receive an agreed amount of rent proceeds, typically 80%,
until their loans were paid back. After that, they would
typically receive 20% of rent proceeds until a property sold
or was lost to foreclosure. If the property could be
financially restructured and then sold, Plaintiffs could get
an additional 30% of net profit. The parties initially
anticipated that the time from purchase through subsequent
short sale of the properties would be one year or less.
parties' understandings were memorialized in written
contracts (the “Loan Transaction Agreements”)
provided by Mr. Law and Mr. Deem, all of which were with
entity Defendants and reflect the same basic terms.
Loan Transaction Agreements state that they are non-recourse
as to the individual partners of the borrowers. The
individual Defendants did not sign them and are not parties.
The agreements were entered into on behalf of entities. Mr.
Baron signed only as managing member on behalf of LLCs. The
non-recourse language of the agreements states: “The
loan is non-recourse in nature to the individual partners of
the Borrower.” The “Borrower” in each
instance is an entity.
Plaintiffs are Utah residents and companies. The individuals
sue on their own behalf and on behalf of their Roth IRA
accounts. Defendants are Oregon residents and companies.
about 2013, Mr. Baron began adding to some of the Loan
Transaction Agreements a guaranty from the Steiner Trust
(hereafter sometimes the “Trust”).
(E.g., Ex. 12, at 2 ¶ 2.) The Trust was a
hereditary family trust whose beneficiary was Gretchen Pan.
The Trust was managed by an attorney named Jeff Long as
trustee of the Trust.
Long became business partners with Mr. Baron, and Mr. Long
represented to Mr. Baron that the Trust was available to
guarantee the notes. (T. Baron testimony.) Mr. Long received
a 25% interest in one of Tracey Baron's entities.
Baron's entity Big Blue Capital, LLC, now known as RenX
Group, LLC (sometimes hereafter “RenX”), entered
into agreements with the Trust for credit to back the Loan
Transaction Agreements, knowing that the anticipated
turnaround time was short and Plaintiffs would never have out
more than a few thousand dollars on a deal. (T. Baron
testimony; Exs. 1067-68; Deem testimony.) These agreements
provided that default for nonpayment to the Trust of any
amount due would be declared only after notice and an
opportunity to cure were given. (Ex. 1068, at 9 ¶ 6(2).)
weight of the evidence shows that the guaranty added to the
Loan Transaction Agreements was not a major factor in the
parties' decision to continue entering into the
agreements. (T. Baron testimony.) The parties had already
been doing deals together for a year and a half without the
guaranty and had received substantial returns on their
investments. This and the opportunity to continue receiving
profits were the principal inducement for them to continue
doing the same. (T. Baron testimony; Deem testimony.) This is
confirmed further by the fact that the parties entered into
multiple agreements after December 3, 2013-the date when RenX
was allegedly in default-that did not contain the
Trust guaranty language. The undisputed testimony at trial
was that Mr. Law and Mr. Deem did not raise any concerns or
objections about the omission of the guaranty from those
agreements, demonstrating further that the guaranty language
was not a principal point of inducement for the plaintiffs.
Furthermore, no evidence was introduced that the default had
been declared by the Trust against RenX during this time
amount disbursed and outstanding by the Trust did not exceed
the amount available under Defendants' agreements with
the Trust. (Ex. 256, at 3 ¶ 7; Ex. 1068, at 1.)
or about 2015, Mr. Baron discovered that Mr. Long had
misrepresented the nature of the backing provided by the
Trust and had violated his obligations as trustee of the
Trust by using funds for his own benefit. (T. Baron
testimony.) Consequently, Mr. Baron's attorney Ha Dao
wrote a letter to Mr. Long terminating the relationship, and
Mr. Baron assisted the Pans in removing Mr. Long as trustee
of the Trust. (Ex. 1098; T. Baron testimony.) Mr. Baron then
filed a complaint against Mr. Long with the Oregon State Bar.
(T. Baron testimony.) Mr. Baron testified without
contradiction that he advised Mr. Law of these facts at the
time they occurred. (T. Baron testimony.)
or about May 13, 2015, the Trust declared RenX in default
under their agreements, with the entire balance owed to the
Trust immediately due and payable. (Ex. 256, at 3 ¶ 8.)
Plaintiffs suggested at trial that December 3, 2013 was a key
date in connection with the default because the trust alleged
in a separate lawsuit against RenX that failure to make a
payment occurred on that date. Plaintiffs, however,
introduced no evidence of any date, other than May 13, 2015,
that notice or an opportunity to cure were given to RenX or
that a declaration of default was communicated by the Trust
to RenX. Parties associated with the Trust filed suit against
Tracey Baron and one of his companies, RenX, with respect to
the declared default in 2017. (Ex. 256.) Judgments were
entered against Baron and RenX for securities fraud and
breach of contract.
After Mr. Baron learned about Mr. Long's mishandling of
Trust funds in 2015, and after the Trust declared RenX in
default on or about May 13, 2015, the Defendants did not
enter into any further Loan Transaction Agreements with the
Plaintiffs that contained the Trust guaranty language. (Ex.
171; T. Baron testimony.)
Other than the Oxbow transaction discussed below, no payments
on the Loan Transaction Agreements were made by the
Defendants to the Plaintiffs after February 11, 2015. The
cause of this fact was disputed by the parties at trial.
However, as also discussed further below, Plaintiffs received
certain rental payments directly from renters after this
that Tracey Baron collected following preliminary
Plaintiffs' request, this Court entered a preliminary
injunction on January 11, 2018 (the
“Injunction”). (Ex. 1084.) Among other things,
the Injunction granted Plaintiffs the right to receive rent
proceeds from the loan transaction properties.
Exhibit A to the Supplemental Loan Agreement on 52055
Icenogle (Exhibit 135) contains an Assignment of Rents to
Lenders. Trial Trans. p. 101. The Court's Preliminary
Injunction prohibited Tracey Baron from interfering with the
collection of rents under this assignment. Memorandum
Decision and Order filed January 1, 2018, (Conclusion, bullet
point 3.) Tracey Baron was aware he was enjoined from
interfering with the collection of rents under this
assignment. Trial Trans. p. 103.
Plaintiffs took advantage of the rights granted to them by
the Injunction to communicate directly with renters and
insist they pay rents to the Plaintiffs rather than to Mr.
Baron or face eviction, a practice they had likewise engaged
in before the Injunction had issued. (E.g., Exs.
160-63, 1016, 1076.) Regardless of their authorization or
intentions in doing so, the result was to exacerbate
financial issues with the Defendants rather than resolve
them. Most renters either did not know who to pay or took
advantage of the parties' disagreement to then not pay
anyone the rents that were owed. Consequently, in most cases,
neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants received these rent monies.
Plaintiffs did receive some rent money, though the amounts
and sources were not made clear at trial. As a result,
Defendant entities were placed in an even more precarious
financial position with less ability to pay Plaintiffs.
attempted to contact the tenants on ten of the properties by
physically knocking on about 10 doors. He brought a letter
from counsel and court documents to let people know it was
real. One of the renters (Exhibit 164) started paying Law and
Deem after receiving the assignment of rents. Law testimony,
Day 3, and Exhibit 160. Prior to that time, they were paying
Tracey Baron in cash. Law testimony, cross-examination, Day
the course of attempting to direct rents their way,
Plaintiffs made statements to third parties impugning Mr.
Baron's character. Among other things, they alleged he
committed fraud, stole money, could not be trusted, was
taking money from others “under the table, ” and
would be going to jail if he acted to “pressure”
tenants in any way. (Lattimer testimony; Exs. 164, 1075.)
From the time present counsel for the Defendants entered his
appearance in this case forward, Defendants made prompt
disclosures to and communicated with Plaintiffs, through
counsel, in an ongoing effort to comply with the terms of the
Injunction and subsequent orders of the Court entered in
response to the parties' pretrial motions seeking
clarification and enforcement of the Court's orders.
(Exs. 1021-48; Ex. 1097, at 2 ¶¶ 4 & 6.)
an email dated May 24, 2018, Tracey Baron's attorney
stated: “I have the assurance that Tracey will be
segregating the rents and they will be held in a separate
account. I'll follow-up to make sure that this
happens." (Exhibit 1028.) Tracey Baron agreed that this
email was correct at the time it was sent. Tracey Baron
testimony Day 2. The next day, further assurances were made
that the money was being segregated and held in a separate
account. Trial Trans. p. 100 & Exhibit 1029. Tracey Baron
segregated those funds into a separate account. Trial Trans.
After collecting approximately $41, 000 and depositing it
into a separate account, by July 27, 2018, Tracey Baron
withdrew the money from that account and spent it. Trial
Trans. p. 100 & Exhibit 1043. Before withdrawing and
spending it, he did not ask for permission from anyone to
take and spend this money. Tracey Baron Testimony, Day 2,
redirect, and Exhibit 1043; Law testimony, Day 3 &
Joint Venture Agreement for the Hill Top
2009, Tracey Baron's wife Michelle Baron learned through
a friend about a home for rent on Hill Top Avenue in Lake
Oswego, Oregon. The home was owned by her friend's
father-in-law, Don Olsen. Mr. Olsen became good friends with
the Barons and rented the Hill Top home to them. The Barons
moved into the property (sometimes hereafter “Hill
Top”) with their three children and paid Mr. Olsen
Barons made improvements to Hill Top. Because Mr. Olsen was a
close friend, because he was in poor health with a terminal
condition, and because the Barons hoped ultimately to
purchase the home, the Barons themselves bore the cost of the
expenses associated with their improvements.
late 2013, with Mr. Olsen's health in decline, the Barons
discussed purchasing Hill Top from Mr. Olsen. He agreed to
sell it to them for approximately $500, 000 despite its
appraised value of $600, 000 in recognition of their
substantial work on and improvements to the property.
Mrs. Baron did not have sufficient credit to purchase the
Hill Top home. However, she discussed with Mr. Baron that she
would like to purchase it and asked him if he would help her
secure a loan. He said he would. The testimony at trial
reflected that Mrs. Baron was not involved in the finances of
the family or the businesses but depended in this area wholly
on Mr. Baron, whom she trusted.
Because of his positive relationship with Mr. Law and Mr.
Deem at the time, Mr. Baron approached them about funding the
purchase of Hill Top. The result was a document entered
between the parties titled “Joint Venture
Agreement.” (Ex. 1.) This document (sometimes hereafter
the “Hill Top Agreement”) was signed individually
by Mr. and Mrs. Baron, Mr. Law, and Mr. Deem.
Under the Hill Top Agreement, Mr. Law and Mr. Deem agreed to
put up $496, 000 to purchase the property ($248, 000 each).
Michelle Baron did not contribute any money for her interest
in the Hill Top property. Trial Day 2. Any profits were to be
split in accordance with the formula in Paragraph 2 of the
JVA. Trial Trans. p. 28. The JVA was not a loan agreement.
Mr. and Mrs. Baron agreed to live in the house and maintain
it. The agreement also called for the parties to attempt to
refinance the purchase as soon as possible so that Mr. Law
and Mr. Deem could receive a return of the purchase money
Law, Deem and Michelle Baron each received undivided
interests in the Hill Top property pursuant to a Statutory
Warranty Deed (Exhibit 251; Trial Trans. p. 21-22), recorded
on December 18, 2013, which grants Michelle Baron an
undivided 16.6% Interest, Mr. Law an undivided 41.7%
Interest, and Mr. Deem an undivided 41.7% Interest.
further secure the repayment of the funds they advanced, Mr.
Law and Mr. Deem required that the JVA, ¶ 5, include the
following: “The Parties hereby agree that a Warranty
Deed is to be prepared by WFG National Title that is to be
signed by MBaron in favor of Law and Deem and forwarded to
Cornerstone Title to be held in escrow and recorded . .
.” in the event of a default “as judged in the
sole discretion of Law and/or Deem.”
Michelle Baron complied with the ¶ 5 requirement of the
JVA to provide a Warranty Deed, but Cornerstone Title lost
the deed, making it impossible for Law and Deem to record a
copy (Exhibit 250). At trial, Michelle Baron did not have a
problem or issue with signing a replacement Deed. Michelle
Baron testimony, Day 4, cross-examination.
addition to the agreement regarding the purchase of the
property, the Hill Top Agreement anticipated the parties'
subdividing the large parcel of land on which the home sat
and selling off those lots. Anticipated profits from that
venture were to be split 70-15-15 between Mrs. Baron, Mr.
Law, and Mr. Deem respectively. (Ex. 1, at 1 ¶ 2.) The
parties received estimates that the engineering required for
the partitioning and development would cost approximately
$100, 000. In the Hill Top Agreement, Mr. Law and Mr. Deem
agreed that they would pay up to $110, 000 toward expenses to
improve the property, but no more. The relevant paragraph
Law and Deem are required to contribute no more than $110,
000 towards development and partitioning of the anticipated
three additional lots. Any amounts required in excess of
$110, 000.00 shall be the responsibility of MBaron and
Plaintiffs communicated almost immediately that they did not
intend to put any money toward developing or partitioning
Hill Top, and then they in fact did not do so.
Paragraph 3(v) of the JVA contains the following requirement:
“MBaron and/or TBaron must obtain prior written
authorization from Law and Deem before expending more than
$2, 500.00 on any single expenditure of the 18901
Venture.” Mr. Baron spent a total of $126, 328 in
expenses toward developing the property. These expenses
included, among other things, application to the City of Lake
Oswego, engineering expenses with 3J Engineering, and
surveying. There are no written requests for approval of
expenditures, nor are there any approvals from both Law and
Deem for such expenditures. Trial Trans. p. 32.
Paragraph 10 of the JVA also contains the following
requirement: "A Party incurring any expense on behalf of
the 18901 Venture shall notify the other Parties of the
nature and amount of the expense within a reasonable time
before the expense is incurred.”
¶ 10 also states that “expenses of the 18901
Venture shall be advanced by the Party incurring those
expenses and shall be reimbursed based upon proper
documentation at such time as the expenses of the 18901
Venture are paid by the various Part(ies) . . . .”
There is no evidence of prior written authorization before
expending more than $2, 500 on any single expenditure or any
written request to draw on the $110, 000. Although Tracey
Baron knew of the requirement to have written approval in
advance of any expenditure exceeding $2, 500, he admits that
he did not obtain any written approval. Trial Trans. pp.
Defendants paid Plaintiffs $2, 500 per month in connection
with the Hill Top Agreement, from the time they moved into
Hill Top in 2013 until May 2015, including after Plaintiffs
had communicated their intent not to pay any amount toward
the expenses of developing the property. (T. Baron
testimony.) These payments, totaling $45, 000, were mortgage
payments and/or interest under the Hill Top Agreement to
Plaintiffs as lenders. (T. Baron testimony; Law testimony;
Ex. 1, at 2 ¶ 3.q.)
“No Lien” Provision of the JVA
Paragraph 3(g) of the JVA contains a “no lien”
provision. It states: “Any Party who violates this
subparagraph hereby expressly releases their profits and/or
interest in the subject property in favor of the remaining
Parties.” (Bold in original). Trial Trans. p. 44
The Oregon Claim of Construction Lien
January 20, 2016, Tracey Baron recorded an Oregon Claim of
Construction Lien (Exhibit 249) against the Hill Top property
in the sum of $169, 133.34. The Construction Lien asserts
that (i) the claimant is Baron Construction and Development;
and (ii) Law and Deem hired Baron Construction and
Development. Trial Trans. p. 48. At the time, Tracey Baron
owned all the shares of Baron Construction and Development.
Trial Trans. pp. 48-49. He was an officer and director of
that corporation. Trial Trans. p. 49. Tracey Baron submitted
an expense report but failed to provide an itemized list of
While living in the Hill Top property for over four years,
Michelle Baron did not see any construction on the property.
The only thing she observed were blueprints, a survey and
some bids. Michelle Baron testimony, Day 4.
and Deem were unaware that Baron Construction was doing any
work on the Hill Top property. They did not hire Baron
Construction. When Law and Deem took control of the Hill Top
property December 30, 2016, there was no evidence of over
$100, 000 in improvements. The property was run down and
dirty, requiring Law to spend $15, 000 to make very basic
repairs and major cleaning. Law testimony, Day 3.
noted above, Law and Deem never received any request in
writing or any proper documentation to draw on the $110, 000.
They never received an oral request. Law testimony, Day 2
& 3; Deem testimony, Day 4. The first time Law was aware
of a claim that Tracey Baron had attempted to draw on the
$110, 000 was in a bankruptcy proceeding. Law testimony, Day
2 & 3.
Unpaid property taxes resulting in liens against Hill
Under the JVA, Michelle Baron & Tracey Baron were to
occupy the house and were responsible for paying the
mortgage, interest (JVA ¶ 3(q)) and taxes and insurance
(JVA ¶ 3(r)).
Michelle Baron & Tracey Baron were obligated under JVA
¶ 3(r) to pay the property taxes. They defaulted on
these obligations. Trial Trans. p. 37. The unpaid property
taxes on the Hill Top property follow:
Amount (plus interest, if any)
$ 9, 926.02
$ 9, 202.05
$ 8, 931.44
$ 8, 035.75
264; Trial Trans. p. 34).
failure to pay the property taxes on the Hill Top property
resulted in liens being filed against the property. Trial
Trans. pp. 44-45 & Exhibit 273. See, JVA ¶
3(g) (no liens provision).
Foreclosure proceedings were scheduled to begin if the 2015
property taxes were not paid in full before June 17, 2019.
(Exhibit 264). As a result, just before the trial in this
case, Law paid the 2015 property taxes to avoid foreclosure
on the Hill Top property. Law testimony, Day 3 & Exhibit
264. Past due property taxes accrue interest at the rate of
prevent foreclosure, Tracey Baron paid the 2013 property
taxes. He did not pay the 2014 property taxes.
State and Federal Income Taxes Resulting in Liens on Hill
reflected on her Bankruptcy Schedules, Michelle Baron failed
to pay state income tax in the sum of $133, 000, resulting in
a lien by the State of Oregon against the Hill Top property
in that amount. She also failed to pay federal income tax of
$375, 045, resulting in an IRS lien against Hill Top in that
The Barons Failed to Maintain Insurance on the Hill Top
Paragraph 3(r) of the JVA states that “TBaron and
MBaron are to pay for taxes and insurance” on the Hill
Top property, and that “Law and Deem are to be named
additional insureds on the insurance policy.” Tracey
Baron cancelled the insurance coverage for Law and Deem and
kept himself insured on the property. When David Law found
out that they were not covered, he started paying insurance
in December of 2015, paying a total of $2, 396.77. David Law
also paid a total of $13, 145.56 in taxes to hold off
foreclosure due to Tracey Baron not paying taxes. David Law
paid a total of $15, 541.77 that should have been paid by the
Barons under the JVA. Exhibit 304.
Paragraph 4 of the JVA states in part, “No Party to
this Agreement may further assign and/or divide its own
participation on the 18901 Venture with a third party without
the written consent of all other Parties. . . .”
Without Deem's or Law's consent, Michelle Baron
transferred her interest in the real property (Exhibit 253)
to a limited liability company, Turning Leaf Homes V, LLC,
which then filed bankruptcy. Michelle Baron admitted she did
not ask for Law or Deem's consent prior to signing this
Deed. Michelle Baron testimony, Day 4, cross-examination.
Paragraph 16 of the JVA entitles the prevailing party in any
dispute over the JVA to recovery attorney fees and costs.
failure to pay rent on Hill Top
Tracey and Michelle Baron signed a Residential Lease
Agreement backdated to December 15, 2013 (Exhibit 263)
requiring them to pay rent on the Hill Top property to DJ
Property Solutions (David Law) $2, 500 a month. Trial Day 2.
The parties anticipated that Tracey and Michelle Baron would
either obtain permanent financing requiring payments of $2,
500 per month or pay rent of $2, 500 a month. Michelle Baron
acknowledged that after she received her interest in Hill Top
(Exhibit 251), she intended to continue paying rent. Michelle
Baron testimony, Day 4, cross-examination. No. one agreed
that the Barons could live in the Hill Top property rent
Barons paid $2, 500 per month from January 2014 - May 2015.
Trial Trans. p. 38. Law testimony, Day 2. They moved out of
the Hill Top property in February of 2015. Trial Trans. p.
38. They were not forced out of the property. Tracey told
Michelle Baron that there was going to be construction and
that they needed to leave during construction. Michelle Baron
testimony, Day 4.
March 1, 2015, Tracey Baron rented the Hill Top house to a
third party, Cynthia Morris, until she moved out on December
24, 2017. Trial Trans. p. 39. He did not inform Law or Deem
they were renting the Hill Top property to Morris. Law
testimony, Day 2.
There is no provision in the JVA authorizing Michelle and
Tracey Baron to rent the Hill Top property to a third-party.
Trial Trans. p. 40. Additionally, there is no provision in
the lease with DJ Property Solutions to sublet the property
to a third party. Exhibit 263, page 2, paragraph. 5.
Michelle and Tracey Baron failed to distribute the $6, 000
Morris paid as rent in ...