I'm currently going through the amendment and rebuttal affidavit. In absolutely no particular order:
1. My first thought, being personally opposed to carrying consumer debt or having any debt on depreciating assets, is that I would be upset if I had a spouse who lived beyond our means and budget or ever compromised our savings.
(That's my personal bailiwick as I'm a big believer in establishing and maintaining savings and not spending more than budgeted for discretionary items). "Cary Lifestyle" be damned--financial freedom is where it's at! (IMHO) Those two needed a Dave Ramsey intervention.
2. The various calls and cell phone records presented do appear to counter the allegations of not being in touch on that boat show weekend and during the HH trip early July. No phone records were presented about the allegation of lack of communication during the MBA trip.
3. Brad's assertion that his indiscretion was a "one-time thing only" is bold...simply because if there were 2 or more encounters with that individual, that truth will likely emerge in sworn testimony. He didn't address the allegation that his "one time indiscretion" was alleged to have occurred in his home, in his daughter's BR while she was sleeping. I wonder why? That would have been something I would have addressed immediately in a rebuttal. Further encounters with anyone else are denied.
4. Emotional Instability: the best way to challenge that is to be evaluated by a competent psychiatrist and go through whatever the latest testing is to determine such things. That would settle the matter, I would think.
5. So where is Interact going to ummm... interact in all of this? I suppose they'll be subpoenaed again? This will be important if they have records from a prior contact.