Final Filed Motion With Exhibits

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Oct 29 10:27 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2017CP2605757
IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HORRY )
Karon Mitchell, Kyle Mitchell, and Rabon &)

Rabon, Inc., ) Case Number: 2017-CP-26-05757
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
Jack Rabon, Nicole Rabon, Lane Jeffries, ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
McNair Law Firm, P.A., Atid Properties, ) JUDGMENT
LLC, Daisy Ridge, LLC, Friends of LBS, )
LLC, Sarah Ginsburg, Jacob Biderman, )
Gabriel Yosef, and Michelle Cohen, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
CIV-676-01
Plaintiffs move this Court pursuant to Rule 56, SCRCP to grant summary judgment as to
its Third Cause of Action in this litigation against Lane Jefferies, which is more specifically
described below. There is no issue of material fact in dispute as to whether the sale of
September 3, 2015 was procured by fraud and that Lane Jefferies, a member of the South
Carolina Bar, was an active participant. Lane Jefferies knowingly provided false testimony in a
sworn deposition. Any additional explanation or affidavits that contradict his sworn deposition
testimony must be considered a “sham affidavit” and cannot be considered by this Court in
reaching its decision. Without Jefferies’ false alibis about the September Sales, he cannot mount
a defense against Plaintiff’s claims, especially considering the admissions he provided in that
same deposition. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as laid out below.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
This litigation focuses on the sale of certain properties owned by a family corporation,
Rabon & Rabon, Inc., which is owned by the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon (hereinafter the “Estate”
Page 1 of 21
(61%), Defendant Jack Rabon (13%), Plaintiff Kyle Mitchell (13%), and Plaintiff Karon
Mitchell (13%). The properties were purportedly sold to avoid pending foreclosures, although
only one of the properties was mortgaged [hereinafter referred to as the “September Sales”].
These properties are described as follows:
All that certain piece, parcel or lot of land situate, lying and being in the
City of Myrtle Beach, Dogwood Neck Township, Horry County, South
Carolina, shown and designated as Lot Three (3) of Block Nineteen (19)
according to a map or plat of Hotel Section of Myrtle Beach, as made in
June and July if 1926, under the supervision of Stanley H. Wright,
Engineer, which map or plat is recorded in the Clerk of Court’s Office for
Horry County in Plat Book 1 at page 84, reference to which is hereby
made as a part and parcel of this description.
TMS # 181-11-03-005/ PIN # 444-01-04-0044 [hereinafter the “Brick

House”]
All those certain pieces, parcels or lots of land, with improvements

thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Myrtle Beach, Dogwood
Neck Township, Horry County, South Carolina, shown and designated
as Lot Numbers Seventeen (17) and Eighteen (18) of Block Nineteen
(19), as shown on a map of the Hotel Section of Myrtle Beach made in
June and July 1926, under the supervision of Stanley H. Wright,
Engineer, and recorded in the office of the RMC for Horry County,
South Carolina, in Plat Book 1 at page 84, reference to which is craved
as forming a part of these presents.
TMS # 181-11-03-002 / PIN # 444-01-04-0051
All that certain piece, parcel or lot of land, with improvements thereon,
situate, lying and being in the City of Myrtle Beach, Dogwood Neck
Township, Horry County, South Carolina, shown and designated as Lot
Number Two (2) of Block Nineteen (19), as shown on a map of the Hotel
Section of Myrtle Beach made in June and July 1926, under the
supervision of Stanley H. Wright, Engineer, and recorded in the office of
the RMC for Horry County, South Carolina, in Plat Book 1 at page 84,
reference to which is craved as forming a part of these presents.
TMS # 181-11-03-004 / PIN # 444-01-04-0043[collectively hereinafter

“Sea Palms #3”]
Page 2 of 21
A diagram of the properties and there relation to one another is attached hereto as D-1.1 is It is
with regard to these properties that the fraudulent schemes were perpetrated.
Essentially, Jack Rabon, Lane Jeffries (Rabon’s lawyer), and others orchestrated a
scheme in which $777,000.00 was paid for the two properties owned by Rabon & Rabon, Inc.
with $235,000.00 of that money being paid “under the table” to Jack Rabon and others.
THE FACTS
The Beginning
Prior to her death, Peggy Jo Hardee Rabon was the majority shareholder in Rabon &
Rabon, Inc. [hereinafter the “Corporation”]. Her two children (Jack Rabon and Karon Mitchell),
along with her son-in-law (Kyle Mitchell) were the other shareholders in the Corporation. The
Corporation owned four hotels in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (the Sea Palms hotels) and a small
home [the “Brick House”] along the 7th Avenue corridor. The hotels were each assigned a number
for reference, i.e. Sea Palms #1, Sea Palms #2, etc. The Corporation was a family business which
was originally operated by Peggy Jo and her husband, with Karon and Kyle Mitchell assisting in
the management of the hotels. Karon and Kyle Mitchell eventually took over full control once
Peggy Jo got to an advanced age. In 2012, the family created a new limited liability company,
MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC [hereinafter MBBE]. MBBE was owned equally by all four
shareholders of the Corporation.2 MBBE was formed to build a miniature golf course and
restaurant on three ocean front lots owned by the family. To accomplish this goal, a $3.6 million
loan was obtained through West Town Bank. This loan was secured by the miniature golf course
and restaurant, along with two of the Sea Palms hotels (Sea Palms #3 and Sea Palms #4). The
1
The Diagram Exhibits are in the blue covered bound volume.
2
The family members and their respective ownerships and positions in the family businesses are laid
out in Diagram D-2.
Page 3 of 21
West Town loans were also personally guaranteed by all of the individual shareholders and the
Corporation.3
In 2014, TD Bank filed a foreclosure action on three of the hotels. This led to an interfamily
conflict and litigation beginning in July 2014. McNair Law Firm was retained by Jack Rabon and
Peggy Jo Rabon to bring an action against Karon and Kyle Mitchell for mismanagement and
misappropriation of funds. Peggy Jo Rabon passed away on August 31, 2014. Jack Rabon was
subsequently appointed as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon.
In October 2014, Jack Rabon used his position as the personal representative of the Estate
to vote Peggy Jo’s shares in favor of himself being elected the President of the Corporation and
his wife, Nicole, being elected both Treasurer and Secretary of the Corporation. These actions
were taken over the direct objections of Karon Mitchell and Kyle Mitchell4. After October 1, 2014,
the entirety of the operation of the Corporation was in the exclusive control of Jack Rabon. From
that point, the relationship between the parties further deteriorated, resulting in multiple lawsuits
being filed in circuit court and probate court.
The West Town and BB&T Foreclosures
BB&T held a mortgage on Sea Palms #3 in first position in the amount of $462,000.00.
All of the shareholders of the Corporation, except Jack Rabon, were personal guarantors on the
BB&T loan. West Town Bank held a mortgage in second position on Sea Palms #3 securing its
$3.6 million loan. BB&T filed a foreclosure action on Sea Palms #3 in November 2014 and
obtained a judgement in the amount of $417,529.93 against the Corporation on May 27, 2015.
Exhibit A, BB&T Foreclosure Order. In addition, BB&T sought a deficiency judgment against
3
A diagram that demonstrates the different banks and their respective mortgages is provided in
Diagram D-3.
4
Rabon did these acts on the specific advice of his attorneys from McNair. Jefferies was not an attorney
at the time of that advice and took no part in advising Jack on this issue.
Page 4 of 21
the Corporation. Id. The foreclosure sale was scheduled to occur on September 7, 2015.
West Town Bank filed a foreclosure action on its loan in April 2015, seeking to foreclose
on the MBBE property, Sea Palms #4, and Sea Palms #3. Exhibit B, West Town Foreclosure
Complaint. West Town Bank also sought a deficiency judgment against MBBE and all the
personal guarantors, including the Corporation.
Shai David
In January 2015, Jack Rabon executed a contract with Shai David for the sale of several
Rabon & Rabon, Inc. properties for $1 million. According to Jack Rabon, he and David had a
separate, unwritten agreement that David would pay Rabon an additional $735,000.00 “off the
record” for the properties. Lane Jefferies was present at most of the meetings while these
negotiations took place (Exhibit H, Affidavit of Jack Rabon, Paragraphs 16-18) and actually
discussed the illicit payments in a text message exchange with Rabon on January 10, 2015.
Exhibit AA, Text Message from Jack Rabon 1/10/15.5 Officially, Sea Palms #1 was sold to
David for $242,000.00 in February 2015 and Sea Palms #2 was sold for $175,000.00 in March
2015. These sales took place without approval from the Probate Court or notice to the minority
shareholders. The Sea Palms #2 sale resulted in cash of $128,289.57 belonging to the Corporation
that was deposited directly into the McNair Law Firm Trust account.6
Once Plaintiffs discovered the sales, they filed suit against Rabon. In their Answer, the
McNair Firm misrepresented to the court and creditors that the money obtained from the sale of
Sea Palms #2 was used “to preserve assets of the Corporation.” Exhibit GG, Answer to Probate
Complaint, Paragraph 31. In fact, McNair actually held more than $120,000.00 in Rabon &
Rabon, Inc. funds in its trust account at the time it made this representation. Ultimately, only
5
Jefferies authenticated this text in his deposition at page 88.
6
The state of the mortgages after the Shai David sales is demonstrated in Diagram D-4.
Page 5 of 21
$48,460.30 the $128,289.57 was spent towards expenses for the Corporation. The rest of the funds
were either paid to McNair Law Firm (approximately $66,000.00), or Nicole Rabon
(approximately $14,000.00).
On or about August 2, 2015, Defendant Nicole Rabon informed McNair Law Firm via
email that an offer had been made for both Sea Palms #3 and the Brick House in the form of two
separate contracts. Exhibit C, 8/02/2015 Email. In this email, Rabon directly stated that she
wanted to conceal the sales price of the Brick House from BB&T because there was no mortgage
on that property. Lane Jefferies agreed to this strategy and copied Henrietta Golding with the
entire email chain.
Over the next month, Lane Jefferies and Henrietta Golding negotiated with both BB&T
and West Town Bank without ever disclosing that the Brick House was being sold, or that the
Corporation was walking away with over $130,000.00 in cash from that sale. Exhibit D, Affidavit
of Riddick Skinner, Paragraphs 5-9. More importantly, McNair held more than $94,000.00 of
the Corporation’s cash in its trust account for “expenses” while these negotiations took place with
the banks. Exhibit E, McNair Ledger; Exhibit F, Deposition of Henrietta Golding, Pages 93-
102. As a result of these negotiations and the concealment of sale of the Brick House, BB&T
agreed to accept only $397,000.00 as full satisfaction of its judgment and West Town agreed to
accept only $7500.00 for the release of its $3.6 million mortgage on Sea Palms #3. In addition,
the Corporation received a check for more than $131,000.00 from the closing (see Exhibit G,
HUD-1 Statement), and McNair continued to hold more than $67,000.00 of the Corporation’s
money in its trust account. Both BB&T and West Town Bank are FDIC insured financial
institutions and the sale of the Brick House was material to their decisions to accept the negotiated
Page 6 of 21
terms offered by McNair Law Firm. Exhibit D, Affidavit of Riddick Skinner, Paragraphs 5-9.7
The September Conspiracy
Jacob Biderman is a citizen of Austria who operates a jewish educational institution in
Myrtle Beach through Friends of LBS, LLC. The original written contract with Friends of LBS,
LLC was for the sale of Sea Palms #3 and the Brick House for the total price of $542,000.00.
However, the actual deal was for Biderman to pay $777,000.00 for both properties, with the
additional $235,000.00 to be paid to Jack Rabon and others via a wire transfer and cash. Exhibit
H, Affidavit of Jack Rabon, Paragraph 2. Michelle Cohen was the realtor involved in the deal
and the primary representative of the Biderman Defendants. Ms. Cohen confirmed the conspiracy
to pay the additional illicit funds via affidavit. Exhibit I, Affidavit of Michelle Cohen,
Paragraphs 5-9. Jacob Biderman, Atid Properties, LLC, Friends of LBS, LLC and Sarah Ginsberg
admitted in their joint answer that the additional $235,000.00 was paid for the two properties
outside of the closing. Exhibit J, Answer of Biderman Defendants, Paragraphs 44-57.
Therefore, the payment of the undisclosed $235,000.00 in funds is admitted by all of the parties
directly involved. There is a dispute as to who received $50,000.00 of the illicit funds, but all
parties agree that $185,000.00 went to Jack Rabon.8 Biderman further disputes that he was aware
that the additional funds were improper or illegal.
On August 20, 2015, Lane Jefferies made a motion in the Horry County Probate Court to
sell two properties owned by Rabon & Rabon, Inc. A copy of the motion is attached as Exhibit
K, Motion to Sell Estate Property. In the motion and in direct representations to Plaintiffs, Lane
Jefferies represented that Friends of LBS, LLC agreed to pay $145,000.00 to Rabon & Rabon, Inc.
7
The state of the mortgages after the September Sales is demonstrated in Diagram D-5.
8
This is the discrepancy between Rabon and Cohen’s affidavit. It is the only material fact about this
case on which the affidavits disagree.
Page 7 of 21
for the Brick House and $397,000.00 for Sea Palms #3, for a total of $542,000.00. See Exhibit
L, Consent Order of August 26, 2015. These representations were false. Jack Rabon and Lane
Jeffries knew the aforementioned representations were false at the time they were made to the
Mitchells and the Probate Court.
As a result of the fraudulent representations, Lane Jefferies obtained permission from the
Mitchells and the Probate Court for the sale to Biderman for the price $542,000.00. Both the
corporate resolution drafted by Jefferies and the Consent Motion signed by the Probate Court
represented that only $542,000.00 was being paid for the property as opposed to the actual agreed
upon price of $777,000.00. Due to the impending loss of the property to BB&T, and the false
understanding that no better offer existed, the Mitchells signed the Resolution and the Consent
Order on August 25, 2015.
Upon the executed Resolution and Consent Order, the final stages of the conspiracy were
set into motion. Biderman formed a new LLC, Atid Properties, LLC, for the sole purpose of taking
title to Sea Palms #3 and the Brick House. Jack and Nicole Rabon formed a new company, Daisy
Ridge, LLC, for the sole purpose of receiving the undisclosed funds via wire from Biderman. The
formation of Daisy Ridge, LLC was suggested by Lane Jefferies who referred the Rabons to Robert
Frenz, an attorney in Columbia, for its formation. Jefferies actually provided the fraudulent
address for Rabon to use as the office for Daisy Ridge, LLC via text message. Exhibit H, Affidavit
of Jack Rabon, Paragraph 24; Exhibit M, Text from Lane Jefferies to Jack Rabon on
8/26/2015; Exhibit N, Articles of Organization for Daisy Ridge, LLC; Exhibit O, Affidavit of
Robert Frenz; Exhibit P, Affidavit of Dan Joyner; Exhibit AA – Deposition of Lane Jefferies
Page 99. After the LLCs were formed, the last piece of the conspiracy involved the money. The
Page 8 of 21
money from Biderman would be transferred through three wire transfers.9
The First Wire consisted of the legitimate funds under the contracts and transferred to the
Emery Law Firm Trust Account from a newly created Bank of America bank account in the name
of Atid Properties, LLC. This total of $527,627.77 arrived no later than September 2, 2015 Exhibit
Q, Emails from Michelle Cohen to Emery Law Firm.
The Second Wire in the amount of $100,000.00 was wired from Biderman’s account in
Austria to a bank account in Chile in the name of Gabby Yosef, Michelle Cohen’s brother. Exhibit
I, Affidavit of Michelle Cohen, Paragraph 11; Exhibit R, Email between Cohen and Biderman.
These funds were withdrawn in cash to be handed to Jack Rabon. Exhibit H, Affidavit of Jack
Rabon, Paragraph 5; Exhibit I, Affidavit of Michelle Cohen, Paragraph 11.
The Third Wire was in the amount of $135,000.00 and was transferred to a PNC Bank
Account in the name of Daisy Ridge, LLC. Exhibit S, Wire Confirmation from Bank of Austria.
Due to the anti-money laundering regulations in the U.S., the Third Wire had to go through a
clearinghouse in New York and it did not arrive by September 3, 2015. This caused a ripple in the
plan, resulting in Jack Rabon demanding that additional security be paid for the illicit funds in the
amount of $135,000.00. Biderman wrote three checks for $45,000.00 each that were given to Lane
Jefferies as security for the undisclosed funds. Lane Jefferies signed a receipt for these three
checks on September 3, 2015, the same day as the closing. Exhibit T, Signed Receipt by Lane
Jefferies. Jefferies asserted in writing that these checks were for “security for the brick house,”
but this is false. All funds necessary for the closing of both properties arrived in the trust account
of the Emery Law Firm no later than September 2, 2018, the day before the three checks were
handed to Lane Jefferies. Exhibit DD – Affidavit of Melanie Emery.
9
A diagram of the various wires is provided as Diagram D-8.
Page 9 of 21
On September 2, 2015, Lane Jefferies engaged in a series of texts with Jack and Nicole
Rabon. These texts are the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to proving Lane Jefferies’
knowing and intentional involvement in the conspiracy. Exhibit U, Texts from Lane Jefferies to
Jack Rabon on 9/02/2015. These texts demonstrate his knowledge of both wires involving the
illicit monies from Biderman. The single text that conclusively proves Lane Jefferies’ direct
involvement reads as follows:
“Damn. Jack, can you get Michelle on the phone and see if gabby got his
wire?”
The only “gabby” involved was Gabby Yosef, the brother of Michelle Cohen. The only way
Gabby Yosef was involved with any party in general, or with the real estate transaction on
September 3, 2015 in particular, was through the wire of $100,000.00 to his bank account in Chile
[the “Second Wire” described above]. Lane Jefferies knew about and, more importantly, was
concerned about Gabby’s wire. This proves he knew about the illicit funds and was an active
participant in the conspiracy to defraud the banks, the Mitchells and Rabon & Rabon, Inc.
On September 3, 2015, Lane Jefferies was picked up by Jack Rabon after the closing was
complete. Exhibit V, Texts from Lane Jefferies to Jack Rabon on 9/03/2015. They travelled to
a parking lot off of 38th Avenue North in Myrtle Beach to meet with Michelle Cohen and Gabby
Yosef. Michelle then handed an envelope with $50,000.00 cash inside. In front of Michelle
Cohen, Jack Rabon immediately handed Lane Jefferies $10,000.00 of the cash. Exhibit H,
Affidavit of Jack Rabon, Paragraph 4; Exhibit I, Affidavit of Michelle Cohen, Paragraphs 5-
32. Over the course of the next seven weeks, Jack Rabon withdrew nearly all of the $135,000.00
from the Daisy Ridge, LLC account in cash. This excessive withdrawal activity caused PNC Bank
to initiate an investigation under its anti-money laundering guidelines. One of the investigators
working the file was named Jesse Cagle. Mr. Cagle was an employee at the PNC branch where
Page 10 of 21
the Rabons opened the Daisy Ridge, LLC account. Exhibit W, PNC AML Investigation Notes.
Mr. Cagle spoke with Mr. Jefferies on the phone regarding the excessive withdrawals by Jack
Rabon. Mr. Jefferies told Mr. Cagle that he didn’t know why Jack was withdrawing the cash. He
suggested that Jack Rabon had a gambling problem or a “girl on the side.” But it was his money
and he should be able to do what he wanted with it.10 Lane Jefferies actually billed the Rabons for
this phone call in the official billing records issued by McNair Law Firm. Exhibit X, McNair
Billing Record. In his deposition, Jefferies admitted to this conversation with Cagle. Exhibit BB,
Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 158-162.
Lane’s Story for the Smoking Gun Text
In Lane’s deposition, his alibi for the Smoking Gun Text is that Michelle Cohen was
holding the West Town Release hostage in order to get her brother, Gabby, paid for his “work”
at the hotel. Lane stated that the Rabons were wiring approximately $5000.00 to Gabby and
Michelle would not hand over the signed West Town release until the wire was complete. Thus,
his inquiry “Damn. Jack, can you get Michelle on the phone and see if gabby got his wire?” was
about the wire from the Rabons to Gabby because Michelle Cohen was holding the release from
West Town hostage. Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 97-107.
First, Gabby was the tenant leasing the hotel from the Rabons, so exactly how he was
entitled to money for his “work” at the hotel is difficult to understand. Second, Lane was not in
charge of the real estate closing. It is undisputed that Bhumi Patel was the primary responsible
attorney for the September Sales. Exhibit CC, Deposition of Bhumi Patel, Page 8, Line 21 –
Page 9, Line 5. The only reason Lane was included in the communications was because he
10
Mr. Cagle resides out of state and counsel was unable to obtain an affidavit prior to filing this motion.
Once an affidavit is secured, this motion will be supplemented.
Page 11 of 21
requested that Bhumi copy him on everything. [Exhibit CC - Deposition of Bhumi Patel, Page
22, Line 1 – Page 22, Line 10.]
More importantly, the documents produced by Lane’s attorneys, (Exhibit HH, Bates
Stamped McNair_007190 through McNair_007206) are conclusive of Jefferies
misrepresentation when examined with the Smoking Gun Text. The time-stamps from all of the
documents create a timeline that makes Lane’s story impossible.
1. September 1, 2015 – 11:28am – McNair_007190 – Dan Stacy emails Lane and Bhumi
Patel “I am getting USDA approval and should have that today per my client. We will do
the deal.” This is the first indication from Dan Stacy that West Town is willing to sign a
partial release on Sea Palms #3.
2. September 1, 2015 – 3:39pm – Exhibit U – Lane tells the Rabons that there is “no word
from West Town” except they verbally agreed to do the deal. He says he will follow up
with West Town later that day. This is an admission from Lane that he knows nothing
has been signed by West Town as of September 1, 2015 at 3:39pm.
3. September 2, 2015 – 10:35am – McNair_007190 – Lane emails Dan Stacy: “Dan —

Any paperwork from West Town? The buyers, sellers, agents, and closing attorneys are
giving me no peace! Best, Lane.” This email demonstrates a couple of things. First,
Lane is telling another lawyer that Michelle Cohen is asking him about the West Town
paperwork (she was the only agent involved in the sale for either side). Second, this is an
admission from Lane that he knows nothing has been signed by West Town as of
September 2, 2015 at 10:35am.
4. September 2, 2015 – 1:11pm – Exhibit U – Lane texts to the Rabons “Just checking in,
any word from the Bank?” It is possible, however unlikely, that Lane was contacted by
Cohen after 10:35am on September 2, 2015 and told that she had documents signed from
West Town. It is also possible, however unlikely, that Lane was inquiring at this point
about a wire to Gabby Yosef from the Rabons for working at the hotel he was leasing
from the Rabons that was ordered and executed in the span of two hours and 36 minutes.
5. September 2, 2015 – 2:10pm – McNair_007191 – Dan Stacy emails Lane: “Please send
over the partial release for the lender to sign.” Lane and Bhumi know at this time that
nothing has been signed by West Town. [Exhibit BB - Deposition of Bhumi Patel, Page
26, Lines 9-15.]
Page 12 of 21
6. September 2, 2015 – 2:12pm – McNair_007191 – Lane emails Bhumi: “Bhumi and
Laurie — can you get this do Dan asap? Thanks, Lane” with Dan’s 2:10pm email
attached. Lane and Bhumi Patel both know at 2:10pm on September 2, 2019 that West
Town has not signed any release.
7. September 2, 2015 – 2:29pm – McNair_007191 – Bhumi sends the original draft of the
release to Dan Stacy.
8. September 2, 2015 – 2:52pm– McNair_007193 – Dan Stacy emails Bhumi and Lane:
“We are not satisfying our mortgage on all of the property we have our lien on. This is
only supposed to be a release for the property we have a second mortgage on, behind
BB&T. what we are expecting is a partial release. The balance of the property I am
foreclosing on.”
9. September 2, 2015 – 2:54pm – McNair_007193 – Lane emails Bhumi and Dan Stacy:
“I agree with Dan's statement — West Town is releasing its second on Building 3 and the
Middle Lot. The other property that West Town has mortgage's on belongs to entities
other than Rabon & Rabon, Inc., and so is not implicated here.”
10. September 2, 2015 – 2:56pm – McNair_007196 – Bhumi responds “Dan, you are
correct. My apologies, I was looking at the BB&T mortgage and inadvertently stated
what I did below. I will prepare the partial release and send to you shortly. Thanks,”
Lane and Bhumi Patel (as she admitted in her deposition) both know at 2:56pm on
September 2, 2019 that West Town has not signed any release. In fact, they both know at
this point that West Town does not even possess the release that needs to be signed.
[Deposition of Bhumi Patel, Page 27, Line 24 – Page 28, Line 3.]
11. September 2, 2015 – 3:05pm – Exhibit U – Lane texts to the Rabons “Any word yet?”
Nicole calls the bank, texts back “Nothing.” Lane then sends the “gabby got his wire”
text. It is not possible that Lane believed Michelle Cohen possessed any release signed
by West Town when he sent this text, as he knew Bhumi had yet to send the release to
West Town. Moreover, this text is an inquiry about two wires, not one. First he asks
Nicole about her bank. After she confirms that she had not received any wires, Lane asks
Jack if Gabby got “his wire.” [Deposition of Bhumi Patel, Page 27, Line 24 – Page 28,
Line 3.]
12. September 2, 2015 – 3:23pm – McNair_007199 – Bhumi finally sends the revised
documents to Dan Stacy for West Town to sign.
Page 13 of 21
13. September 2, 2015 – 3:51pm – McNair_007206 – Lane emails Dan Stacy – “Dan — If
you will let me know when you have the documents signed, I will send someone by to
pick up the originals. Thanks, Lane.” Lane directly asks Dan to notify him when the
documents are signed. Obviously, Lane knows nothing has been signed as he is asking
Dan to tell him when they are signed. [Deposition of Bhumi Patel, Page 30, Line 23 –
Page 31, Line 9.]
14. September 2, 2015 – 5:00pm – Exhibit U – Lane texts to the Rabons “One last check”
Nicole texts back “No.” Obviously a final check for the wires when Lane knows that
Cohen does not possess anything signed by West Town.
15. September 3, 2015 – 8:34am – Exhibit U – Lane texts to the Rabons that the West Town
release is “almost here.”
While the entire timeline of communications is relevant to proving Lane’s lie, the key portions
are between 2:10 and 3:51pm on September 2 (paragraphs 5 through 13). It is possible, however
ridiculous and unlikely, that Michelle Cohen claimed she had the release and was demanding
payment at the time Lane sent the first text inquiring about the wire at 1:11pm on 9/02/2015. It
is NOT possible that Lane still believed this at 3:05pm or again at 5pm that same day because he
knew that West Town had not signed anything at that point. Bhumi Patel did not even send the
revised release to Dan Stacy for signature until 3:23pm on September 2, 2015. When Lane made
his inquiries into the wires at 3:05pm and again at 5:00pm on September 2, 2015, there is no
possible way he believed Michelle Cohen was holding an executed release from West Town
hostage as he stated in his deposition. He lied in his deposition.
Lane’s Story for the Signed Receipt
Lane’s original story for the signed receipt is that he thought it was “security” for the sale
of the Brick House. [Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Paragraph 62]. This story is
implausible from the outset as the escrow agent was Emery Law Firm and Biderman had already
provided security of $5000.00 upon execution of the original sales contract, which was held in
Page 14 of 21
the Emery Trust account. The more telling portion of his story is in the second sentence in
which Jefferies claims that he “later determined that the funds would be wire transferred to the
closing attorney’s trust account.” This is undeniably false.
Lane elaborated on this false narrative in his deposition. Exhibit BB, Deposition of
Lane Jefferies, Page 30, Line 8 through Page 32, line 25. However, the documents produced by
Lane’s attorneys, (Exhibit GG, McNair_007003 through McNair_007005, McNair_007044,
and McNair_007158) are conclusive of what Lane knew and when he knew it. Lane knew the
funds would be wired to the Emery Trust account on August 27, 2015. McNair_007005. In
fact, he knew all of the money for the closings was in a US account on August 27, 2015.
McNair_7003. Jefferies knew that Emery Law Firm requested Biderman wire all of the funds
for the closing on August 31, 2015 in order to close both properties on September 2, 2015.
McNair_7044. More importantly, Jefferies knew on September 1, 2015 that Biderman had
wired all of the funds and the sole escrow agent and closing attorney was “all set on our end.”
McNair_7158. It is impossible that Jefferies did not know the money for the closing had not
been wired on September 3, 2015.
Further evidence that Jefferies was intentionally untruthful in his deposition are revealed
in other documents produced by his attorneys. Jefferies claims that he accepted the checks
because he believed Biderman was trying to back out of the purchase of the Brick House.
Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies,, Page 30, Line 20. Jefferies stated that he went to
meet Cohen to receive the checks on September 3, 2015 and sign the receipt attached as Exhibit
O to the Second Amended Complaint. Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies,, Page 116.
Once again, the emails disprove any possibility of this story. The Seller side closing was
scheduled and actually occurred at 10:00am on September 3, 2015. See Exhibit CC, Affidavit
Page 15 of 21
of Melanie Emery. Jefferies knew and actually approved of this time the day before.
McNair_007174. According to the texts, Rabon picked Lane Jefferies up after 2:00pm on
September 3, 2015. Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Exhibit 5, “T-7”]. It is
impossible that Jefferies thought Biderman failed to wire the funds for the purchase of the Brick
House at 2:00pm, four hours after Biderman signed the HUD-1 for both properties and less than
2 hours before Emery actually delivered the settlement checks to his office. More importantly,
Lane unambiguously stated in his deposition that he discussed the three $45k checks with either
someone at Emery Law Firm [which is refuted by Melanie Emery in Exhibit CC] or “one of the
real estate attorneys at our firm.” Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 32, Line 16-
25]. According to Bhumi, that “real estate attorney” was not her, and no Defendant can identify
which attorney Lane allegedly spoke to at McNair. Exhibit BB - Deposition of Bhumi Patel,
Page 9, Line 22 – Page 10, Line 16. In fact, neither Bhumi Patel nor McNair Law Firm
presented any evidence to corroborate any detail of Jefferies’ testimony with regard to the texts,
the Cohen attempted extortion, or the three checks provided by Biderman.
Finally, Lane testified that he spoke with Jacob Biderman about backing out of part of the
deal. Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies Page 26, Line 1 through Page 28, Line 10]
Lane claimed that his conversation with Biderman was the reason Cohen brought him the three
checks for the Brick House. However, Biderman denies he ever spoke with Lane Jefferies.
[Exhibit EE, Admission by Jacob Biderman]. Moreover, the process to follow in such
situations was to contact Melanie Emery, not Biderman himself. Exhibit CC - Deposition of
Bhumi Patel, Page 16, Line 13 – Page 17, Line 5; Page 33, Line 20 – Page 34, Line 9; Page 33,
Line 20 – Page 34, Line 9.]
The Insurance Fraud Text
Page 16 of 21
Exhibit 28 to Jefferies deposition was a text message unrelated to this case, but important
nonetheless. Jefferies represented Rabon in a civil case against Shai David related to a shooting
in November 2015. Exhibit 28 was incomplete, but it was clear that Rabon was asking Jefferies
how to avoid paying the valid subrogation liens possessed by the health insurance company that
paid for Rabon’s medical bills related to the shooting. In fact, Jefferies verified that Rabon was
attempting to conceal the settlement proceeds paid by Shai David and not reimburse the
insurance company. Exhibit BB, - Deposition of Lane Jefferies Page 207-211. Only a portion of
Jefferies’ response was included in Exhibit 28. In the deposition, Jefferies verified the text and
provided what he claimed was the omitted portion of the text, implying that Rabon manipulated
the text to take it out of context. Id. However, immediately after the deposition, Rabon found
the full text response from Jefferies and it does not say what Jefferies claimed in his deposition.
Exhibit 28 provides the following response from Jefferies to Rabon’s request to conceal
funds from the insurance company: “I understand. The difficult part of doing such a deal is not
so much the doing but the planning. You and Shai would have to set it up directly with each
other. Also the” In his deposition, Jefferies testified to the next line of the text was “complaint
would have to be dismissed.” Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 210-211].
Jefferies further stated that he ended the text by telling Rabon that such an arrangement would be
unethical and he could have nothing to do with it. Jefferies then indicated that Rabon was trying
to take his communication out of context by hiding Jefferies’ disavowal of the illegal/unethical
act. The actual full response by Jefferies, attached hereto as Exhibit FF, demonstrates that this
too was false. Jefferies’ full response reads:
I understand. The difficult part of doing such a deal is not so much the
doing but the planning. You and Shai would have to set it up directly
with each other. Also the lawsuit will have to be dismissed and once it
is the insurance company will start asking why. Eventually, they will
Page 17 of 21
find their way back to your off-the-books deal. We spoke with Fran
today after he met with Shai. Shai originally did not want to transfer
the money until AFTER Shai talked with Jimmy, but Fran told him no.
So, … Shai is transferring the money by day after tomorrow. Once he
does, Scott will talk to Jimmy. I want to get the paper work signed
before or while Scott talks to Jimmy, not after. I am going to press hard
to make that happen once the money is moved.
At no point does Jefferies advise Rabon that his suggestion of insurance fraud is improper. The
scheme proposed by Rabon would violate numerous civil and criminal laws, not to mention
directly violate Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. But Jefferies never mentions
this in any way. Jefferies actually tells Rabon that the Complaint would have to be dismissed in
order to hide the money transfer. Thus, we have another false statement by Jefferies under oath.
THE LAW
Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP, summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an
adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response,
by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial. Hall v. Fedor, 349 S.C. 169, 175, 561 S.E.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App.
2002). "In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all inferences
which can be reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party." Hancock v. Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 329-30, 673 S.E.2d 801,
802 (2009). "Summary judgment is proper whe[n] plain, palpable, and indisputable facts exist on
Page 18 of 21
which reasonable minds cannot differ." Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 405, 409 S.E.2d
366, 368 (1991). However, “Summary judgment is appropriate in those cases in which plain,
palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ.” Main v. Corley,
281 S.C. 525, 526, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984) (Internal citations omitted.) A motion for
summary judgment is akin to a motion for a directed verdict. In each instance, one party must
lose as a matter of law. A motion for a directed verdict speaks in terms of “only one reasonable
inference.” A motion for a summary judgment speaks in terms of “no genuine issue as to
material facts.” It is not sufficient that one create an inference which is not reasonable. Similarly,
it is not sufficient that one create an issue of fact that is not genuine. Id. at 526–27, 316 S.E.2d at
407 (1984). A judge should not attach unusual significance to the self-serving speculations of a
party to find an inference that defeats summary judgment. See Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v.
Crouch, 300 S.C. 43, 45, 386 S.E.2d 290, 292 (Ct. App. 1989).
Perjured Testimony Must be Excluded From Any Consideration
The factual recitation provided above clearly and convincingly proves that Lane Jefferies
lied in his deposition. American Jurisprudence has long recognized the need to exclude false
testimony from proper legal proceedings. There is a plethora of cases in the federal system that
deal with criminal convictions based on perjury and the method for determining if the
introduction of perjured testimony constituted a constitutional offense under a habeus corpus
analysis. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481
(1985); Wedra v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 713, 717 n.1 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1109, 102 S.
Ct. 3491, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1372 (1982); Schneider v. Estelle, 552 F.2d 593, 595 (5th Cir.
1977); United States v. Rosner, 516 F.2d 269, 279 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 911, 96
S. Ct. 3198, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1203 (1976). All of these cases dealt with perjured testimony after it
Page 19 of 21
was used at trial. This case is different as we know the witness perjured himself before his
testimony is used in any way.
The integrity of the Court dictates that the deposition testimony of Lane Jefferies
pertaining to both the Smoking Gun text and the written receipt for the three $45,000.00 checks
must be excluded as perjured testimony. “[W]hen documentary evidence ‘blatantly
contradict[s]’ a [party’s] account ‘so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not
credit [that party’s] version on summary judgment.” Witt v. W. Va. State Police, Troop 2, 633
F.3d 272, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
Without Jefferies’ deposition testimony, only the affidavits of Michelle Cohen and Jack Rabon
stand as admissible evidence and no Defendant can offer anything to corroborate Jefferies’ story
or otherwise disprove that he knew about and participated in the illegal activities of his client.
Any additional explanation or affidavits that contradict his sworn deposition testimony must be
considered a “sham affidavit” and cannot be considered by this Court in reaching its decision.
Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210, 218, 592 S.E.2d 629, 633 (2004).
Without Jefferies’ false alibis about the September Sales, he cannot mount a defense
against Plaintiff’s claims, especially considering the admissions he provided in that same
deposition. He verified the smoking gun text (labelled “T-6” in his deposition) in his deposition:
2 This is T-6?
3 Q Uh-huh.
4 A Oh. All right. What's your question about that
5 one?
6 Q Do you recognize this text string?
7 A Yeah. Again, it's out of context, and, you know,
8 there's nothing before it and after it.11
11
After citing the “out of context” qualification, Jefferies then went on for nearly 14 pages, largely
uninterrupted, to expound on the context of the text message and the facts surrounding it.
Page 20 of 21
[Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 102] He admitted to signing a receipt for the
three checks in the amount of $45,000.00 a piece AFTER the closing occurred on September 3,
2015 Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 116, Lines 20-25; Exhibit DD –
Affidavit of Melanie Emery. He admitted to providing the fraudulent address for Daisy Ridge,
LLC via email to Jack Rabon and referring Jack Rabon to Robert Frenz to form the fraudulent
LLC. Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 25 and Page 99. He admitted to speaking
with the money laundering investigator named Jesse Cagle about Jack Rabon withdrawing
exorbitant amounts of cash from the Daisy Ridge, LLC checking account over the course of two
months immediately proceeding the closing. Id. at pages 158-162. This is not just smoke, this is
a raging inferno that leads to only one reasonable inference in this case: Lane Jefferies knew
about the illegal activity and he actively participated in that illegal activity, injuring Plaintiffs in
the process.
It is incontrovertible that Lane Jefferies lied in his deposition and that perjured testimony
is inadmissible for any purpose. Without Lane Jefferies testimony, Defendants cannot continue
to deny that (1) the $235,000.00 was paid outside the closing; (2) that Lane Jefferies knew about
the $235,000.00 and actively assisted with the illegal activities; and (3) he lied to everyone, from
his employer to this Court, about his involvement. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law.
October 29, 2019 s/Tucker S. Player

SC Bar # 16217
Player Law Firm, LLC
1415 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
803-315-6300
Tucker@playerlawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Unfortunately for Mr. Jefferies, he was unaware that his entire narrative was unambiguously
contradicted by his own emails on September 2, 2015.
Page 21 of 21
A
B
10/9/2018 Mail - totuckerp@outlook.com - Outlook
Fwd: Rabon2 -- 062992.00002 RE: RABON -- offer on Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on House
Jack & Nicole <sourmug2love@yahoo.com>

Sat 9/1/2018, 11:33 PM
To: totuckerp@outlook.com <totuckerp@outlook.com>
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jefferies, Lane" <LJefferies@mcnair.net>

Date: August 2, 2015 at 11:20:31 AM EDT
To: 'Jack & Nicole' <sourmug2love@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Golding, Henrietta" <HGolding@mcnair.net>, "Brady, Donna" <DBrady@mcnair.net>
Subject: Rabon2 -- 062992.00002 RE: RABON -- offer on Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on House
Nicole –
Thanks. That makes sense. In that case, let’s see if Michelle will have Brad King dra. two contracts that are iden�cal but for the property
descrip�ons. Brad can make them evenhanded, so I won’t have to make a lot of revisions to provide R&R with the same protec on provided to the
buyer. If Michelle wants to have Brad contact me (or me him) to discuss that would be fine. Please just let me know.
As soon as we have an agreement on paper (containing the con�ngency for shareholder/court approval), I will contact Sc� ��o and/or the
Probate Court to a� empt to get the sale approved.
Please let me know what response you get from Michelle.
Best regards,
Lane
From: Jack & Nicole [mailto:sourmug2love@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:35 PM C
https://outlook.live.com/mail/deeplink 1/4
To: Jefferies, Lane

Subject: Re: RABON -- offer on Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on House
The reason there are two contacts is because there isn't a mortgage on the house so we didn't want BB&T to get the sale price of both properes.
We will need the money from the sale of the house to pay capital gains.
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Jefferies, Lane <LJefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:
Nicole –
Three things:
1. See a� ached agreements with my revisions, including the conng ency for a shareholder vote and Court approval.
2. Not sure why Michelle is using two (different) contracts when the sale of the house is conng ent on the sale of Building 3 and
the Middle lot. Since the buyer wants to buy them as a group, it would make a lot more sense for everybody concerned just to
use a single contract.
3. The two contracts are different, and each is somewhat one-sided in its own way. As a result, I have made a LOT of revisions as
you will see. Suggeson: Br ad King is represenng the Buy er as I understand it, and I’ve seen Brad write some very fair and
balanced agreements. Why doesn’t Michelle have Brad write a single evenhanded agreement that includes all the parcels?
That would be cleaner, and a lot easier to read.
Please let me know the feedback you get from Michelle, and encourage her to get Brad involved, as this will make the process go much
more smoothly.
Best,
Lane
From: Jack & Nicole [mailto:sourmug2love@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: RABON -- offer on Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on House
Lane -
Will you be able to add that conng ency to the contract today? How soon can we get this approved by the court? Also, we can give you
a copy of the tax noce on the house. It has the mark et value at $168,800 which isn't far of the sales price.
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Jefferies, Lane <LJefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:
Jack –
Regarding the a� ached offers, you could either:
(1) Tell the buyers that you are glad to sign a. er the agreement is approved by the shareholders and/or the Probate
Court, OR
(2) Sign the agreement now a. er I add a conng ency for shareholder/Court approval.
The second opon w ould probably give the buyers more comfort. Queson: do w e have anything (appraisal, tax value,
etc.) to suggest what a reasonable value for either of these properes is? Especially the house, since BB&T no doub t had
something regarding Building 3. Please let me know. Something to establish value will be one of the first things the Judge
will ask for if we don’t get the Mitchell’s consent.
Best,
Lane
Lane D. Jefferies
Associate
ljefferies@mcnair.net | 843 443 3059 Direct
McNair Law Firm, P.A.

Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street | Suite 206 | Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main | 843 444 3964 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 | Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
VCard | Bio URL | Web site
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy of the contents of this email unless
requested.
From: MYRcopier@mcnair.net [mailto:MYRcopier@mcnair.net]

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 6:40 PM
Subject: A� ached Image
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward or disseminate this communication. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies.
<1809_001.pdf>
<1836_001.pdf>
D
Single Ledger Balance Report
Selection Criteria
Trust Account: CCNB Trust Account Description: Myrtle Beach - CCNB
Trust Account Number.
File ID: 062992.00002 Client / Matter: Rabon & Rabon, Inc.
Responsible Party: LDJ Ledger Comment: Proceeds from sale of Bldg. 2, 317 17ti
Settlement Date: 03/26/15 Property:
Starting Date:
Ending Date:
RefIC k Trans. Payee Name Cleared

N umber Date Memo Medium Date Amount
Incoming Wires
03/26/15
I
Bellamy Rutenberg 03/31/15 $128,289.57
Proceeds of Sale - Bldg. 2 - 317 17th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, SC
Total of 1 Incoming Wire: $128,289.57
Checks
1344 05/08/15
I
Horry County Treasurer 05/29/15 $1,537.92
Notice 277720-14-3
1345 05/08/15 Horry County Treasurer 05/29/15 $2,619.39
Notice 277721-14-3
Notice 277722-14-3
Notice 277718-14-3
1350 05/20/15 Michael E. Davis, CPA, P.A. 05/29/15 $2,625.00
Payment of Invoice 19231
1 357 06/04/15 Celtic Bank 06/30/15 $1,667.67
Loan payment
1373 10/06/15 McNair Law Firm Check 10/31/15 $10,000.00
Apply as retainer on 062992.4
1384 03/14/16 McNair Law Firm, PA Check 05/31/16 $10,000.00
Total of 8 Checks: $45,622.82
Miscellaneous
04/06/15
I
Celtic Bank wire out 04/30/15 $5,003.01
Rabon & Rabon Feb, Mar & Apr payments
07/08/15 Celtic Bank wire out 07/31/15 $3,335.34
J une & July Past Due Payments
Aug & Sept payments
09/03/15 Emery Law LLC IOLTA wire out 09/30/15 $23,845.35
Sale to ATID Properties of 17, 18 & 2, Blk 19 Hotel Section
October 2015 payment
Nov 2015 payment
December 2015 payment
PTW9 Page 1 of 2 Date of Report: 9/8/16

Time of Report: 02:38:36PM
E Report By: jfitzsim
McNAI R_004386
:
ms
s
Single Ledger Balance Report

ReflCk Trans. Payee Name Cleared
Number Date Memo Medium Date Amount
Total of 7 Miscellaneous Items: $40,522.05
Report Totals: Balance: $42,144.70
PTW9 Page 2 of 2 Date of Report: 9/8/16

Time of Report: 02:36.36P/vf
Report By: jfitzsim
McNAI R_004387
·1
·2· ·STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
·3
· · ·COUNTY OF HORRY· · · · · · ·FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·CIRCUIT
·5· ·KARON MITCHELL, KYLE MITCHELL and RABON &

· · ·RABON, INC.,
·6
· · · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs,
·7
· · · · · · vs.· · · ·CASE NO. 2017-CP-26-05757
·8
· · ·JACK RABON, NICOLE RABON, LANE JEFFRIES, MCNAIR
·9· ·LAW FIRM, PA, ATID PROPERTIES, LLC, DAISY
· · ·RIDGE, LLC, FRIENDS OF LBS, LLC, SARAH
10· ·GINSBURG, JACOB BIDERMAN, GABRIEL YOSEF, AND
· · ·MICHELLE COHEN,
11
· · · · · · · · ·Defendants.
12
13
14· ·DEPOSITION OF:· HENRIETTA GOLDING, ESQ.
15· ·DATE:· · · · · ·January 14, 2019

· · ·TIME:· · · · · ·10:00 a.m.
16· ·LOCATION:· · · ·100 Calhoun Street
· · · · · · · · · · ·Charleston, SC
17· ·TAKEN BY:· · · · Counsel for the Plaintiffs
18· ·REPORTED BY:· · ·Roxanne Easterwood, RPR
19
20· · · · · A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
21· · · · · · · · Fast, Accurate & Friendly

· · ·Charleston, SC· · Hilton Head, SC Myrtle Beach, SC
22· ·(843) 722-8414· · (843) 785-3263· ·(843) 839-3376
23· · ·Columbia, SC· · Greenville, SC· · Charlotte, NC

· · · (803) 731-5224· ·(864) 234-7030· ·(704) 573-3919
24
· · · · · · · · · · · · Asheville, NC
25· · · · · · · · · · · (828)785-5699
F
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES (800) 743-DEPO ·
scheduledepo.com
Karon Mitchell, et al vs. ·Henrietta Golding, Esq.
Jack and Nicole Rabon, et al January 14, 2019
2
·1· ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
·2· · · · ·ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

· · · · · · · · ·KARON MITCHELL, KYLE MITCHELL:
·3
· · · · · · · · ·PLAYER LAW FIRM
·4· · · · · · · ·BY:· TUCKER S. PLAYER
· · · · · · · · ·1415 Broad River Road
·5· · · · · · · ·Columbia, SC 29210
· · · · · · · · ·(803) 772-8008
·6· · · · · · · ·Tucker@playerlawfirm.com
·7
·8
· · · · · ·ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
·9· · · · · · · ·MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, LANE JEFFRIES:
10· · · · · · · ·ROBINSON GRAY

· · · · · · · · ·BY:· J. CALHOUN WATSON
11· · · · · · · ·1310 Gadsden Street
· · · · · · · · ·Columbia, SC 29201
12· · · · · · · ·(803) 929-1400
· · · · · · · · ·Cwatson@robinsongray.com
13
· · ·-- and --
14
· · · · · · · · ·BURR FORMAN MCNAIR
15· · · · · · · ·BY:· DAVID J. MILLS
· · · · · · · · ·100 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
16· · · · · · · ·Charleston, SC· 29401
· · · · · · · · ·(843) 235-4100
17· · · · · · · ·Dmills@burr.net
18
19· · · · · ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS

· · · · · · · · ·JACK RABON, NICOLE RABON:
20
· · · · · · · · ·G. SCOTT BELLAMY
21· · · · · · · ·BY:· G. SCOTT BELLAMY
· · · · · · · · ·1206 Third Avenue, Suite A
22· · · · · · · ·Conway, SC 29526
· · · · · · · · ·(843) 248-3172
23· · · · · · · ·Sbellamy@sccoast.net
24
25
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES (800) 743-DEPO Page 2

scheduledepo.com
93
·1· ·BY MR. PLAYER:
·2· · · · · Q.· ·You don't remember any communication
·3· ·where Jack said I don't want to tell BB&T about
·4· ·the 145?
·5· · · · · A.· ·No.
·6· · · · · Q.· ·You don't remember a phone call
·7· ·conversation, email, anything along those lines?
·8· · · · · A.· ·No.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. WATSON:· Object to the form.
10· ·BY MR. PLAYER:
11· · · · · Q.· ·What would have happened if you had
12· ·received an email that said we want to hide the
13· ·145 from BB&T?
14· · · · · A.· ·I would not have agreed.
15· · · · · Q.· ·Why not?
16· · · · · A.· ·That's just -- I just would not have
17· ·agreed.
18· · · · · Q.· ·Is there something wrong with that?
19· · · · · A.· ·Possibly.
20· · · · · Q.· ·How would it be wrong?
21· · · · · A.· ·I would have to have more information.
22· · · · · Q.· ·If we go back to -- and this is one of
23· ·the things, you know.· If we go back to the
24· ·consent order, you know, the sale of the brick
25· ·house, there's never any specifics in the order

scheduledepo.com YVer1f
94
·1· ·from the Court.· I'm just wondering why.
·2· · · · · A.· ·I don't know.
·5· · · · · Q.· ·Did you have any communications with
·6· ·BB&T or their lawyers with regards to the waiver
·7· ·of the deficiency?
·8· · · · · A.· ·Seems like I did, but I don't recall
·9· ·the name of the lawyer.
10· · · · · Q.· ·Kershaw Strong or Wilson McDonald?
11· · · · · A.· ·I just don't recall.
12· · · · · Q.· ·Do you know if you would have handled
13· ·those negotiations, or would it have been Lane?
14· · · · · A.· ·I believe Lane had some communications
15· ·but not directly with BB&T.· Probably with Mr.
16· ·Rabon.· I think those were the communication
17· ·links.
18· · · · · Q.· ·I guess what I'm focussed on is, you
19· ·know, I doubt -- and if it's the case you could
20· ·tell me.· But you know, BB&T was waiving $58,000.
21· ·If they were owed -- and they were also waiving
22· ·personal deficiencies from the Mitchells and the
23· ·Rabons.· I'm sure they didn't just do that as the
24· ·normal course.· I'm wondering what did you tell
25· ·BB&T at that point?

95
·2· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall.· I don't
·3· ·recall the discussions I had with BB&T.· I do
·4· ·recall some discussions I had with West Town Bank
·5· ·because that was with Dan Stacy.
·7· · · · · Q.· ·What do you recall about those
·8· ·communications?
·9· · · · · A.· ·I just recall having communication
10· ·with Dan.
11· · · · · Q.· ·Do you recall how the 7500 amount was
12· ·agreed to?
13· · · · · A.· ·No.
14· · · · · Q.· ·Do you remember disclosing the sale of
15· ·the brick house to Dan?
16· · · · · A.· ·I just don't recall the specifics of
17· ·the discussion with Dan other than the property is
18· ·being sold, this is what we would like to do.
19· · · · · Q.· ·Would it have been both properties or
20· ·just the hotel?
21· · · · · A.· ·I don't know what you mean by both
22· ·properties or just the hotel.
23· · · · · Q.· ·Well, this is -- you know, I'm going
24· ·through the documents, the communications that
25· ·I've got from Dan Stacy.· BB&T won't give me

96
·1· ·anything. But you know, it looks like all of the
·2· ·representations were we're selling the hotel for
·3· ·397.· There's never any mention of the brick house
·4· ·that was being sold for 145.
·5· · · · · · · ·If you will look on the HUD statement,
·6· ·tell me how much Rabon & Rabon was getting in
·7· ·terms of the proceeds from that sale.
·8· · · · · A.· ·Which property are you referring to?
·9· · · · · Q.· ·The 145.· I think it's the top one.
10· · · · · A.· ·It is.· I'm not quite sure.· It's got
11· ·here total reduction amount due sellers
12· ·$13,294.72.
13· · · · · Q.· ·That's seller?
14· · · · · A.· ·That's what you said, seller, right?
15· · · · · Q.· ·If you see the very bottom, it has
16· ·cash to seller.· That's the amount that would go
17· ·to Rabon & Rabon?
18· · · · · A.· ·Yes.· I'm sorry.· It's not real clear
19· ·on this document.· It's got $131,705.26 I think.
20· · · · · Q.· ·Roughly $130,000?
21· · · · · A.· ·That's what the line states.
22· · · · · Q.· ·My question is twofold.· It kind of
23· ·goes from BB&T and West Town.· Why would BB&T
24· ·waive almost 60 grand in deficiencies if Rabon &
25· ·Rabon was walking away with $130,000 from almost

97
·1· ·the same transaction?
·3· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You will have to ask
·4· ·BB&T.
·6· · · · · Q.· ·Do you think they knew?
·7· · · · · A.· ·I have no idea.
·8· · · · · Q.· ·What about West Town?
11· · · · · Q.· ·Do you think they knew what Jack was
12· ·walking away with from the settlement?
13· · · · · · · ·MR. WATSON:· Object to the form.
14· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I have no idea.
16· · · · · Q.· ·That's where my question comes, is did
17· ·McNair notify them of the brick house sale?
18· · · · · A.· ·At this point in time I don't recall.
19· ·When you say them you're referring to whom?
20· · · · · Q.· ·The lenders.· The bank.
21· · · · · A.· ·I'm sure BB&T, yes, knew.
22· · · · · Q.· ·You think they knew that Rabon & Rabon
23· ·was walking away with $131,000 in cash?
25· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Like I said, I don't know

98
·1· ·what they knew.· I can't testify to that.
·3· · · · · Q.· ·How would they find out information?
·5· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You'll have to ask them.
·7· · · · · Q.· ·Was there some other source through
·8· ·which they could obtain information other than the
·9· ·attorney for the seller?
11· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You have to ask them.
13· · · · · Q.· ·I guess to be more specific, do you
14· ·know of any specific communications to either Dan
15· ·Stacy or any representative of BB&T where the
16· ·brick house sale was disclosed to them prior to
17· ·September 3, 2015?
19· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· As I stated, I recall
20· ·having discussions with Dan Stacy.· The
21· ·particulars I do not recall.
23· · · · · Q.· ·If Dan said that was never disclosed
24· ·to him, do you have any reason to disagree with
25· ·him?

99
·1· · · · · A.· ·I don't know.
·2· · · · · Q.· ·You don't know if you have any reason
·3· ·to disagree with him?
·4· · · · · A.· ·Right.· He may be forgetting
·5· ·something.· I don't know.
·6· · · · · Q.· ·Do you think at the time the September
·7· ·closings occurred, do you know if McNair held any
·8· ·money on behalf of Rabon & Rabon?
·9· · · · · A.· ·I believe we did because according to
10· ·this closing statement I recall that we had to
11· ·come up to the closing with some cash.· Rabon &
12· ·Rabon had to come up to the closing with cash,
13· ·which we disbursed.
14· · · · · Q.· ·Do you know where that money came
15· ·from?
16· · · · · A.· ·From an account we were holding for
17· ·Rabon & Rabon at McNair.
18· · · · · Q.· ·Do you remember the reason that you
19· ·were holding that money?
20· · · · · A.· ·We were holding the money so that the
21· ·money could be used for Rabon & Rabon bills or
22· ·expenses.
23· · · · · Q.· ·The $60,000 that Rabon & Rabon owed to
24· ·BB&T, wouldn't that be an expense?
25· · · · · A.· ·I don't know.

100
·1· · · · · Q.· ·You don't know?
·2· · · · · A.· ·No.· That was not presented to me to
·3· ·be paid out of McNair.
·4· · · · · Q.· ·Do you know where those funds came
·5· ·from?
·6· · · · · A.· ·What funds?
·7· · · · · Q.· ·The money that you were holding on
·8· ·behalf of Rabon & Rabon?
·9· · · · · A.· ·I believe it came from another sale of
10· ·property.
11· · · · · Q.· ·Do you remember why that money went to
12· ·McNair in trust from those sales?
13· · · · · A.· ·To pay for Rabon & Rabon expenses and
14· ·bills.
15· · · · · Q.· ·Was it to protect attorneys fees in
16· ·any way?
17· · · · · A.· ·No.
18· · · · · Q.· ·Did you ever tell Mr. Rabon that you
19· ·needed the money to protect your fees?
20· · · · · A.· ·No.
21· · · · · Q.· ·Did any of the money that you -- my
22· ·recollection is that the money that you had in
23· ·trust came from the Shai David closings in March
24· ·2015?
25· · · · · A.· ·That rings a bell.· I don't have

101
·1· ·particulars.
·2· · · · · Q.· ·Did McNair ever take any money from --
·3· ·did they ever take money for bills from that money
·4· ·that was being held in trust?
·5· · · · · A.· ·Only at the end when Mr. Rabon
·6· ·requested that the monies be transferred to Lane
·7· ·Jeffries.
·8· · · · · Q.· ·Did Mr. Rabon ever request monies from
·9· ·that trust money to pay for Rabon & Rabon bills?
10· · · · · A.· ·I know he did --
11· · · · · · · ·MR. WATSON:· Let me interject.· I know
12· ·there was some discussion about attorney-client
13· ·privilege with Mr. Rabon and McNair.· Is that -- I
14· ·heard Mr. Bellamy say it was waived, and there was
15· ·an out-of-office --
16· · · · · · · ·MR. PLAYER:· This is Rabon & Rabon
17· ·money.· So I think it would just be Rabon & Rabon.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. WATSON:· Is that attorney-client
19· ·privilege waived or not?
20· · · · · · · ·MR. PLAYER:· Yes, it.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. WATSON:· You did Rabon & Rabon?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. BRADDOCK:· Yes.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. BELLAMY:· Yes.
24· · · · · · · ·(Discussion off record.)

102
·1· · · · · Q.· ·The brick house closing, do you think
·2· ·that would have been material information for the
·3· ·banks with regards to their decisions to release
·4· ·their mortgages?
·6· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You'll have to ask the
·7· ·bank.
·9· · · · · Q.· ·You don't have an opinion?
10· · · · · A.· ·I just don't know at this time.
11· · · · · Q.· ·What other information would you need?
12· · · · · A.· ·I just don't know at this time.
13· · · · · Q.· ·Have you ever handled a foreclosure on
14· ·behalf of a bank as a lawyer?
15· · · · · A.· ·Yes, I have.
16· · · · · Q.· ·Have you ever waived a deficiency?
17· · · · · A.· ·Yes, I have.· Now, I haven't waived
18· ·it.· The bank has.
19· · · · · Q.· ·Sure, but you worked on those
20· ·negotiations?
21· · · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
22· · · · · Q.· ·Do you ever require financial
23· ·information to make that, or does the bank require
24· ·financial information?
25· · · · · A.· ·I do not recall seeking or obtaining

G
H
I
/
STATE OF soum CAROLINA ) IN TIlE PROBATE COURT
) FIFTEENTII JODICIAL CIRCUIT
COUN'rY OFHOltRy ) CASE NO. 2014-ES-26-01933
)
~
Estate ofPeggyJQ Hardee Rabon,
MOTION FOR OlIDER S:E;CUlUNG·
Petitioner; ) PROPER PERFORM.AN'.CEOF
) PERSONALREPRESENr.ATIVE'S
VB. ) DUT:mS, FORJUDICIALLY OJ.IDEIDm
) SALE OF~TATEASSETS, AND~OR
·~nMitc)i~l.l @d'KyleMitchell, ) ltMERGENcYlEXJ.lEDITED BEARING
) ... :PRIORTo.AUGPST31,.Z015
Respondents, )
)
,.Jack 1.. Rabon, Jr., both mdividually l'lS a beneficiary and interested party; and in his
official.capacityas.Personal.Representative ofthe.·Efitate of Peggy 10 Hardee RabQ~(hereinaft:er
cOlle~ti.ve~y "Personal Representative") herebymoves this Honorable Court to Order. a saleof the
estate's assetsdescribedbelow, and foran emer~~cy/expeditedheering.on the matter. Personal

'Representative's Motion is based' om the grounds-set fO$ below; and to be Il19~fully explained
at the emergency/expedited hearing on the matter,
The'Estate of Peggy -10 Hardee Ration ("Estate") owns 61% of the outstanding.stockof
Rabon &. Ra'bo.Q., .Inc, ("Company"). The Company has no significant assets other than real
estate. Two parcels of the Company's real estate commonly known as "BUilding Three?' and the
"Middle Lot" (collectively the "Mortgaged. Properties") are encumbered by afirst mortgage to
BB&T Bapkand a second Mortgage to West Town Bank (collectively the "Mortgages"). The
Mortgages are in foreclosure, Karon Mitchell and Kyle Mitchell (who are each beneficiaries of
the Estate) are personal guarantors. as is the Estate itself, of the promissory notes wQiyh the
-0 ~.::t:
Mortgages also secure. The Mortgaged Properties are scheduled for judicial sal~se~m~
co~ C') ~g
~-< ~ n~
J"TIG) ::::>......
. c'"
'-;:E :s! ze->
~
MYRTLEBEACII212956vl
c»"
0;::0
G) 0
J"TI
r..'l
.,..
C1l
...
-10
:-<c
~;::o
(J)-t
e->
K
8,2015, at which sale they are likely to sell for far less than is owed, resulting in (1) a deficiency
judgment against the Company, and (2) pursuit of the personal guarantors for the deficiency.
A buyer has appeared and offered to purchase the Mortgaged Properties (along with an
adjoining property owned by the Company) for a large enough amount that BB&T and West
Town will waive their deficiency claims. Waiver of the deficiency claims is in the manifest best
interest of the Company, the Estate, the Estate's beneficiaries including Karon Mitchell and Kyle
Mitchell, and the creditors of the Estate. Proper performance of the Personal Representative's
duty requires consummating this sale.
BB&T has stated that despite the obvious benefits ofthe above-described sale, unless the
sale can be consummated before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 4,2015, BB&T will proceed
with the scheduled judicial sale on September 8, 2015. Upon information and belief, the result
of the judicial sale will be a large deficiency to the detriment of the Company, the Estate, the
Estate's creditors, and the Estate's beneficiaries including Karon Mitchell and Kyle Mitchell.
For reasons they have yet to explain, as of the date of this Motion Karon Mitchell and
Kyle Mitchell have not consented to the sale. Pursuant to s.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-607(a), upon
application of any interested person, the Probate Court may Order the Personal Representative to
"secure proper performance of his duty." Further, upon said application, the "matter shall be set
for hearing within ten days" S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-607(b), which means that holding the
healing within ten days is mandatory. South Carolina Dep't of Highways & Public Transp. v.
Dickinson, 288 S.C. 189, 191 (1986) (holding that "the use of the word 'shall' in a statute means
that the action referred to is mandatory."). Therefore, Personal Representative respectfully
requests that this Honorable Court set a hearing in this matter to be held not later than the tenth
day following the date of this Motion, which is Monday, August 3], 20]5. Personal
MYRTLEllEACfl 212')56\")
2
Representative further requests, pursuant to S.C. Code n. § 62-3-607 that BB&T Bank be
made a party to this action and to any Order the COUlt may ss e.
McNair
Henrietta U. din, ar#2173

Lane D. Jefferies, SC Bar #101764
Founders Centre
2411 Oak Street, Suite 206
P.O. Box 336 (29578)
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577
Tel: (843) 444-1107
Fax: (843) 443-9137
Email: hgoldlng@mcnair.net
liefferies@mcnair.net
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
AugustZU, 2015 Attorneys for the Personal Representative
MYRTLEIJEJlCII212956d
3
L
M
T-5
N
O
I¤4¸ Rk}oo¸k}o¸ <l|ppAlpfª¶hl>¸
Gg«o5¸ _}¯¸ B{¨«¸!.¸ ! )¸ 5&)¸ g¸
_6¸ go¸ <fpApp£¶f²{¯l>¸gki¸ =fljAhmpffª>¸
U¸ o¸ ]gg¸ ¨¸ {{¸ «¸ k¸ «¸ ¨{¸ «}o¸ o·¸¨¸ gogn·¸|oo¸¸«}o¸ b]¸ gn¸ogn·¸t¸«}o¸ k¨{¸¸ q¸ o±o¦«}{¸ ¨¸WM¸²o¸kg¸kö¸ og·¸o´«¸ ²oo?¸
Rk}oo¸E}o¸ DKE¸
RE¸ [og¸H¨«g«o¸ Eg·¸ NOE¸
$*/$¸I¯ªf¸Pfp¸Ç
S¶ªp¸Dpfl|¸ ^F¸ "3*//¸
2'$ """
'"3
W¸B{¨«¸ !.¸ !)¸ g«¸ 7!,¸BR¸f¯pApp¥f²{¢¯l¸ ²¤«o8¸
Rk}oo¸
c}¸ ¨¸ {{¸ «¸io¸ ¯«¸q¸«}o¸k«¦¸«}g«¸oon¨¸ «¸ ¨{¸oµ¸ ²oo@¸ co¸ go¸ {¸ {og«¸ {o¨¨¸ gn¸g«¸ «}¨¸ «¸ ²o¸ go¸·¸²g«{¸ ¸«}o¸oogö¸
o««o¸u¸co¨«¸_²¸gn¸ ²o¸ ²¸io¸g¸ ö«¸
Qf®¡p¸Dpp¸
\pf¸H©ªfªp¸Yffp{f¸
Hp§¸Pf²¸J¯¸
/*¸V ¸Wf¸ ^ªppª¸ ^¯ªp¸ "¸

T¶ªp¸Dpfl|¸ ^F¸ "3*//¸
Z|p9¸ 1(%0#%0+¸

If³:¸ 2'$ %/* --"2¸
Hp¥\pfH©ªfªpQf²l¸
Q
VWa;¸cp¸p¯p¸l©{¸ml©¸h¶¸VWWV¸ª|p¸mf¶¸hprp¸©pªªppª¸¸l©{¸cLPP¸hp¸mpf¶pmp©l|pm¯pm¸ÇF©{¸I¯m©¸²¸ppm¸ª¸hp¸cpm¸ª¸¯¸vlp¸c {¸
©ª¡¯lª©¸²¸hp¸ Xdmpm¸¡¸ª¸¶¯¡¸©pªªppª¸
`~p¸yfª¸lªfpm¸¸ª|©¸pf¸p©©f{p¸f¶¸hp¸fªªp¶lpª¸¡ep{pm¸fªªp¶¸²¸m¯lª¸¸©ªlª¶¸lwmpªf¸rfª¸ Lr¸ª|p¸pfmp¸r¸ª|©¸p©©f{p¸©¸ª¸

ª|p¸ªpmpm¸plpª¸¶¯¸fp¸|pph¶¸ªxpm¸ª|fª¸f¶¸m©©pfª¸m©ª¡h°ª¸¸l¶{¸r¸ª}p¸l¯lf¬¸©¸©ªlª¶¸|hªpm¸Ls¸¶¯¸|f¸plpm¸ª}©¸l¯lfª¸
¸p¸ pf©p¸pmfªp¶¸ªz¸¯©¸h¶¸ªpp|p¸fª¸ª|p¸¯hp¸fh¸

"" "

" !" "

6+#11%#6

# &3,+
%+'* .+6 0'6 # 66 6 26666
. 63 )#06 *5#0623 )#0/*5#0*4$'0, .+6
.040!#"6 +#11%#6

0.+ 6
+' &#**#+ 0#*25+ .+6
2#6 0'6 # 66 626 66
3(# 26 6.306+#6564'0#620-1$#0641613 #11$3**561#-26
. 6# &3++
%+'* .+6# &3++
%+'* .+6

4<n<*Sdq@xnL=uSDkngkInuSIr[[BM`=S[Bg`
7xGqE<}4GltGc@Gn<t2.
8h0d\SdG7n<dqJGnqJnia #<dYiJ!cGnSC<A=eZgJ=ÌnSB=un=erJInr`=S[un=erJInrA=eZgJ=ÌnSB=Bg`.SCPG\\G%iQGd
`SBRI[[I`BnI=[uÀBg`-<Ci@#SEGna<dW=BgAATDIn`=e=u
({E:ixn4<cG&<}{ SnGtn<dqJGn{ <qqxCCGqqJx]\ }qGdt
5HfvKpjbb~5moUfv5>bsyfN+>^>|5
1nSOSd=\cIrr= OI
)ngc 1e_SdI 9n=erJInrJng`$=dZgJ"cInVB=@=eZgJ=aInSB=wn=erJInr `=S\un=erJInr @=dZgJ=cInSB=Bi`
'=uI 3/,/9
9g =uSFkngkInuVIr[[B Oc=S\Bga
6z@XIBu ;gzn 6=aI '={SnIun=drJIn{?rrzBBIrrJz\\rIdu
I¤4¸ Rk}oo¸k}o¸ <l|ppAlpfª¶hl>¸
Gg«o5¸ _}¯¸ B{¨«¸!.¸ ! )¸ 5&)¸ g¸
_6¸ go¸ <fpApp£¶f²{¯l>¸gki¸ =fljAhmpffª>¸
U¸ o¸ ]gg¸ ¨¸ {{¸ «¸ k¸ «¸ ¨{¸ «}o¸ o·¸¨¸ gogn·¸|oo¸¸«}o¸ b]¸ gn¸ogn·¸t¸«}o¸ k¨{¸¸ q¸ o±o¦«}{¸ ¨¸WM¸²o¸kg¸kö¸ og·¸o´«¸ ²oo?¸
Rk}oo¸E}o¸ DKE¸
RE¸ [og¸H¨«g«o¸ Eg·¸ NOE¸
$*/$¸I¯ªf¸Pfp¸Ç
S¶ªp¸Dpfl|¸ ^F¸ "3*//¸
2'$ """
'"3
W¸B{¨«¸ !.¸ !)¸ g«¸ 7!,¸BR¸f¯pApp¥f²{¢¯l¸ ²¤«o8¸
Rk}oo¸
c}¸ ¨¸ {{¸ «¸io¸ ¯«¸q¸«}o¸k«¦¸«}g«¸oon¨¸ «¸ ¨{¸oµ¸ ²oo@¸ co¸ go¸ {¸ {og«¸ {o¨¨¸ gn¸g«¸ «}¨¸ «¸ ²o¸ go¸·¸²g«{¸ ¸«}o¸oogö¸
o««o¸u¸co¨«¸_²¸gn¸ ²o¸ ²¸io¸g¸ ö«¸
Qf®¡p¸Dpp¸
\pf¸H©ªfªp¸Yffp{f¸
Hp§¸Pf²¸J¯¸
/*¸V ¸Wf¸ ^ªppª¸ ^¯ªp¸ "¸

T¶ªp¸Dpfl|¸ ^F¸ "3*//¸
Z|p9¸ 1(%0#%0+¸

If³:¸ 2'$ %/* --"2¸
Hp¥\pfH©ªfªpQf²l¸
Q
VWa;¸cp¸p¯p¸l©{¸ml©¸h¶¸VWWV¸ª|p¸mf¶¸hprp¸©pªªppª¸¸l©{¸cLPP¸hp¸mpf¶pmp©l|pm¯pm¸ÇF©{¸I¯m©¸²¸ppm¸ª¸hp¸cpm¸ª¸¯¸vlp¸c {¸
©ª¡¯lª©¸²¸hp¸ Xdmpm¸¡¸ª¸¶¯¡¸©pªªppª¸
`~p¸yfª¸lªfpm¸¸ª|©¸pf¸p©©f{p¸f¶¸hp¸fªªp¶lpª¸¡ep{pm¸fªªp¶¸²¸m¯lª¸¸©ªlª¶¸lwmpªf¸rfª¸ Lr¸ª|p¸pfmp¸r¸ª|©¸p©©f{p¸©¸ª¸

ª|p¸ªpmpm¸plpª¸¶¯¸fp¸|pph¶¸ªxpm¸ª|fª¸f¶¸m©©pfª¸m©ª¡h°ª¸¸l¶{¸r¸ª}p¸l¯lf¬¸©¸©ªlª¶¸|hªpm¸Ls¸¶¯¸|f¸plpm¸ª}©¸l¯lfª¸
¸p¸ pf©p¸pmfªp¶¸ªz¸¯©¸h¶¸ªpp|p¸fª¸ª|p¸¯hp¸fh¸

"" "

" !" "

6+#11%#6

# &3,+
%+'* .+6 0'6 # 66 6 26666
. 63 )#06 *5#0623 )#0/*5#0*4$'0, .+6
.040!#"6 +#11%#6

0.+ 6
+' &#**#+ 0#*25+ .+6
2#6 0'6 # 66 626 66
3(# 26 6.306+#6564'0#620-1$#0641613 #11$3**561#-26
. 6# &3++
%+'* .+6# &3++
%+'* .+6

4<n<*Sdq@xnL=uSDkngkInuSIr[[BM`=S[Bg`
7xGqE<}4GltGc@Gn<t2.
8h0d\SdG7n<dqJGnqJnia #<dYiJ!cGnSC<A=eZgJ=ÌnSB=un=erJInr`=S[un=erJInrA=eZgJ=ÌnSB=Bg`.SCPG\\G%iQGd
`SBRI[[I`BnI=[uÀBg`-<Ci@#SEGna<dW=BgAATDIn`=e=u
({E:ixn4<cG&<}{ SnGtn<dqJGn{ <qqxCCGqqJx]\ }qGdt
5HfvKpjbb~5moUfv5>bsyfN+>^>|5
1nSOSd=\cIrr= OI
)ngc 1e_SdI 9n=erJInrJng`$=dZgJ"cInVB=@=eZgJ=aInSB=wn=erJInr `=S\un=erJInr @=dZgJ=cInSB=Bi`
'=uI 3/,/9
9g =uSFkngkInuVIr[[B Oc=S\Bga
6z@XIBu ;gzn 6=aI '={SnIun=drJIn{?rrzBBIrrJz\\rIdu
R
S
T
U
T-6
V
T-7
W
Billed Time and Expense Report

Prepared 6/15/2016 for transactions billed between 1/1/1950 and 6/15/2016
RE: 061889 JACK ISAIAH RABON, JR. AND MYRTIS NICOLE

00002 ESTATE DISPUTE
Date Timekeeper Description Bill Num Billed Date Hours Amount

11/11/2015 L JEFFERIES CONTINUED WORK ON VARIOUS ISSUES OF SETTLEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT, 886404 4/8/2016 1.10 $192.50
INCLUDING EMAILS WITH R. DAIN.
11/12/2015 L JEFFERIES DRAFTED DOCUMENTS FOR SETTLEMENT. 886404 4/8/2016 0.60 $105.00
11/13/2015 L JEFFERIES LEFT MESSAGE WITH CORY FOR JESSE CAGLE AT PNC. REVIEWED STATUS OF 886404 4/8/2016 0.20 $35.00
DOCUMENTS FOR SETTLEMENT AND PROMPTED R. DAIN TO PERFORM.
11/16/2015 L JEFFERIES FURTHER DRAFTING OF SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS 886404 4/8/2016 2.10 $367.50
11/16/2015 L JEFFERIES MEETING WITH J. RABON REGARDING IMPACT OF FORECLOSURE ON SETTLEMENT. 886404 4/8/2016 0.30 $52.50
11/16/2015 L JEFFERIES REVIEWED SUGGESTED CHANGES FROM R. DAIN AND RESPONDED REGARDING BILL OF 886404 4/8/2016 1.20 $210.00
SALE TO MOTORCYCLES AND TRAILER.
11/23/2015 L JEFFERIES PHONE CONVERSATION WITH STEVE KROPSKI WITH CARLOCK COPELAND RE: JACKIE 886404 4/8/2016 0.30 $52.50
PARK SUBPOENA IN RABON ESTATE LITIGATION. 843.329.1261. ADVISED THAT HEARING
WAS CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AND ACTION WAS PART OF GLOBAL SETTLEMENT.
11/23/2015 L JEFFERIES EMAILED K. GARRET WITH CELTIC WITH RESPECT TO INSPECTION OF 308 7TH STREET. 886404 4/8/2016 0.20 $35.00
11/24/2015 L JEFFERIES EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH RACHAEL DAIN CONCERNING POSSIBILITY OF EXTENSION. 886404 4/8/2016 0.30 $52.50
11/25/2015 L JEFFERIES CONTINUED DRAFTING MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 886404 4/8/2016 3.20 $560.00
11/25/2015 L JEFFERIES DRAFTED AND REVISED SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS IN ANTICIPATION OF MONDAY 886404 4/8/2016 2.30 $402.50
DEADLINE.
11/30/2015 L JEFFERIES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. RABON REGARDING HOW TO PROCEED. 886404 4/8/2016 0.30 $52.50
11/30/2015 L JEFFERIES PHONE CALL FROM RACHAEL DANE. JESSEE RISHER WITH USDA GAVE KARON MITCHELL 886404 4/8/2016 1.30 $227.50
A LETTER TO TAKE TO RIDDICK SKINNER. DRAFTED CONTINGENCY PLANS.
11/30/2015 L JEFFERIES SECOND PHONE CONVERSATION WITH J. RABON REGARDING HOW TO PROCEED. 886404 4/8/2016 0.40 $70.00
11/30/2015 L JEFFERIES EMAILED J. RABON TO SET TIME TO MEET TO DISCUSS CONTINGENCY PLANS. 886404 4/8/2016 0.20 $35.00
11/30/2015 L JEFFERIES REVIEWED R. DAINS COMMENTS AND REPLIED. 886404 4/8/2016 1.70 $297.50
12/1/2015 L JEFFERIES CONTINUED EFFORTS TO KEEP SETTLEMENT ON TRACK. 886404 4/8/2016 2.40 $420.00
12/1/2015 L JEFFERIES PREPARED FOR INTERVIEW WITH INVESTIGATOR. 886404 4/8/2016 0.50 $87.50
12/1/2015 L JEFFERIES BEGAN DRAFTING LETTER TO MITCHELLS REGARDING THEIR PERFORMANCE UNDER THE 886404 4/8/2016 1.00 $175.00
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
12/1/2015 L JEFFERIES CONTINUED DRAFTING LETTER TO MITCHELLS REGARDING THEIR PERFORMANCE UNDER 886404 4/8/2016 1.40 $245.00
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SENT TO MITCHELLS
12/1/2015 L JEFFERIES OBTAINED SIGNED MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PREPARED FOR FILING. 886404 4/8/2016 1.00 $175.00
Page 7 of 11
X
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Mar 19 12:46 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2014CP2607862
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HORRY ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2014-CP-26-07862
)
RABON & RABON, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) ORDER VACATING
) ORDER OF FEBRUARY 8, 2016
)
KARON MITCHELL AND )
KYLE MITCHELL, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________)
The Order of this Court from February 8, 2016 is currently on appeal in the South Carolina
Court of Appeals. Defendants Karon and Kyle Mitchell moved the Court of Appeals for Leave to
File a Rule 60 Motion with this Court which was granted by the Court of Appeals on November
7, 2017. Defendants now move this Court pursuant to Rule 60, SCRCP, to vacate its order of
February 8, 2016 on the ground that the Order was procured by extrinsic fraud.
A hearing was held on February 27, 2018 at which time all parties appeared via counsel
and presented argument to this Court. No party presented testimony. After a thorough review of
the written submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the motion
is GRANTED and I hereby VACATE the Order of February 8, 2016 for the reasons set forth
below.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The February 8, 2016 Order at issue confirmed a mediation agreement which settled
numerous lawsuits arising from the administration of the Estate of Peggy Jo Hardee Rabon1 and
1
The Estate of Peggy Jo Hardee Rabon was opened on September 15, 2014, file number 2014-ES-
1|Page
Y
the operation of several businesses involving the parties in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Plaintiff
and Defendants entered into the Mediation Settlement Agreement at issue (“Mediation
Agreement”) on October 31, 2015. If the Mediation Agreement had settled only Rabon & Rabon,
Inc. v. Karon Mitchell, et al., this Court would have denied Defendant’s Motion to Vacate.
However, the Mediation Agreement not only requires dismissal of Rabon & Rabon, Inc. v. Karon
Mitchell, et al., but it also requires dismissal of other cases, including "Rabon as Personal
Representative-vs-Mitchells (2014-CP-26-5740)," "Mitchells-vs-Jack Rabon," and "all existing
probate cases.” Because Defendants asserted that allegations of fraud by Jack Rabon may have
played a part in securing the dismissal of those other actions, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion
to Vacate the February 8, 2016 Order.
Rabon & Rabon, Inc. v. Karon Mitchell, et al., deals exclusively with the corporation’s
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, misappropriation, defrauding motel keeper,
accounting, and trespass by Defendants. The parties settled this lawsuit under two possible
scenarios. First, Defendants had the opportunity to own the subject properties and MB Boardwalk
Entertainment, LLC exclusively, provided they obtained financing that released Jack Rabon and
the Estate of Peggy Joe Hardy Rabon from any liability for the debt on the properties. If Defendants
failed to obtain financing within thirty (30) days, the alternate plan permitted Jack Rabon to sell
the subject properties and MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC to a private buyer. When
Defendants failed to obtain the necessary financing and releases under the first plan, Plaintiff,
through Jack Rabon, proceeded to implement the alternative plan. When that transpired,
26-01933. Defendant Karon Mitchell is an heir and beneficiary of the Estate of Peggy Jo Hardee
Rabon [hereinafter the “Estate”]. Defendant Kyle Mitchell is a shareholder of Plaintiff Rabon &
Rabon, Inc. Jack Rabon is currently the Personal Representative for the Estate and President and
Vice President of Rabon & Rabon, Inc.
2|Page
Defendants refused to comply with the settlement, arguing that it was obtained by coercion and
that Defendants executed it under duress. The Court found Defendants’ argument unpersuasive
and granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Settlement and denied Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal
of the Mediation Settlement Agreement on the grounds of coercion and mental distress. This
ruling resulted in the February 8, 2016 Order now at issue.
The Court reaffirms its finding that the settlement of Rabon & Rabon, Inc. v. Karon
Mitchell, et al., was not procured by fraud as now argued by Defendants. Had the Mediation
Agreement settled only Rabon & Rabon, Inc. v. Karon Mitchell, et al., this Court would deny the
Defendants’ Motion to Vacate because Defendants could have obtained exclusive ownership of
the properties under the settlement by simply refinancing the debt. The alleged fraud did not occur
until Defendants failed to exercise their right to obtain the properties and Plaintiff Jack Rabon sold
the properties under the alternative plan contained in the Mediation Agreement. However, based
on Defendants’ argument and allegations, the Court is persuaded that fraud in concealing the true
purchase price and/or value of the properties may have procured the settlement of some or all of
the other actions dismissed under the Mediation Settlement Agreement. It is for this reason that
the Court vacates the February 8, 2016 Order granting the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Settlement
and denying the defendants' Motion for Dismissal of the Mediation Settlement Agreement. The
Court’s findings contained herein are for purposes of this Order only, and none of the Court’s
findings in this Order have any preclusive consequences in any other matters pending between the
parties.
THEREFORE, this Court’s Order of February 8, 2016, is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3|Page
This ____ Day of March, 2018
________________________________
The Honorable Benjamin H. Culbertson
Resident Circuit Judge
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
4|Page
Horry Common Pleas
Case Caption: Rabon & Rabon Inc VS Karon Mitchell , defendant, et al
Case Number: 2014CP2607862
Type: Order/Vacate Judgment
Presiding Circuit Judge
s/Benjamin H. Culbertson, Judge Code 2148
Electronically signed on 2018-03-19 11:03:03 page 5 of 5

Z
AA
T-2
Transcript of the
Video Deposition of
Lane Jefferies
3/21/2019
Mitchell, et al. v. Rabon, et al.

2017-CP-26-05757
COPY
Southern Reporting, Inc.
Phone: 803.749.8100
Fax: 803.749.9991
Email: Depos@southernreporting.net
BB
Lane Jefferies Page 1 (1 - 4)
Mitchell, et al. v. Rabon, et al. 3/21/2019
Page 1 Page 2
State of South Carolina ) APPEARANCES
)
County of Horry ) For the Plaintiffs: Tucker S. Player, Esq.
Karon Mitchell, Kyle ) 2017-CP-26-05757 Columbia, South Carolina
Mitchell, and Rabon & )
Rabon, Inc., ) For the Defendants Lane Jefferies and
) McNair Law Firm, P.A.: J. Calhoun Watson, Esq.
Plaintiffs, ) Video Deposition Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC
) Columbia, South Carolina
v. ) of
) David J. Mills, Esq.
Jack Rabon, Nicole Rabon, ) Lane Jefferies Burr Forman McNair
Lane Jefferies, McNair Law ) Charleston, South Carolina
Firm, P.A., Atid )
Properties, LLC, Daisy ) For the Defendants Atid Properties, LLC, Friends of LBS,
Ridge, LLC, Friends of LBS, ) LLC, Sarah Ginsburg, and Jacob Bideman:
LLC, Sarah Ginsburg, Jacob ) Mary Madison Langway, Esq. (By telephone)
Biderman, Gabriel Yosef, ) The Brittain Law Firm, PA
and Michelle Cohen, ) Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
)
Defendants. ) Pro Se: Jack Rabon
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Also Present: Karon Mitchell

Kyle Mitchell
Nicole Rabon
Andrew Landrum, Videographer
INDEX
Date: March 21, 2019
Stipulations: 5
Time: 10:03 a.m. Examination by Mr. Player: 5
Examination by Mr. Rabon: 229
Location: Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC
EXHIBITS
1310 Gadsden Street, Columbia, South Carolina
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1, "Second Amended Complaint
(Jury Trial Demanded)." 17
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2, "Affidavit of Jack

Rabon." 36
Reported by
Sandra J. Ayers Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3, "Affidavit of Nicole
Rabon." 55
Page 3 Page 4
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 4, "Defendant Lane Jefferies' Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 16, "Certification." 157
Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' First Requests for
Admission." 68 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 17, "Judgment in a Civil
Case." 164
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5, Copy of text messages,
dated 09/22/14 through 02/09/16. 83 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 18, E-mail correspondence
in reference to "Rabon2--062992.00002, Re: Rabon--
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6, E-mail correspondence offer on Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on
in reference to "Time Sensitive, re: your loan renewal House." 167
offer of August 7, 2014, 738002894200005 Rabon &
Rabon, Inc." 122 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 19, E-mail correspondence
in reference to "Rabon2--062992.00002--Sale of
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 7, Letter from BB&T Building and Middle Lot." 183
in reference to "Rabon & Rabon, Inc. -
738002894200005." 123 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 20, E-mail correspondence
in reference to "Rabon & Rabon, Inc., Building 3 and
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 8, E-mail correspondence in Middle Lot." 186
reference to "Rabon--West Town Savings Bank potential
foreclosure of $3.6M USDA loan to MB Boardwalk Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 21, E-mail correspondence in
Entertainment." 125 reference to "Rabon2--062992.00002, Re: Rabon--
offer on Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 9, E-mail correspondence House." 180
in reference to "Rabon--Re: Sale of Oceanfront
Property." 130 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 22, E-mail correspondence
in reference to "Rabon2--062992.00002--Sale of Building
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 10, Letter to Catherine 3 and Middle Lot." 176
Marlowe in reference to "Rabon & Rabon, Inc.,
Property." 136 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 23, "Affidavit of Jack
Isaiah Rabon, Jr." 190
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11, E-mail correspondence in
reference to "Rabon/David lease terms as discussed on Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 24, Copy of text messages,
Friday, March 13, 2015." 140 dated 11/02/15 and 11/03/15. 205
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12, Letter to Tammy Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 25, Copy of text messages,
Young. 147 dated Wednesday, August 9. 207
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13, E-mail correspondence Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 26, Copy of text messages,
in reference to "Rabon--email to Karon Mitchell, re: dated 03/17/16. 211
Shark Attack." 149
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 27, Copy of text messages,
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14, E-mail correspondence dated 05/03/16 and 05/04/16. 212
in reference to "Potentially dangerous problems at
Shark Attack." 150 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 28, "Affidavit of Ross
"Buddy" Lindsey [sic], III." 223
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 15, E-mail correspondence
in reference to "Shark Attack CAB 02042016." 153 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 29, Excerpt of filing,
including e-mail correspondence. 213
803.749.8100 Southern Reporting, Inc. www.southernreporting.net

Page 5 Page 6
1 STIPULATIONS 1 MS. LANGLEY: Yes.
2 It is stipulated by and between counsel for 2 MR. PLAYER: -- LLC, Friends of LBS, LLC, and
3 the respective parties that all objections are 3 Sarah Ginsburg.
4 reserved until the time of trial, except as to 4 MS. LANGLEY: Thank you.
5 the form of the questions. 5 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
6 This deposition is being taken pursuant to the 6 MR. PLAYER: You're welcome.
7 South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 Q Good morning, Mr. Jefferies. How are you?
8 - - - - 8 A I'm well. Good morning. How are you?
9 The reading and signing of this deposition is 9 Q Good. Sorry it has to be under these
10 reserved by the deponent and counsel for the 10 circumstances, but we've met before, correct?
11 respective parties. 11 A Understood.
12 Whereupon, 12 Q And just to, you know -- you've done this, you know
13 Lane Jefferies, being duly sworn and cautioned 13 all the background questions. I'm -- I'm going to
14 to speak the truth, the whole truth, and 14 only ask a couple of them. I kind of like to get
15 nothing but the truth, testified as follows: 15 straight to it. I had a conversation with Cal
16 EXAMINATION 16 earlier in the week; he said, "There's always two
17 BY MR. PLAYER: 17 sides to every story." I just want to get yours,
18 MR. WATSON: We also have, for -- just for the 18 okay?
19 record, Jack and Nicole Rabon, who are 19 A (Nods head up and down.)
20 proceeding pro se as parties in the case, who 20 Q Can you tell me what your educational background
21 also are in attendance. 21 is?
22 MR. PLAYER: And just to make sure 22 A I went to law school in Charleston -- Charleston
23 everything's straight, Sandra, Mary Madison 23 School of Law. I graduated there in 2014,
24 represents Atid Properties, A-t-i-d, 24 undergrad from College of Charleston and St.
25 Properties -- 25 Andrews College in North Carolina.
Page 7 Page 8
1 Q Are you original from -- are you originally from 1 school.
2 South Carolina? 2 Q And what did you do in your business?
3 A No. Born in Annapolis, Maryland; grew up there. 3 A A couple of things. I was in the hotel business, I
4 Went to school at St. Andrews in 1986, and then 4 went to -- my major business was in the boat
5 moved to Charleston when I graduated in 1990. 5 business. I had a company down in Charleston
6 Q Okay. 6 called "Barrier Island Marine," so we did yacht-
7 A Been in South Carolina ever since. 7 management work and we sold new sport fishing boats
8 Q Have you ever been arrested? 8 -- outboard-powered sport fishing boats: Hewes,
9 A I do not believe so. 9 Regular, Pathfinder, Chris-Craft. Then I had some
10 Q Okay. And that would include any juvenile 10 brief involvement with a restaurant up in -- up in
11 infractions or anything like that? 11 Charlotte.
12 A As a juvenile, I was -- I was charged with an act 12 Q You said you were in the hotel business?
13 of vandalism, I think, when I was 16, and an act of 13 A Yeah. I worked -- not in a hotel, but I worked for
14 theft when I was 16. Did community -- or 17, I 14 a company that represented buyers of hotel
15 can't remember. Did community service for both of 15 services, so we were kind of like a travel agent
16 those. Went back to try to find records of that, 16 for corporate meeting companies. We scouted out
17 when I applied to law school, and there were no 17 hotel locations, negotiated contracts, did on-site
18 records. We searched high and low, so I disclosed 18 management of events and that sort of thing.
19 that on my Bar application, but that's all I really 19 Q Okay.
20 remember about it. 20 A It was based there in Charleston, but we dealt with
21 Q Okay. What -- was there a gap between the time 21 hotels all over the U.S.
22 that you got your undergrad degree and your law 22 Q Okay.
23 degree? 23 MR. PLAYER: Mary Madison, is there any way
24 A Oh, yeah. I went into business for, gosh, you 24 you could hit "mute"? We're kind of getting
25 know, 20 years before I went back and went to law 25 feedback on the -- the stuff, and then come

Page 9 Page 10
1 off mute if you have -- 1 audio hits your speaker and it's coming back
2 MS. LANGLEY: Yeah. 2 through on your speaker and that's causing the
3 MR. PLAYER: -- any questions or anything. 3 interruption. Does that make sense?
4 MS. LANGLEY: It's just a little like -- it's 4 MS. LANGLEY: Okay. So what did you say I
5 a bit of an echo, and it's a bit of -- 5 needed to do to it?
6 occasionally, it just kind of goes in and out. 6 MR. PLAYER: If you can just hit mute on your
7 MR. PLAYER: Okay. All right. Well, we'll 7 receiver -- on your phone. Perfect. Thank
8 just trudge on. 8 you.
9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Can we put this on mute? 9 MR. WATSON: And if you need to make an
10 MR. PLAYER: Say that one more time. 10 objection or comment, just unplug mute and
11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Is this one on mute, right 11 you'll -- and you'll -- you'll come back on.
12 here? 12 Right now, we can't hear you.
13 MR. WATSON: Well, she's got to be able to 13 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES.
14 hear us. 14 Q Okay. How did you get to McNair?
15 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. She's got -- we can't put 15 A I -- let's see. I graduated law school in May of
16 ours on. 16 2014. I interviewed with McNair, I think, around
17 MS. MITCHELL: I don't think she heard you 17 Christmastime of 2013, right -- right during that
18 about the mute. 18 break period, interviewed with Henrietta Golding,
19 MS. LANGLEY: I didn't hear that. I didn't -- 19 later with David Mills and Lynn Stevens, as I
20 whatever you -- you just said I heard, but I 20 recall, and then finally with David Tigges who was
21 didn't hear whatever you said before that, at 21 our managing shareholder at the time. He may still
22 all. 22 be; I don't know.
23 MR. PLAYER: I think the echo might go away if 23 Q Okay. And when did you start with McNair?
24 you just hit mute on your phone, because I 24 A I started part-time as a law clerk while I was
25 think what's happening is once the -- the 25 still in school, so that would have been sometime
Page 11 Page 12
1 in the spring of 2014. I don't remember exactly 1 files?
2 what month. When I graduated in early May, I then 2 A I don't know who did the bulk of the work. I know
3 went to McNair and I was working full-time as a law 3 that I did a lot of work, but to the extent that
4 clerk up through the Bar and then I became -- 4 Henri did work or others did work, I don't know how
5 obviously, was sworn in as an attorney in November 5 much that was. I know that I did a substantial
6 of 2014. 6 amount of work on the files, though.
7 Q Okay. How did you first become involved with Jack 7 Q Okay. And did you have any connection -- I mean,
8 Rabon? 8 had you ever met any of the Rabons before the
9 A While I was at McNair, and I don't remember exactly 9 spring of 2014?
10 what month it was when I first met -- I met Jack 10 A No.
11 Rabon, his mother who's now since deceased, Peggy 11 Q What about Karon or Kyle Mitchell?
12 Jo Rabon, and Nicole Rabon, Jack Rabon's wife. 12 A No.
13 Sometime, I think, in that spring or early summer 13 Q Okay. When you -- how did things work at McNair in
14 is when I originally met them. They were clients 14 terms of what you sent out on behalf of a client?
15 of Henri's and I think new clients of Henri's, and 15 Was it reviewed by someone before it went out?
16 when I say "Henri," I mean Henrietta Golding. 16 A I think it really depends on what you mean. Give
17 Q Sure. Was there some point where you took primary 17 me an example. Like, narrow that down for me.
18 responsibility over for the Rabon files? 18 Q All right. The negotiations on, you know -- with
19 A No. Henri was always responsible for those -- all 19 the bank -- the foreclosing banks for the Rabon &
20 those files. Now, I did a lot of work on those 20 Rabon Properties, when you were communicating with
21 files for her, but they were always her files, not 21 BB&T, West Town, TD Bank, was that something that
22 mine. 22 you were allowed to do directly, or did it have to
23 Q Okay. And -- and I guess that's more of ultimate 23 go through Henrietta?
24 responsibility. I guess my question's more 24 A I would communicate with the banks, in most
25 towards: Who did the bulk of the work on the 25 instances, by sending a message directly either to

Page 13 Page 14
1 their counsel or to the bank if they weren't 1 A So there's -- at McNair, there's a background
2 represented, with a copy to Henri, at Henri's 2 investigation that I know very little about that we
3 direction. 3 do that's part of a conflict check that's done out
4 Q Okay. 4 of the Columbia office. I know very, very little
5 A So I didn't sua sponte. I didn't on my own just 5 about that, other than I would give information,
6 come up with the content; that was in consultation 6 when I opened a file, to my assistant who would
7 with Henri and at Henri's direction. 7 send it to Columbia and that report would come back
8 Q Okay. Do you know what investigation was done, 8 either: "Open the file," or "Don't open the file."
9 originally, once Peggy Jo came to see you about 9 In terms of investigation within our office, I
10 what she thought was malfeasance in the business? 10 remember seeing, you know, documentation, bank
11 A Investigation in terms of? 11 records, that sort of thing, showing large
12 Q Just a preliminary investigation by McNair to 12 unexplained cash withdrawals from the business
13 determine the -- the validity of her claims, the 13 accounts by the Mitchells. I remember seeing
14 liability of causes of action against the 14 unpaid tax bills that the Mitchells should have
15 Mitchells. What -- what did y'all do to look at 15 paid on behalf of the entity. I remember
16 the finances of the business at that point, to 16 foreclosure proceedings instituted because the
17 determine if the Mitchells had, in fact, been doing 17 Mitchells had failed to make mortgage payments. So
18 something they shouldn't? 18 I remember seeing that myself. I can't tell you
19 A I would only be aware of a small portion of that, 19 what the rest of that investigation was, though.
20 at the time. So, when I originally met the Rabons, 20 Q Okay. Prior to you being sworn in, in November,
21 I was not an attorney; I was yet to be sworn in, so 21 what were -- were their limitations on your duties
22 that would have been the summer of -- late spring 22 in terms of the internal work at McNair that you
23 or summer of 2014. So I wasn't sworn in until 23 did?
24 November of 2014. 24 A Yeah. I was -- yeah. I did a lot of research, but
25 Q So -- okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. 25 I was necessarily kind of a administerial person; I
Page 15 Page 16
1 did administrative stuff -- I couldn't give legal 1 -- and I made that move.
2 advice. I could communicate with the clients. You 2 Q Okay. And where did you go?
3 know, if they had a question, I could take that 3 A To Natasha Hanna's law firm there in Myrtle Beach.
4 question to Henrietta, get an answer, take it back 4 Q How long did you work with Natasha?
5 to the clients. 5 A From February until December of that same year. At
6 Q Did you ever communicate with any third parties on 6 that time, Akim Anastopoulo reached out to me and
7 behalf of the clients while you were a law clerk? 7 offered me a position that was sort of a once-in-a-
8 A Yeah. I could have; I can't specifically remember. 8 lifetime position, and I was very happy at
9 But there wouldn't be any reason not to if Henri 9 Natasha's office; I would have stayed there,
10 directed me to do that and told me what to say. 10 essentially, forever, were it not for Akim reaching
11 Q Okay. But did you inform them, when you would do 11 out and offering me the job I have now.
12 that, that you were just a law clerk? 12 Q And what job is that?
13 A I -- I couldn't tell you. 13 A So, I handle severely-injured people. I represent
14 Q Okay. 14 folks who have severe injuries, typically, $100,000
15 A I can tell you this, I never told them I was a 15 and up in medical bills, that were injured through
16 lawyer when -- 16 the -- the negligence, carelessness, indifference,
17 Q Right. 17 sometimes greed, of -- of other folks, and I do
18 A -- I wasn't a lawyer. 18 that all around the state, but I'm primarily
19 Q When did you leave McNair? 19 focused in a dozen counties in the Grand Strand and
20 A It would have been February of 2017. 20 -- and Pee Dee region.
21 Q And why did you leave? 21 Q Is there -- do you have a specific title with the
22 A I had the opportunity to go into the personal 22 firm?
23 injury side of law, which is something I'd wanted 23 A Litigation attorney.
24 to do, and it was something that McNair didn't do. 24 Q Okay. Do you -- do you have any kind of management
25 So I had the opportunity to come up to do that, and 25 duties in your role there?

Page 17 Page 18
1 A I do. I have, you know, support staff, paralegals, 1 it's just the second amended complaint.
2 that sort of thing. 2 MR. WATSON: Okay.
3 Q Did you have a previous connection with Akim or any 3 MR. PLAYER: I think this one is just going to
4 other member of the Anastopoulo family? 4 be pleadings and the texts. And this is --
5 A Yes. I worked for Akim when I was in law school 5 whether we need to be on the record.
6 one summer, maybe two summers, and that -- that's 6 MR. WATSON: Oh, you said these are mine?
7 how we knew each other. 7 MR. PLAYER: Yes.
8 Q All right. For Akim? 8 MR. WATSON: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't know.
9 A For Akim, yeah. In -- in his firm, yeah. 9 MR. PLAYER: And they're separated under
10 Q Okay. Did you -- I want to think somewhere I saw 10 folders that, once we -- I just figured -- I
11 where you -- when you were in law school, you did 11 don't know what order I'm going in, so I
12 work with his sister -- a research assistant? 12 separated them as to topic so we'll only have
13 A His wife, Constance -- 13 to go through a few to figure out --
14 Q Wife. 14 MR. WATSON: Is the second amended complaint
15 A -- Constance Anastopoulo. Yes. She was my torts 15 in there? because I -- you -- you e-mailed me
16 professor in law school. So I did work as a 16 about making a copy, which I did.
17 research assistant for her. I think we authored a 17 MR. PLAYER: I'm not sure; you can check.
18 law-review article together, as I recall. 18 MR. WATSON: That's fine. So we can mark --
19 Q Okay. 19 MR. PLAYER: That Kinko's is -- they're not
20 MR. PLAYER: All right. If you'll mark this 20 Kinko's; it's FedEx, but their -- they charge
21 one, Sandra. 21 you a lot of money for very poor copies, so
22 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1, "Second 22 . . . It should be right up front with
23 Amended Complaint (Jury Trial Demanded)." 23 "Pleadings." Is there a folder up front that
24 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 24 says "Pleadings"?
25 MR. PLAYER: All right. This is Exhibit 1; 25 MR. WATSON: Yes.
Page 19 Page 20
1 MR. PLAYER: If I have it, it's there. 1 A In terms of my answer or my discovery responses?
2 MR. WATSON: Yep. I've got it. 2 Q Yes.
3 MR. PLAYER: Okay. 3 A Not that I can think of.
4 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES. 4 Q Okay. And you were present for Ms. Golding's
5 Q Let's see. As a preliminary thing, in this case, 5 deposition?
6 you provided an answer and then there were some 6 A That's correct.
7 discovery responses and responses to request to 7 Q Did you hear anything in her deposition that you
8 admit. And my assumption is that everything that 8 disagreed with or believe was inaccurate?
9 you said in those documents are truthful and to the 9 A I don't know if I can tell you an answer to that
10 best of your personal knowledge; is that accurate? 10 question; it went on for several hours.
11 A Yes. 11 Q Sure. Just anything that's -- that's jumped out at
12 Q Okay. Have you -- did you review anything before 12 you.
13 the deposition? 13 A Nothing stands out right now, no.
14 A Before today's deposition? 14 Q Okay. All right. I want to go through specific
15 Q Yes. 15 paragraphs in this -- in the second amended
16 A Yes. I reviewed a number of the documents that you 16 complaint, and just, you know, ask some questions
17 had sent over, over the course of the past few 17 about it. Paragraph 24, we talk about, "In October
18 days. 18 of 2014, Defendant Jack Rabon used his position as
19 Q Okay. And did you review the pleadings? 19 the personal representative of the estate to vote
20 A Not yesterday. I've seen them, though; I've -- 20 the decedent's shares in favor of him being elected
21 I've read them. 21 to the president and vice-president of Rabon &
22 Q Okay. Is there anything in any of those documents 22 Rabon, Inc." And I didn't know if you had any
23 that you would want to change, if you could, at 23 disputes with that; are -- are you aware of what
24 this point? 24 happened at the share meeting -- the shareholders'
25 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 25 meeting in October of 2014?

Page 21 Page 22
1 A I wasn't there, so I'm not personally aware of -- 1 didn't do it. I wasn't involved in doing it. To
2 of what happened. I've seen a transcript of it, 2 the best of my knowledge, Henrietta Golding didn't
3 I've heard from others, but I don't have any 3 do it, wasn't involved in doing it. And the best
4 knowledge beyond what was told to me. 4 of my knowledge, nobody at McNair did it or was
5 Q Do you recall seeing objections to the proceeding, 5 involved in doing it or knew anything about it.
6 from Mr. Lindsay and the Mitchells, in the 6 What might have happened outside of our presence
7 transcript? 7 without us knowing about it, I mean, I can't say
8 A I don't remember one way or another. 8 one -- one way or another.
9 Q Okay. With regards to -- I guess, some simple 9 Q And I guess my primary question is: At this point,
10 questions. Is it your understanding that money was 10 you have the buyer, the seller, the real estate
11 paid under the table for the closings of Sea Palms 11 agent, have all admitted that the money was paid,
12 3 and the brick house in September of 2015? 12 so I'm -- I'm just looking for what basis is there
13 A I understand that people have alleged that, but I 13 to not admit that the money was paid?
14 don't have any personal knowledge of that 14 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
15 happening. I see the allegations. 15 A The basis for that, is that I have no knowledge of
16 Q Have you seen the documents supporting the 16 it. I have no way of knowing, one way or another,
17 allegations? 17 what that crowd did, on their own, outside of our
18 A I've seen documents; I don't know that they support 18 presence. I just don't know.
19 the allegations, but I've seen -- I've seen what 19 Q Okay. At any time during the course of this
20 you've submitted here in the complaint. 20 litigation and the other litigation, have you ever
21 Q Okay. So -- and I guess it's -- I'm just asking 21 felt like representations that you made to courts
22 for your belief; do you think the money was 22 may have been inaccurate with regards to the sales
23 transferred? 23 price of those properties?
24 A I just don't know because -- here's what I do know: 24 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
25 If money was transferred that wasn't on paper, I 25 A No. And certainly not at the time they were made.
Page 23 Page 24
1 Q No. I'm just asking about subsequent -- after the 1 A I think that's a fairly significant difference. So
2 complaint is filed, after discovery has been done 2 I don't know. I don't know what they did. It's --
3 in this case, has your mind ever changed about the 3 I -- I wasn't there; I wasn't a part of it; I -- I
4 likelihood that that money was paid? 4 can't tell you. Maybe they did it, maybe they
5 MR. WATSON: Same objection. 5 didn't.
6 A No. It hasn't. I've seen the stories told by some 6 Q Okay.
7 of these co-conspirators who say that they took 7 A We weren't involved in it.
8 money or delivered money. All their stories differ 8 Q The -- in -- in the -- in the complaint, we -- we
9 from one another. They don't convince me of 9 alleged that you referred Jack and Nicole to Robert
10 anything other than they can't keep their lies 10 Frenz for the formation of Daisy Ridge, LLC. And
11 straight. Again, I don't know what they did. They 11 the answer was, "They didn't have enough
12 didn't do it with us, they didn't do it with me, 12 information to form a belief." And I was wondering
13 they didn't do it with Henrietta, they didn't do it 13 what your position was on that particular
14 with McNair. So I just don't know. 14 allegation?
15 Q How were their stories inconsistent? 15 A I did refer Jack Rabon to Robert Frenz to form an
16 A The stories that I've heard -- 16 LLC. It was, at the time, not the kind of work I
17 Q Uh-huh. 17 was particularly interested in doing, and it was
18 A -- and I've seen in affidavits? Well, one comes to 18 also -- at the time, McNair wasn't in a position to
19 mind -- you might want to look at this later, but 19 open another file to do that kind of work, so I
20 one of the things that leaps to mind is the 20 referred him to -- to somebody that I knew did do
21 discrepancy between Michelle Cohen's story of the 21 that kind of work.
22 amount of money delivered to Jack Rabon, and Jack 22 Q Did Jack tell you what he needed the LLC for?
23 Rabon's story of the amount of money delivered to 23 A He told me that he was developing some property in
24 Jack Rabon, and they differ by $50,000. 24 North Carolina that he owned; up in the mountains
25 Q Right. 25 in North Carolina, showed me some pictures of the

Page 25 Page 26
1 property, and he was soliciting investors and was 1 A (Reviews documents.) All right.
2 going to develop that piece of property. 2 Q Do you agree with her averments in those two
3 Q Did you provide him with the address to use for the 3 paragraphs?
4 formation of that LLC? 4 A No.
5 A What do you mean? 5 Q Did you ever have any conversations with any of
6 Q He used a -- a "Pleasantburg Drive" address in 6 those parties about additional funds being paid to
7 Spartanburg as the registered office for that LLC, 7 Jack and Nicole Rabon?
8 and we allege that you gave that address to him. 8 A No.
9 A I sent -- one time, at Jack's request, I looked up 9 Q Did you ever tell her that, "Paying the money
10 an address for him that he had misplaced, and I 10 outside of closing was necessary to make sure Karon
11 sent it over to him, but I didn't -- all I did was 11 Mitchell didn't get any of the money"?
12 look it up for him. He was driving his car; I was 12 A No.
13 sitting at a computer. 13 Q Okay. And with regards to Gabi Yosef and the
14 Q Okay. And did he say what he needed that for? 14 $100,000 transfer that she talks about with the
15 A He was going to meet a real estate agent about the 15 Bank of Chile, do you have any personal knowledge
16 development of the property, is what he told me. 16 as to whether or not those are accurate?
17 Q Okay. Let me see. Let's go to -- I'm sorry. With 17 A Where's that in here?
18 my -- I couldn't do a hard copy of this stuff. 18 Q Ten, eleven, and twelve.
19 Let's go to Exhibit I; it's the affidavit of 19 A Ten and twelve? As to 10, I know that Gabi Yosef
20 Michelle Cohen. 20 and Michelle Cohen represented to us that they're
21 A Is this the one? 21 brother and sister. I don't know whether they are,
22 Q Uh-huh. 22 but I have no reason to doubt that. So I think
23 A All right. 23 that part very well could be true. I do remember
24 Q And let's go to Paragraphs 8 and 9. Just let me 24 that Gabi Yosef was managing one of the properties
25 know when you're finished reading them. 25 around that time; I don't remember if it was Sea
Page 27 Page 28
1 Palms Number 4. I just don't know. But I do 1 Q Okay.
2 remember that he was managing one of the 2 A And it's -- I never saw her do that. I never saw
3 properties. 3 her go inside of South State Bank, so I would have
4 As to the transfer of $100,000 from Jacob 4 no way of knowing.
5 Biderman to an account at the Bank of Chile, I have 5 Q Okay. Now, let's go to -- let's see -- 23.
6 no knowledge of that happening; I wasn't involved 6 "McNair Law Firm was paid -- or received an
7 in that happening. Whether -- whether it occurred, 7 attorney's fee of $12,000 for the closing for the
8 you know, I -- I can't say one way or another; I 8 brick house and Sea Palms Number 3."
9 have no idea. 9 A I don't know for sure whether that's correct, but I
10 I can tell you, that as to the last sentence 10 don't think it is. My recollection was that there
11 of Paragraph 12, that at no time was there $100,000 11 was an amount of money taken out at the closing,
12 in cash transferred -- or any amount of cash 12 not as the closing fee, but because that entity
13 transferred to myself. Whether it went to Jack and 13 owed legal fees to McNair, which is a pretty common
14 Nicole Rabon, I don't know. If it did, it happened 14 thing in a commercial real estate practice. You
15 when I wasn't there, and I didn't know anything 15 have a client who has a variety of work, they sell
16 about it. But, certainly, no cash was transferred 16 a piece of property, some of that money gets
17 to me. 17 deducted just to go ahead and square away their
18 Q Okay. 18 fees; it's a good time to do it. So I don't know -
19 A Did you say Paragraph 12, as well, 10, 11, 12 -- 19 - I don't know whether the amount was precisely
20 Q Yes. 20 $12,000. I -- it was probably, roughly, that. And
21 A -- is that right? 21 I don't know what portion of that would have been
22 Q Yes. 22 the closing fee and what portion would have been
23 A As to 12, I have no way of knowing whether Nicole 23 for other legal fees.
24 Rabon took $100,000 in cash to South -- South State 24 Q Do you know if any documents were provided to the
25 Bank. 25 closing attorney to justify those charges or that

Page 29 Page 30
1 there -- if there were other fees? 1 sent to Daisy Ridge, LLC.
2 A I don't know. 2 Q And do you have any evidence that would disprove
3 Q Okay. Number 24? 3 that a wire actually occurred from Joe -- Jacob
4 A I don't know whether that happened or not; Jacob 4 Biderman to Daisy Ridge, LLC?
5 Biderman initiating a wire to PNC Bank. My 5 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
6 understanding is Jacob Biderman is in Europe and 6 A Not -- not that I know of. I don't know one way or
7 was in Europe at the time. I was not in Europe at 7 another whether that actually happened.
8 the time. I have no idea if he sent a wire like 8 Q Okay. Exhibit O. Can you explain to me how this
9 that. I can't say one way or another. 9 came about?
10 Q Okay. Then, let's go to Exhibit L. Do you 10 A Yeah. This is a -- a handwritten receipt that I
11 understand what that document is? 11 signed for three checks made payable to the McNair
12 A I don't know for certain what it is, but I'll tell 12 Law Firm, essentially, a security for a part of the
13 you what it looks like to me. It looks like a 13 purchase that Biderman's entities were executing,
14 wire-transfer confirmation. 14 and I'll explain what I mean. They were
15 Q Can you tell from whom the wire came and to whom it 15 purchasing, as I recall, two pieces of property,
16 went? 16 and shortly before the sale, Biderman -- it was
17 A I can tell what this document says, and I don't 17 represented to me that Biderman wanted to back out
18 know anything about the document. I don't know its 18 of half of that sale; he only wanted to buy one of
19 authenticity, etc. Nothing causes me to doubt it. 19 the two. That's not what the deal was; it was a
20 It looks like a wire-transfer confirmation. If 20 package deal. So I spoke to Biderman, it's the one
21 it's accurate, then a wire transfer, according to 21 conversation I had with Biderman, by telephone, and
22 this, was sent from -- it looks like Esther Parsham 22 told him that that could not happen, that it was
23 to -- I don't read whatever language this is, but I 23 all of them or none of them.
24 see "Daisy Ridge, LLC," written here. So my 24 And, probably, the next day, I guess it was --
25 assumption would be, based on this, that it was 25 that sounds about right, the day or two after that
Page 31 Page 32
1 conversation, Michelle Cohen brought those checks 1 A I don't know. As I said, I didn't request that
2 to me, assuring me, "Biderman's in for the deal; 2 they put up security. When I talked to Biderman,
3 he's sending the money. He wants you to hold on to 3 he -- after a little bit of conversation, said he
4 these, you know, as a show of his" -- like a -- 4 understood and he was going to go through with the
5 what do you call it? -- earnest-money deposit, like 5 entire sale. I told him that he'd better go ahead
6 that, "as a show of his good faith that he's really 6 and send the money. I don't know whether he
7 going to go through with the whole deal, so please 7 thought I was still doubtful of his performance or
8 keep moving ahead." 8 whatever, but his agent, Michelle Cohen, reached
9 And, so, I signed for those checks to McNair. 9 out and wanted to reassure us by bringing these
10 They were ultimately returned because the closing 10 checks. We didn't ask for them, we ultimately
11 was set to happen so fast thereafter, that they 11 didn't use them, and if that helped him feel better
12 couldn't be used at the closing, because you'd need 12 that, you know, we -- we knew he was going through
13 collected funds to do a closing. 13 with the deal, then -- then fine.
14 Q And did you know at that time that Michelle -- or 14 Q Did you contact the Emery Law Firm about them
15 Melanie Emery had the full amount for both 15 bringing you $135,000 in checks?
16 properties in her trust account? 16 A I don't remember who it was. It was either the
17 A I have no idea of what she had at what time. 17 Emery Law Firm or one of the real estate attorneys
18 Q So nobody -- I mean, Michelle Cohen verified that 18 in our firm, once I had those checks, that I went
19 the money was wired on September 1st, two days 19 to and said, "Here -- here are checks for the
20 prior to this? 20 balance of the closing."
21 A Uh-huh. 21 And that's when I was told, at that time,
22 Q So if Michelle -- if Melanie Emery had the entire 22 "Well, we can't use them for the closing; the
23 527 in her trust account on this day, why would it 23 closing is supposed to be in the next two days. We
24 be necessary for any security for the properties? 24 -- we absolutely have to have a wire. Send the
25 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 25 checks back."

Page 33 Page 34
1 Q Did you relay that information to anybody? 1 A That he had wired money --
2 A I gave the checks back to either Michelle Cohen or 2 Q Yeah.
3 Jack Rabon to give to Michelle Cohen, I don't 3 A -- on the 3rd? I knew that he had sent -- or had
4 remember which. 4 said he was going to send a wire, but the amount, I
5 Q About the wire -- when you were told you had to 5 don't know. My fear, of course, when I talked to
6 have a wire, did you communicate that to anybody? 6 him on the phone, was that he had wired only enough
7 A I don't remember. 7 money for one of the properties and not for both.
8 Q Okay. In McNair's answer, you said that you were 8 Q And did you ever ask anybody at the Emery Law Firm
9 holding it as security for the brick house and you 9 if that was accurate?
10 later learned that the funds were going to be 10 A No. Closing came and they closed the deal. So my
11 wired. Can you explain that to me? 11 assumption was that they had received the
12 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 12 appropriate amount of money. What I figured was if
13 A Tell me what part. 13 the Emery Law Firm didn't have the money they
14 Q You later learned the funds would be wired. I 14 needed to close the deal, they would have reached
15 mean, this is the day of the closing, correct? 15 out and said, "Hey, you know, the deal's not
16 A No. This would be -- this is dated the 3rd of 16 happening. The money's not here." I didn't get
17 September. Closing, as I recall, was the 4th or 17 that call, so I figured all was well, and as it
18 5th of September. 18 turns out, it was.
19 Q Okay. So at what point -- how much later, after 19 Q Okay. Exhibit Q. Do you know what that is?
20 September 3rd, did you learn that Biderman was 20 A No.
21 going to wire the funds? 21 Q You ever seen it before?
22 A I don't recall. I mean, obviously, by the time of 22 A I have. You sent it to us sometime back; it might
23 the closing he had wired the funds, but I don't 23 be included in one of the pleadings. I don't
24 recall when I learned that he had wired the funds. 24 really remember.
25 Q Did you know, when you signed this? 25 Q Did you have any discussions with Jack about any
Page 35 Page 36
1 under-the-table money with Isaac Nechemia? 1 me, I'd have no way of knowing that.
2 A No. We did have discussions with Isaac Nechemia 2 Q Okay. Jack never told you that they were doing
3 and his attorneys at the Bellamy Law Firm about the 3 that?
4 purchase of some property. I don't remember which 4 A No.
5 property, specifically, but we did talk. In fact, 5 Q Okay.
6 we went to the Bellamy Law Firm. Jack Rabon and 6 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Are you finished
7 myself met with -- I want to say it was Marty 7 with this one?
8 Dawsey, but it might have been Brad King; I don't 8 MR. PLAYER: Uh-huh. Yes. It's Number 2,
9 really remember -- and Isaac Nechemia sat down in 9 it's the affidavit of Jack Rabon.
10 the conference room and tried to work out, in 10 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2, "Affidavit
11 concept, a -- a purchase. 11 of Jack Rabon."
12 Q Okay. And whatever became of that? 12 MR. WATSON: Is that in . . .
13 A It never happened. I don't remember why, I don't 13 MR. PLAYER: That's the -- everything would be
14 remember if they couldn't get together on terms or 14 in "Pleadings" right now. It may not be in --
15 timing, or it might have been that we couldn't get 15 and that may be something I don't have. Well,
16 the consent of all the Rabon entities to sell the 16 actually . . .
17 property, but it didn't happen. 17 MR. WATSON: Is that Number 1 or Number 2?
18 Q Okay. And was there any part of that transaction 18 MR. PLAYER: Two.
19 that was done solely between Jack and Isaac, or was 19 MR. WATSON: That would also be in -- is your
20 everything done through the attorneys? 20 motion for summary judgment in here somewhere?
21 A I have no way of knowing if Jack and Isaac did 21 MR. PLAYER: No. Because I'm probably not
22 anything solely between themselves. As far as I 22 going to talk about that, at least not the
23 know, everything was when we were meeting with the 23 actual motion, so . . . But his affidavit is
24 attorneys. But if they did something on their own, 24 part of that, so . . . I think it's H --
25 outside of the presence of the Bellamy attorneys or 25 somewhere G/H, something like that.

Page 37 Page 38
1 MR. WATSON: Give me a second. I think that's 1 he was not buying -- I think it was the house. The
2 in here; I can find it in here. You said it's 2 two properties were, like, a motel property and a
3 H, you think? 3 house, as I recall, and he was backing out of, I
4 MR. PLAYER: I think so; it's right before 4 think the house portion of the deal. I have no
5 Michelle Cohen's. 5 idea, again, what Michelle Cohen could have talked
6 MR. WATSON: Okay. 6 to Jack Rabon about behind our backs with respect
7 MR. PLAYER: Got it? 7 to this $200,000.
8 MR. WATSON: Uh-huh. 8 Q And my understanding is, the sale of these two
9 Q I'm just going to go through paragraph by 9 properties were mutually contingent; is that
10 paragraph, Mr. Jefferies. Number 2, do you have -- 10 accurate?
11 what information do you have about the averments in 11 A That's my memory, as well, yes.
12 Paragraph 2 with Mr. Rabon? 12 Q So he couldn't just back out of one, right?
13 A I don't have any. If Jack Rabon negotiated a 13 A Well, our agreement with him -- the agreement was
14 $200,000 payment through Michelle Cohen, he did it 14 that they were to be mutually contingent, but the -
15 without my involvement or, to my knowledge, Henri's 15 - there were two separate contracts written up, and
16 involvement or McNair's involvement. I -- I don't 16 my understanding was that he was going to attempt
17 know one way or another what he did behind our 17 to perform on one and not on the other; they
18 backs with Michelle Cohen. 18 weren't all in one contract. Had they been all in
19 Q Okay. Paragraph 3, do you have any knowledge about 19 one contract, it would not have worried me really
20 that? 20 at all. It would have been very difficult for him
21 A This is similar to what was represented to me, 21 to back out of one of the properties.
22 except what was represented to me was that -- not 22 Q So, why did you have two contracts?
23 that Biderman couldn't pay some outside-of-closing 23 A I can't recall exactly why it was set up that way.
24 cash, but what was represented to me was that 24 At the time, that's how the -- how the deals were
25 Biderman was backing out of half of the deal. That 25 presented to me. My understanding is that -- that
Page 39 Page 40
1 they were separated into two contracts because one 1 Spong. Whatever Kerk asked for, I sent over to
2 of the properties was encumbered and the other 2 him. I didn't send him our entire Rabon file,
3 property was not encumbered. But that's just my -- 3 obviously, but I provided everything that -- that
4 my understanding and my recollection. 4 he requested, and copied Henrietta on that.
5 Q Is it also your recollection that they wanted to 5 Q Okay. We'll come back to that. Number 4; is that
6 conceal the sale of the unencumbered property from 6 accurate?
7 the two banks that held mortgages? 7 A It depends on what you mean. If Jack Rabon means
8 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 8 in here that I discovered that address, sent it to
9 A No. I -- I don't recall anyone intending to 9 him, and said "Use this address," then, no. That
10 conceal anything. I think everyone was open and 10 is absolutely inaccurate. But I've seen a text and
11 honest about the terms of the deal. And banks, in 11 this is why I mentioned it, that -- that you
12 that case, by the way, were represented by 12 provided, where I sent a screenshot of that address
13 attorneys. We provided them with every document 13 to Jack Rabon. And, so, yeah, I absolutely sent
14 they asked for, any bit of information they wanted, 14 him that text. Jack Rabon was on the phone with
15 McNair sent it on over, so I'm sure the banks went 15 me, driving down the road; we were talking about
16 into that -- well, the attorneys for the banks went 16 some other aspect of the litigation; he said,
17 into that with their eyes wide open. I don't know 17 "Listen, I'm going to meet the guy who's doing the
18 what they told their clients. 18 development of my property, but I'll -- got the
19 Q So is it your testimony that McNair gave them 19 paperwork at home," or something. "Can you look up
20 copies of the contract for the sale of the brick 20 his address?" I asked him the name; he told me. I
21 house? 21 looked it up; I took a picture of it right there on
22 A I don't know what McNair would have given to those 22 my McNair computer screen; I texted it over to him.
23 attorneys. I can tell you I provided -- I'm trying 23 Q Okay. Number 5?
24 to remember who the attorney was. I provided 24 A The first two sentences, for all I know, could be
25 everything -- I think BB&T was represented by Kerk 25 correct. I -- the -- the first two sentences say

Page 41 Page 42
1 that Michelle Cohen met Jack Rabon in a Bi-Lo 1 he didn't have on the books. I can tell you that,
2 parking lot and handed him an envelope with $50,000 2 generally, I frequently gave Jack Rabon advice that
3 in cash. I don't know whether that happened. I 3 failing to pay taxes is against the law. These
4 know that the remainder of the sentences are 4 businesses, in the past, had -- had apparently done
5 incorrect. I wasn't in the vehicle; I wasn't 5 a great deal of business for cash, the Mitchells
6 there; I didn't receive $10,000 in cash or any 6 extracted cash from that business, and as far as we
7 amount of cash; and I didn't receive $1,000 per 7 know, never paid taxes. My understanding from Jack
8 week for any number of weeks or any amount of money 8 Rabon is that all the proceeds from the vending
9 for any number of weeks. So whether Michelle Cohen 9 machines he took out in cash and had not paid taxes
10 and Jack Rabon did this behind our backs, I -- I 10 on, so I frequently advised them that, civil wrongs
11 can't tell you. I can tell you I -- I wasn't 11 aside, failure to pay taxes is a -- a crime and --
12 there; I wasn't a part of it; I had nothing to do 12 and you can get prosecuted for that.
13 with it. 13 Q Okay. Paragraph 9?
14 Q Okay. Number 7? 14 A I did not ask Jack to erase all his texts. I can't
15 A I was one of Jack Rabon's attorneys at the time. I 15 tell you whether his wife took pictures of the
16 did not know about anything that he might have 16 texts and saved them on a laptop. I know she says
17 done. And, again, I don't know that he did 17 she did, but I don't know.
18 anything outside of closing. I know those 18 Q Okay. Number 10?
19 allegations exist. If he did, I didn't know about 19 A No. I did not make any threats to Jack Rabon or
20 it. As far as a I know, Henrietta Golding didn't 20 his wife.
21 know about it. And the McNair Law Firm, as far as 21 Q Okay. Number 11?
22 I know, did not know about it. 22 A The first sentence is true; he did loan me one of
23 Q Okay. And Number 8, did you ever advise him that 23 his handguns. We used to, recreationally, go shoot
24 the deal was not illegal? 24 together at some property out in the country. And
25 A No. I -- again, I didn't know about any deal that 25 I had never owned, and still don't own, an
Page 43 Page 44
1 automatic handgun; I -- I have revolver. And I'd 1 Mitchell, so the whole predicate of that question
2 told Jack that I was interested in buying one, and 2 kind of kicks out the rest of the question. I did
3 he has number of them -- a great number of them, 3 not come to Jack Rabon and make him sign an
4 and he loaned me various ones over time to try them 4 affidavit. There were affidavits required -- as
5 out and see what I wanted to buy. 5 you'll recall, you were the attorney on the other
6 Q Okay. 6 side. There was a hearing to -- I can't remember
7 A Up until -- oh, it was sometime last summer, I had 7 whether it was a Rule 60, but to unwind an order of
8 one of his -- one of his pistols, though -- and I 8 the Court, essentially. You had presented some
9 returned that last summer. 9 affidavits; Jack and Nicole Rabon needed to present
10 I did not tell Jack that if I lost my law 10 some affidavits so we would have some evidence on
11 license, I would lose my wife, although that's 11 both sides. I did not go to Jack Rabon with those
12 probably an accurate statement, and I would have 12 affidavits. I talked to Jack Rabon on the
13 nothing left to lose. I would be very upset if I 13 telephone, wrote down what he said, had my people
14 lost my wife, yes. But I never said that to Jack. 14 type it up. I e-mailed it to him and his wife.
15 Q Okay. 15 Jack Rabon, I think, for whatever reason, forgot to
16 A I never said that I would, "Off that bitch," which 16 print it out at -- at his house. The next day, he
17 is the language quoted here, with respect to 17 texted me and said that his wife was printing it
18 anybody, including with respect to Karon Mitchell. 18 out at work and he would drive to her place of work
19 And it's ludicrous for Jack to suggest that he 19 -- which I understand was in North Carolina, at the
20 thought I would use his handgun to murder somebody 20 time, and sign and have it notarized there, which
21 and frame him for the murder. If for no other 21 he apparently did, because they e-mailed it back to
22 reason, Tucker, then by the time Jack Rabon signed 22 me and I presented it to Court.
23 this affidavit, I'd returned his handgun to him. 23 Q Okay.
24 Q Okay. Thirteen and fourteen? 24 A I didn't -- and to be clear, I didn't make him sign
25 A Well, I did not threaten to kill Carol -- Karon 25 it. I wrote down what he said; I e-mailed it to

Page 45 Page 46
1 him; he sent it back. 1 Q What kind of relationship does Shai David have with
2 Q All right. Sixteen and seventeen? 2 Jack?
3 A Sixteen looks right. I don't know that the 3 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
4 purchase price at a million dollars is exactly 4 A With -- what do you mean?
5 right; it could be. But I do remember Jack Rabon 5 Q Do they like each other?
6 entering on behalf -- and he says, "I entered a 6 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
7 contract with Shai David"; it's not really him. He 7 A Well, I don't know. You would need to ask them if
8 didn't own those properties. Rabon & Rabon, Inc., 8 they like each other. I think that they were
9 owned the properties. But on behalf of Rabon & 9 involved in an altercation that resulted in Jack
10 Rabon, Inc., I recall Jack Rabon entering into a -- 10 Rabon being shot, so you can conclude what you want
11 a contract with Shai David. I don't remember if it 11 from that. Maybe they're best friends now; I -- I
12 was for all the Rabon & Rabon properties, but it 12 have no idea.
13 was for a substantial number; maybe five of them. 13 Q Do you know who shot him?
14 And it was for roughly a million dollars. Might be 14 A Who shot Jack Rabon? I wasn't there, but I
15 exactly a million; I just don't recall the exact 15 understand Shai David shot him.
16 price -- 16 Q Okay. And if Shai David were to say that there was
17 Q Okay. 17 an agreement for additional money, beyond what was
18 A -- and January sounds about right; very early in 18 on the HUD, and that you were present at the
19 the year. 19 meetings between him and Jack when they discussed
20 Q Seventeen? 20 it, would you agree with his statement?
21 A I have no knowledge, one way or the other, if Shai 21 A No.
22 David and Jack Rabon had some kind of side deal 22 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
23 that they worked out, behind the backs of me and 23 Q Let's go to 20.
24 Henri and McNair. They didn't tell us about it, we 24 A I don't know. There were proceeds from sales of
25 didn't participate in it, and never knew about it. 25 buildings. Those proceeds -- I don't know the
Page 47 Page 48
1 amount, I'm sure you could look on the HUD and find 1 Rabon, Inc.'s money would require us --
2 the amount, those proceeds would have initially 2 understanding that it was in the best interest of
3 been in a trust account of McNair's, but as of -- 3 Rabon & Rabon, Inc. My understanding -- and,
4 at that stage -- first- or second-year associate, I 4 again, I didn't make that decision, but my
5 had zero authority over trust accounts; no 5 understanding is that the decision makers looked at
6 involvement in trust accounts, so I don't know. 6 those requests and determined that, for whatever
7 You know, you'd have to ask the people who actually 7 reason, they were not appropriate to make those
8 had that authority, to find out what happened to 8 disbursements; it was inconsistent with our duty to
9 that money. 9 Rabon & Rabon, Inc. --
10 Q Do you remember any requests from Jack or Nicole to 10 Q Okay.
11 use that money that was held in trust for 11 A -- and that's why the disbursements weren't made.
12 reimbursement of money they had loaned the company? 12 But, again, not my decision, you'd have to ask the
13 A Yes. 13 decision makers.
14 Q Do you know why they were never paid that? 14 Q And who would that be?
15 A I don't know for sure. I can tell you what my 15 A My understanding, it would be Henrietta Golding.
16 understanding is. My understanding -- of course, 16 Q Okay. Number 22?
17 the money would belong to Rabon & Rabon, Inc., 17 A Jack Rabon did, on occasion, make requests that I
18 because it owned the properties, and it went into 18 file any number of things with the probate court.
19 that account. At the time, Rabon & Rabon, Inc., 19 The decision whether to file something with the
20 was a client of McNair; Jack Rabon was a client of 20 probate court or any court, on behalf of this
21 McNair. We might have had other clients; I don't 21 client, was not mine to make as an associate at
22 really recall all the various entities. Obviously, 22 that level, so each of those requests was
23 we had, as attorneys, a fiduciary duty to Rabon & 23 communicated up the ladder. Now, sometimes I could
24 Rabon, Inc., separate and apart for -- from our 24 tell you that the -- and I can't remember the
25 duties to Jack Rabon. So to disburse Rabon & 25 specifics, but I can remember some of the requests

Page 49 Page 50
1 being so kind of off the wall, that I knew what the 1 McNair is a big, well-established firm with a great
2 answer was going to be when I went to Henrietta and 2 reputation. I can't imagine that the people above
3 said, "Can we file this?" Nonetheless, I did what 3 me used those monies for anything other than what
4 I was supposed to do: I went to Henrietta and 4 they were supposed to be used for.
5 said, "Jack wants you to file this." She looked at 5 Q Okay. Twenty-four?
6 it, maybe had some conversation with Jack, maybe 6 A No. That's incorrect. And this is another example
7 not; I don't really know. But in each of those 7 of where Jack Rabon came and asked us to file
8 instances, where Jack says that it was refused, 8 something that we didn't file. Jack Rabon asked us
9 well, it would have been. We filed some, refused 9 to file a lis pendens on these -- on some
10 to file others. But that decision wouldn't have 10 properties, and then it's about the right time
11 been made by me; that would have been made by a -- 11 frame. I went to Henrietta and advised her of
12 a partner in the firm. 12 that. She explained that that was not an
13 Q Okay. And, again, typically, in these files, that 13 appropriate thing to do, given the nature of what
14 would be Henrietta Golding? 14 Jack was alleging: A lis pendens was not the
15 A That would be Henrietta, correct. 15 appropriate course of action to take. I
16 Q Okay. 16 communicated that to Jack. Jack asked me, and
17 A That's my understanding. I mean, there might be 17 Nicole, at the same time -- I believe they were
18 others, but I dealt with Henrietta. 18 both in my office, if they could file a lis pendens
19 Q Twenty-three? 19 themselves. And that my advice to them was this, I
20 A I don't know what the -- number one, I don't know 20 said, "As a practical matter, of course you can.
21 what "vast majority" means. I know what "majority" 21 Should you? No. Henri just told you why you
22 means, but "vast majority"? Who knows. I don't 22 shouldn't go do that." And, apparently, they,
23 know what the monies deposited in McNair's trust 23 nonetheless, did.
24 account were used to pay for. I have no indication 24 Q And what were his allegations; why did he want to
25 they were used for anything improper. I mean, 25 file it?
Page 51 Page 52
1 A I don't really -- I don't really remember what his 1 Q I -- okay. He -- well, it says, "He relied on
2 allegations were. I do remember that when Henri 2 McNair to submit accurate and truthful documents to
3 and I reviewed them together, she said, "Well, 3 the probate court." Do you have any knowledge that
4 those don't" -- you know, you can only file lis 4 that did not happen?
5 pendens for certain reasons. Not just because you 5 A No.
6 have an argument with somebody, you can't go 6 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
7 encumber their property." Whatever his allegations 7 A Everything that we provided was accurate and
8 were, they were not appropriate for the filing of 8 truthful to the best of our knowledge, to the best
9 the lis pendens, and as attorneys with a Rule 11 9 of our belief, and based on our reasonable
10 duty to have good ground to sign a pleading, we -- 10 diligence into the matter. We never, knowingly or
11 we just -- we couldn't file it. 11 negligently, submitted something to the Court that
12 Q Did you draft anything for Jack and Nicole with 12 turned out to be wrong.
13 regards to that lis pendens? 13 Q Okay. Twenty-eight?
14 A No. No. Now, they'd seen lis pendens before. I 14 A I believe that Jack Rabon did withdraw -- I don't
15 mean, it's not hard to create a lis pendens; it's a 15 if this is exactly the right amount, but in round
16 one-page document. 16 numbers, $10,000 from a bank account owned by MB
17 Q Twenty-five? 17 Boardwalk Entertainment. I believe that that
18 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 18 happened. Jack Rabon did not ask me, as his
19 A I don't know what Jack Rabon would have relied on. 19 attorney, if he could do that, and I didn't tell
20 You'd have to have Jack Rabon. 20 him yes. But I'll tell you what he did ask me and
21 Q Okay. And would you disagree that McNair submitted 21 what we did tell him, and this was Henrietta and --
22 accurate and truthful documents to the probate 22 and I, both.
23 court? 23 Jack had become aware from Nicole that there
24 A Say that again. I think you said that as a double 24 was an account at MB Boardwalk Entertainment that
25 negative. Say that again. 25 contained roughly $10,000 and that he was a signer

Page 53 Page 54
1 on it. He asked us if he could withdraw that 1 Q -- use?
2 money. We said, "Jack, as a matter of criminal 2 MR. WATSON: Same objection.
3 law, you probably wouldn't be violating a criminal 3 A You know, I -- I can't really offer you a legal
4 law by doing it, because you are a signer. 4 opinion on whether it was a breach of fiduciary
5 Nonetheless, you should not do it because that 5 duty. I don't know what he used the money for, and
6 money is company money. It's not your money. And 6 to be clear, using company money for company
7 if you take it out for non-company purposes, then 7 purposes, of course, is, by and large, proper. Our
8 you are doing the same thing that the Mitchells 8 concern was any money that Jack Rabon might take
9 have been doing all this time. The same thing we 9 might be used for improper purposes, and we advised
10 sued them for, you would be doing." Now, granted, 10 him not do that.
11 the Mitchells did it on a far greater scale, 11 Q Okay. I'm going to go to 3. It's Nicole's
12 hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, 12 affidavit. And I just have the one paragraph in
13 stolen, but we explained to Jack that it's a civil 13 that one.
14 wrong to take the money. Probably not illegal, but 14 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Okay. Why don't
15 our advice was, "Do not do it, because you're 15 plan on a break after that, if you don't mind?
16 making yourself the same civil wrongdoer as they 16 MR. PLAYER: Just a quick one or . . .
17 are, on a smaller scale." He did it anyway, as far 17 MR. WATSON: I was just thinking --
18 as we can tell. 18 THE DEPONENT: Yeah.
19 Q Did y'all consider that to be a potential breach of 19 MR. WATSON: -- we've been going a little over
20 fiduciary duty? 20 a hour.
21 A By whom? 21 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. I mean, that's fine.
22 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 22 THE DEPONENT: I'd like to, yeah, have a cup
23 Q By Jack, by taking company money and using it for 23 of coffee and --
24 his personal -- 24 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. Absolutely.
25 MR. WATSON: Same -- 25 THE DEPONENT: -- visit the restroom, if you
Page 55 Page 56
1 don't mind. 1 I don't remember if it was June 8th, 2018, I went
2 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. 2 to the PNC Bank where Nicole Rabon worked at the
3 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES. 3 time, not for the purpose of threatening her to
4 Q It's just one paragraph under the same. 4 stay quiet, not for the purpose of threatening her
5 A Sure. Yeah. 5 about anything. I did not specifically state or
6 Q It's the last one. 6 imply or anything like, "It will be bad for Jack."
7 A Excuse me. 7 None -- none of that's accurate, but I did go to
8 MR. WATSON: What -- do you what number that 8 her place of work. And the reason I went to her
9 is over here? 9 place of work was this: At the time I was either
10 THE COURT REPORTER: Three. 10 recently relieved as counsel or about to be
11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3, "Affidavit 11 relieved as counsel for the Rabons. It might have
12 of Nicole Rabon." 12 just happened. I think you were there at the
13 MR. PLAYER: I don't think I put Nicole's -- 13 hearing and --
14 MR. WATSON: Okay. 14 Q With Culbertson?
15 MR. PLAYER: -- in that motion. 15 A -- consented to the relief. Yes. With Judge
16 MR. WATSON: Can I see it, Lane, for a second? 16 Culbertson. So I had been relieved, Scott Bellamy
17 (To Mr. Player) Are you going to just ask him 17 was about to be relieved and I think had filed a
18 about the last paragraph? 18 motion to be relieved. So the Rabons were looking
19 MR. PLAYER: The last paragraph, yeah. 19 at being pro se. I explained to them that I had to
20 Q Number 13? 20 be relieved because I was now on both sides of the
21 A All right. I've read it. What's -- what's the 21 issue, so it's a court rule, that -- it wasn't my
22 question? 22 choice, I wasn't trying to abandon them, I didn't
23 Q Is that truthful? 23 dislike them. I just couldn't, as a matter of our
24 A No. It's -- there are parts of it that are 24 rules of ethics, represent both sides, so I had to
25 potentially accurate. Sometime around that time -- 25 withdraw.

Page 57 Page 58
1 I told them that I would be glad to refer them 1 in, because no lawyer wants to take y'all as a
2 to other attorneys, that I would try to find 2 client when he acts like this, and people know
3 somebody who could help them out, and I did try to 3 about it all around Horry County. Reign him in so
4 do that. It was very difficult. It was very 4 I can continue to help you try to find somebody."
5 difficult for one reason: because the Rabons 5 That was the purpose of that meeting. And that's
6 represented that they didn't have any money to pay 6 the sole message that I communicated in that
7 attorneys or a very modest amount of money to pay 7 meeting.
8 attorneys. But probably the harder thing was that 8 Q Okay. But you did go to her -- the -- the PNC
9 they had established a reputation for being 9 Bank?
10 difficult clients, and Jack had established a 10 A Yes. I don't know if that's the date, but it --
11 reputation for violence, which is reflected in the 11 that's roughly right.
12 Public Index, it's reflected, you know, in criminal 12 Q Okay. And I think the way I came up with a date is
13 charges, it's reflected in a recent civil lawsuit 13 she said this was -- and we may be -- because I
14 over an altercation with some young people at the 14 think they happened kind of close together. I
15 mall, it's reflected in Karon Mitchell's 15 think Culbertson letting you out was the week
16 allegations against Jack Rabon. And attorneys were 16 before, and then the week that you went to PNC,
17 reluctant to take that. Around that time, Jack 17 that she told me it was that Wednesday that we were
18 Rabon showed up at, at least, one law office, 18 in probate, when he showed up and confirmed that he
19 including my father-in-law's law office, barged in, 19 was pro se and you were there?
20 demanding to see people. He frightened folks, and 20 A That -- that --
21 that word went around in the legal community that 21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
22 Jack Rabon had done this. It went around almost 22 A That could be. I just -- I -- I don't know.
23 instantly. 23 Q Okay.
24 I went to see Nicole to say, "Listen, I'm 24 A I don't know, but that's about the right time
25 trying to help you, but you've got to reign Jack 25 frame.
Page 59 Page 60
1 Q Okay. 1 couldn't understand why the Mitchells had attempted
2 A And that's the -- to be clear, there was no other 2 to sweep myself and Henri and McNair into this. I
3 meeting. There was no second time that I went to 3 -- later, it occurred to me why, but, you know,
4 PNC Bank. 4 that McNair was the only deep pocket in the room.
5 Q Sure. 5 And this crowd, with Rabon and Cohen getting caught
6 A One time I went, the sole message was, "I'm trying 6 with their hand in the cookie jar, wanted to point
7 to help you folks find a lawyer, but this crazy 7 to somebody who could put money back in their
8 violent behavior, frightening people, is not 8 pockets, and they swept us in, so I was upset about
9 helping." 9 that, yeah. Anger is a strong word, but I wasn't
10 Q Okay. 10 happy.
11 MR. PLAYER: All right. We can take a break. 11 Q Were you -- who were you unhappy with?
12 MR. WATSON: Okay. 12 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
13 (Off the record from 11:13 a.m. 13 A Well, you among other people. I thought you should
14 until 11:28 a.m.) 14 have done a little more due diligence on this stuff
15 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES. 15 to figure out that the -- you know, I'd heard
16 Q What was your reaction when you first got a copy of 16 rumors that this lawsuit was going to happen,
17 this lawsuit? 17 because the Mitchells had shopped it around all
18 A Shock. 18 over Horry County and Georgetown County, and they
19 Q Anything else? 19 couldn't find a single lawyer after they'd been
20 A All the synonyms of shock, surprise -- 20 through whatever, six or seven already, who would
21 Q Any -- 21 take it because those lawyers, my understanding, is
22 A -- etc. 22 all knew that it was frivolous. She had to shop it
23 Q -- anger? 23 all the way up to Columbia before she found a
24 A You know, anger is a strong word. Maybe some 24 lawyer who didn't know what was going on with the
25 upset, confusion. You know, at -- initially, I 25 case, and she got you.

Page 61 Page 62
1 And since then, I don't -- I've kind of 1 alleged facts that this -- that that crowd got
2 forgiven you on that point because I realize that 2 caught, apparently with their hand in the cookie
3 she talks a pretty good game and it's only when you 3 jar, and they wanted to blame somebody else.
4 get into the documents and you see that -- that 4 Q And when you say "that crowd," who is that crowd?
5 Karon Mitchell was stealing tons of money and she's 5 A Well, my understanding, from reading these
6 untethered from reality do you see that it's really 6 affidavits, is that it would be Michelle Cohen and
7 just frivolous. 7 Jack and Nicole Rabon.
8 Q Okay. Did you have any anger towards the Rabons? 8 Q And your testimony is that they never told you
9 A Well, not initially. You know, the Rabons were 9 about this under-the-table money, correct?
10 defendants in the lawsuit. You know, it's -- now, 10 A That's correct.
11 later, when it turns out that Michelle Cohen 11 Q So would you say that this lawsuit is a good thing
12 implicates the Rabons -- and, again, I don't -- I 12 for your career?
13 don't know whether any of that's true because I had 13 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
14 nothing to do with that. She implicates the 14 A I'm not sure if I understand what you're -- what
15 Rabons; all of a sudden, the Rabons start pointing 15 you're asking.
16 at Henrietta and McNair and me. There was no need 16 Q Is this beneficial to you?
17 to try to sweep us into their family mess. I mean, 17 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
18 I understand the McNairs, the deep pockets, and 18 A To be sued? I don't think anyone would think being
19 that they might have a desire to try to get some 19 sued is beneficial to them.
20 money and that there's some number like $30 million 20 Q I mean the specific allegations in this complaint.
21 that they are seeking, which is crazy. 21 In the second amended complaint we just went
22 Q And did you understand that that's not for this 22 through.
23 case, that demand? 23 A Well, I think I just said that no lawsuit would be
24 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 24 beneficial to the person being sued, and this would
25 A I understand it's the same underlying set of 25 be among the non-beneficial lawsuits. I don't
Page 63 Page 64
1 think -- I mean, you've been in this business long 1 Cohen just because it shows up. All right? So
2 enough. Have you ever sued somebody and had them 2 when I received this lawsuit, I viewed these as
3 thank you for it? 3 allegations. I had no idea whether Jack Rabon
4 Q No. 4 actually did that, and my presumption is -- and I
5 A Yeah. It doesn't happen. 5 think it would be your presumption, too -- my
6 Q And that's -- kind of the thing for me is, if a 6 presumption is that my clients are telling me the
7 client put me in this position, I would be doing 7 truth absent evidence to the contrary. Now, if I
8 everything I could to get as far away from him as 8 find evidence to the contrary, we're going to have
9 possible. And that's not what you did. 9 a little conversation about that; about why they
10 MR. WATSON: Object to the form, if that's a 10 didn't tell the truth. But, initially, when a
11 question. 11 client comes in and says, "I own a business." I'm
12 A Yeah. Is -- is that a question, or is that a -- 12 going to presume they're telling me the truth, that
13 what are you -- 13 they own it. Now, will I check on that? Of
14 Q Yeah. I'm just -- 14 course. But until then, I'm going to presume
15 A What are you -- 15 they're telling the truth. So that's my
16 Q -- asking -- 16 presumption with Jack Rabon.
17 A -- asking me? 17 Then I discovered there're certain things that
18 Q -- why did you continue to represent Jack, continue 18 -- well, certainly can't be true. Mutually
19 to meet with Jack, continue to communicate with 19 contradictory affidavits, for instance. Jack Rabon
20 Jack after his actions put you in this lawsuit? 20 executes two affidavits; they say different things.
21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 21 Who's telling the truth? I don't know on that side
22 A I don't know now and I certainly didn't know then 22 who's telling the truth. They can't all be.
23 that Jack's actions put me in this lawsuit. I 23 Q But you don't -- you don't blame the Rabons for you
24 don't know what Jack Rabon might have done, and I 24 being involved in this lawsuit?
25 certainly don't believe an affidavit from Michelle 25 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.

Page 65 Page 66
1 A I don't have a -- I don't have a basis yet to blame 1 and presented to the Courts?
2 anybody for this lawsuit other than the people who 2 A No.
3 filed it. Now, if it turns out later that Jack 3 Q Okay. Do you recall us having discussions with
4 Rabon really did do some of these things with 4 Judge Culbertson in the Rule 60 motion in the 7862
5 Michelle Cohen that are alleged, well, then, yes. 5 case about those withdrawals?
6 I'm very unhappy about that; that -- that -- that a 6 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
7 client of mine would use my firm, without our 7 A Not specifically, but if you say that that was the
8 knowledge, to put pieces together in some sort of 8 subject of the hearing, then, I believe you.
9 illicit scheme. That would be very upsetting to 9 Q Okay. So -- and this is the part that doesn't make
10 me, but I'm giving my -- my former client the 10 sense to me.
11 benefit of the doubt until I see some proof that 11 A Okay.
12 that's what he did. 12 Q You know that Jack was pulling tremendous amounts
13 Q Okay. Well, let's deconstruct that a little bit. 13 of cash out of a PNC Bank account in the name of
14 Have you seen the documents that have been produced 14 Daisy Ridge, LLC, that you knew you referred him to
15 in this case through subpoenas and requests for 15 Robert Frenz to form. And I believe in every
16 production? 16 filing that I've done in this case, I've put the
17 A Yes. 17 articles of organization, which clearly show that
18 Q Have you seen the documents from PNC Bank? 18 Pleasantburg address was used to set up that
19 A Tell me which ones you mean. If you produced them, 19 fraudulent corporation -- or fraudulent LLC. You
20 I've seen them, but tell me what you -- what you 20 got the wire that Biderman sent the money to the
21 mean. 21 LLC and that Jack Rabon took it out like a madman
22 Q The statements for the Daisy Ridge checking account 22 through an ATM. At what point is there enough
23 with PNC Bank. 23 circumstantial or documented evidence for you to
24 A Yes. I've seen that. 24 believe that Jack got money under the table?
25 Q And do you know how long those have been available 25 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
Page 67 Page 68
1 A Look, Tucker, it's not my job to sit in judgment of 1 statements and their history of contradicting
2 Jack Rabon. So that's the thing, Jack Rabon has 2 themselves. So what veracity do you give to their
3 not been deposed, Biderman has not been deposed, 3 statements? I just don't know, but they're all
4 Michelle Cohen's not been deposed. I don't know 4 telling a lot of different stories, and sometimes
5 what evidence they will have to say, "No, no, no. 5 they're telling different stories than they
6 This was completely something else." They could 6 themselves told earlier.
7 have that. I don't know. It's not my job to judge 7 Q Okay.
8 them. I -- all I can speak to is what I did and 8 A I can't tell you whether your clients are lying or
9 what I'm aware of Henrietta doing and what I'm 9 not.
10 aware of McNair doing. And what I can tell you is, 10 Q Well, the Rabons aren't my clients.
11 I didn't know about anything behind our backs going 11 A I can't tell you whether your clients, the
12 on. I didn't participate in anything illicit in 12 Mitchells, are lying or not. I -- I don't know.
13 any way. As to the best of my knowledge, and I 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 4, "Defendant
14 can't possibly believe it would be otherwise, 14 Lane Jefferies' Amended Responses to
15 Henrietta did not know about or participate in any 15 Plaintiffs' First Requests for
16 of this in any way, nor McNair generally. That's 16 Admission."
17 all I can tell you. I can't judge these other 17 MR. PLAYER: (To Mr. Watson) This is Lane's
18 folks. I don't think anyone should be judging 18 responses to admissions.
19 these other folks until the evidence is in. 19 MR. WATSON: What is this number? Is this
20 Q And would you have any reason to doubt his 20 . . .
21 admission, at this point, that there was money paid 21 MR. PLAYER: -- 4.
22 under the table? 22 THE DEPONENT: (To Mr. Watson) Number 4.
23 A Oh, yeah. I have a reason to doubt everything that 23 MR. WATSON: Okay.
24 Michelle Cohen and Jack Rabon and Nicole Rabon 24 THE DEPONENT: Uh-huh.
25 might say, given their mutually contradictory 25 Q We'll go to 9. You denied, but you didn't provide

Page 69 Page 70
1 any type of explanation, and I was just hoping you 1 a way that was equitable to the -- to the owners.
2 could elaborate on why it was denied. 2 So that was our strategy, primarily: recovering
3 A It's denied because the strategy implemented by 3 those assets because that was in the best interest
4 McNair Law Firm was not "to protect Jack Rabon." 4 of our clients.
5 McNair Law Firm and I had several clients. Our 5 Q And when you say your clients, you've got Jack
6 duty is to look after the interest of all of those 6 Rabon, Rabon & Rabon. Who else would be a client
7 clients, each one. If those interests of the 7 of McNair during that time period?
8 clients came into conflict, then we'd have to 8 A I don't -- I don't remember, necessarily, all of
9 address that. So right on its face, the statement 9 who were clients. At one point, Nicole Rabon was a
10 is not nearly inclusive enough. We had a duty to 10 client. I think that was only with relation to the
11 protect Rabon & Rabon Inc.'s interest, as well, and 11 -- the action against Shai David, but I can't be
12 maybe some others. Secondly, it's denied because I 12 certain of that. You'd have to, you know, ask
13 don't know that "protect Jack Rabon" is really a 13 Henri because they were her clients. Rabon &
14 strategy. And I'll tell you what our -- to the 14 Rabon, Inc., was certainly a client. Jack Rabon
15 extent we had a strategy, it was to represent the 15 was a client personally. He was a client in his
16 interest of the clients, which primarily involved 16 capacity as personal representative of the estate
17 this: There were entities whose assets were 17 of his mother, and I believe one of the actions we
18 mismanaged and, for lack of a better word, stolen 18 filed as a derivative action on behalf of the LLC,
19 by Karon and Kyle Mitchell. Our primary strategy 19 so I don't know that that makes the LLC our client,
20 was to recover those assets, get them back into the 20 but certainly we were looking out for the interest
21 entities so that the entities could pay their 21 of the LLC; that's the nature of the derivative
22 taxes, could pay their bills, avoid foreclosure, 22 action.
23 and, if possible -- and it would be too early to 23 Q Okay. Did you ever represent the estate of Peggy
24 determine this, but continue as ongoing entities. 24 Jo Rabon?
25 And, if not, then to wind down their businesses in 25 A I don't recall ever representing the estate. I
Page 71 Page 72
1 recall representing Jack Rabon on occasion in his 1 interest are to get its assets back, so that was
2 capacity as personal representative of the estate. 2 the major part of the strategy, was to recover the
3 I think Eldridge Inman and his firm actually 3 assets that were wrongfully taken. Not to cripple
4 represented the estate. 4 Karon Mitchell or cripple anybody else.
5 Q Okay. Do you know if McNair ever signed anything 5 Q Okay. Number 11?
6 on behalf of the estate for Peggy Jo Rabon? 6 A And what's your question about 11?
7 A I -- I don't know. 7 Q My question was -- I mean the statement is that
8 Q Okay. Number 10 was denied. 8 "The strategy for the litigation . . . was
9 A And is your question "Why was it denied?" 9 formulated and promoted by Henrietta Golding," and
10 Q Yes. 10 it -- I don't see how it was ever really answered.
11 A Because it's not true. The strategy implemented by 11 A Well, I can tell you what we said. We said that --
12 McNair was not to financially cripple Karon 12 that the phrase, ". . . all of the litigation
13 Mitchell. As I said, our duty at McNair was to our 13 against the Mitchells is vague and ambiguous." And
14 clients. It was to represent them zealously, to 14 that ". . . with respect to litigation between and
15 look after their best interests within the confines 15 among Jack Rabon, Nicole Rabon, Rabon & Rabon,
16 of what the law allows, what our rules of ethics 16 Inc., Karon Mitchell, Kyle Mitchell, and other
17 allow, and the best interests of our clients were 17 related parties in which McNair Law Firm . . .
18 primarily to recover money wrongfully taken from 18 attorneys represented one or more parties, the
19 those entities. All right? It doesn't benefit our 19 McNair attorneys, including but not limited to
20 clients, for instance, Rabon & Rabon, Inc., to go 20 Henrietta [sic] Golding and Lane [sic] Jefferies,
21 financially cripple someone, Karon Mitchell or 21 with the assistance of their clients, implemented
22 anyone else. That does not raise the position of 22 strategies designed to protect their clients'
23 Rabon & Rabon, Inc., in any way to go financially 23 interests while complying with the legal and
24 cripple someone. What raises the position of Rabon 24 ethical obligations imposed upon them." I think
25 & Rabon, Inc. -- what's in Rabon & Rabon, Inc.'s 25 that's very similar to what I just said orally in

Page 73 Page 74
1 answer to your last question. That's what we did. 1 general law of business and -- and every -- every
2 Strategy is formulated. You know, clients identify 2 applicable rule.
3 goals, as you know. You're -- you're an attorney. 3 Q Okay. Number 13. "Pursuant to this strategy,
4 You've practiced longer than I have. Clients 4 McNair took aggressive and consistent actions to
5 identify goals. It's up to the attorneys to devise 5 prevent or inhibit the Mitchells' ability to
6 strategies and tactics to implement those goals. 6 operate -- operate the Shark Attack Golf Course and
7 We do that in consultation with our clients. 7 Hammerhead Grill as a matter of course during the
8 Multiple attorneys at McNair would have weighed in 8 representation of Rabon & Rabon, Inc." And you
9 on that. I participated in those discussions. The 9 denied it.
10 clients participated in those discussions. 10 A That's correct because that's not accurate.
11 Attorneys besides Henrietta Golding and myself, I 11 Q Did you take any actions against their ability to
12 believe, participated in those discussions. I 12 operate Shark Attack?
13 can't tell you necessarily who they were. I was a 13 A We did not take any actions, the purpose of which
14 junior associate at the time, so I wasn't in the 14 was to inhibit the Mitchells in operating Shark
15 room for everything that happened. Henrietta was 15 Attack. Now, whether that could have been a
16 on the McNair side, the decision maker, by my 16 collateral consequence of certain actions, well, I
17 understanding. But Henrietta did not come up with 17 -- I really don't have any way of knowing that.
18 a strategy absent input from the whole rest of the 18 For instance, if the Mitchells were attempting to
19 world and just announce it and implemented it. 19 operate Shark Attack using an illegally-obtained
20 What she did is what lawyers always do, which is 20 liquor license -- I'm just giving this as an
21 consult with your clients, consult with your peers, 21 example -- an illegally-obtained liquor license,
22 and work cooperatively to come up with a strategy. 22 which could have consequences that would be very
23 And we did that: A strategy to look after the best 23 bad for the LLC, and if we took action to prevent
24 interest of our clients as -- within the bounds set 24 that from happening, well, then, yeah. Of course,
25 for us by ethical obligations and the -- the 25 a collateral result of that might be that they
Page 75 Page 76
1 didn't get to make money off of illegally selling 1 know. Rabon -- Jack Rabon or Nicole Rabon
2 beer and wine, but that wasn't the purpose of the 2 themselves might have. I -- I don't immediately
3 action. The purpose of the action would be to 3 recall. I know that there was construction
4 prevent harm to the LLC by preventing the people 4 activity going on down there, apparently without a
5 controlling it from doing something illegal. We 5 permit, and that the City, at some point, became
6 didn't do anything where we said, "Here's what 6 involved. I don't really recall what caused that
7 we're going to do. We're going to set out to 7 involvement.
8 prevent or inhibit the Mitchells' ability to 8 Q What about drafting something for the Rabons
9 operate Shark Attack." That -- that was never a 9 regarding "a dangerous condition with the
10 purpose. 10 mechanical shark," or just any dangerous condition
11 Q So the attack on the liquor license was for the 11 at Shark Attack? Do you recall that happening?
12 benefit of the LLC? 12 A If you could show me what you're talking about, I
13 A I'm offering that hypothetically. I -- I remember 13 could probably better answer. I mean, I did work
14 there was some question about the liquor license. 14 at McNair for several years, and I worked on this
15 I don't remember if anything was actually done 15 file the entire time I was a lawyer there.
16 about the Mitchells obtaining a liquor license, 16 Q Okay.
17 perhaps fraudulently. It leaps to mind, by way of 17 A I drafted all manner of things. Is it possible
18 an example, to illustrate what I mean. The sort of 18 that that was in some pleading somewhere or -- or
19 thing that could have a consequence to the 19 other document? Yeah. Could be, but I -- I mean,
20 business, but the purpose of which was something 20 I can't remember the thousands of pages I drafted.
21 else: benefit to the entity. 21 If you have something that says that, show it to
22 Q Did you every make complaints to city officials 22 me. I'll tell you if it -- if it -- if it's real.
23 about construction activities at Shark Attack? 23 Q Yeah. And I -- I'll look -- I -- it's somewhere
24 A I don't think I ever made a complaint to any city 24 later down -- in my stuff, so . . . What else was
25 officials. If somebody else did, I -- I don't 25 there? The -- do you remember when the mechanical

Page 77 Page 78
1 shark was sabotaged at Shark Attack? 1 deny that you said it, or you just don't remember?
2 A I remember a police -- I don't know whether officer 2 A Well, I don't think I said that.
3 or detective, something like that, asking for a 3 Q Okay. And then 14 is along the same vein. "McNair
4 statement from Jack Rabon regarding damage to the 4 made numerous complaints to the police and
5 mechanical shark. 5 regulatory authorities in Myrtle Beach about the
6 Q Did you draft that statement for Jack? 6 operation of Shark Attack and Hammerhead Grill."
7 A I transcribed that statement for Jack. Jack came 7 "Denied"?
8 in to our office, as I recall, gave a statement, 8 A Deniable. As an initial matter, McNair is an
9 which I typed up, and then he signed and submitted, 9 entity, so it can't pick up the phone and dial. A
10 as I remember it. 10 human being would have to do that. I didn't do
11 Q And what did Jack tell you about what happened with 11 that. To my knowledge, Henrietta didn't do that.
12 the shark? 12 I don't know. McNair has a hundred-and-some-odd
13 A The best evidence of that would be to find that 13 employees. I -- I don't --
14 document that I typed up because it contains what 14 Q Okay.
15 Jack Rabon told me at the time. My memory is that 15 A I can't tell you that nobody did it. I can tell
16 he told me he didn't do it. 16 you I didn't do it.
17 Q Okay. Did you ever tell Jack in 2015 that he 17 Q Do you remember there being an RV out in front of
18 "couldn't let Karon open because, then, she'll have 18 the Shark Attack that was used by a band that was
19 the means to fight the lawsuits"? 19 playing there?
20 A I don't remember telling Jack Rabon that. 20 A I remember Jack Rabon telling me about that. He
21 Q Okay. Do you remember Shai David being there when 21 thought it was parked illegally or something along
22 you told him that? 22 those lines.
23 A Well, I don't remember ever telling Jack Rabon 23 Q Did you do anything about that?
24 that. 24 A I don't remember doing anything about that.
25 Q Okay. At -- and I know you don't remember. Do you 25 Q Okay. Number 15.
Page 79 Page 80
1 A And your question on that one is? 1 not an attorney, but when I was an attorney, I was
2 Q It was denied. 2 a junior associate. So my knowledge of any high-
3 A Correct -- for several reasons. First off, I don't 3 level discussions wouldn't have been much. I just
4 believe we had a "strategy" against the Mitchells. 4 wasn't in the room on those sorts of things. I --
5 Secondly, I'm not aware of Henrietta Golding 5 at no point, and I -- you know, I -- I worked on
6 rejecting any offer on behalf of any of our 6 this file for a long time. At no point did I ever
7 clients. Obviously, it's the clients who determine 7 see anything indicating that Henrietta had rejected
8 whether they take an offer or reject an offer. I 8 an offer of whatever that is, 500,000 -- $500,000,
9 have -- 9 or any offer from Noam Pyade. I never ran across
10 Q Okay. 10 anything that looks like that.
11 A -- no memory, no knowledge of Henrietta, on her 11 Q Okay. Do you know what Sea Palms 1 sold for in
12 own, rejecting an offer that had been made except 12 early 2015?
13 under circumstances where the client said, "I don't 13 A Off the top of my head, no. I don't.
14 want to take that offer." 14 Q Would you disagree if I told you it was $242,000?
15 Q Do you remember anything like that with Jack in 15 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
16 2014 -- 16 A I have no basis to agree or disagree. I -- I -- I
17 MR. WATSON: Object -- 17 have no idea what it sold for.
18 Q -- where Jack said he was going to refuse any offer 18 Q Okay.
19 for the purchase of any Sea Palms? 19 A I'm sure it's in the document you have here
20 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 20 somewhere --
21 A I -- I don't remember any specific instance. And, 21 Q Okay.
22 again, I wouldn't have been privy to every offer 22 A -- but, no, I don't remember.
23 that would have been made. Recall, that, at that 23 Q Number 16.
24 time frame in late 2014, I became a lawyer on 24 A And what's your question on that?
25 November 17th of 2014. So most of late 2014, I was 25 Q Why was it denied?

Page 81 Page 82
1 A Well, we -- I denied it because it's not true. 1 recall Henrietta advising Jack Rabon not to
2 First off, we did not have a strategy against the 2 cooperate with a loan modification. I don't know
3 Mitchells. Our strategy was for our clients, not 3 that it would necessarily be bad advice not to
4 against the Mitchells. It was to recover assets 4 cooperate. It would depend on the facts. I mean,
5 wrongfully taken from our clients by the Mitchells, 5 it might be that the loan modification was a really
6 so that's part of why we denied it. The second 6 bad idea. I don't know. I have no recollection of
7 part of -- of the denial is this, is I don't 7 anyone advising Jack Rabon not to cooperate with a
8 recall, at any time, myself or Henrietta or any 8 loan modification.
9 other attorney advising Jack Rabon not to cooperate 9 Q Were you present at the meeting with West Town Bank
10 with loan modifications in -- in 2014 or at any 10 and the USDA in December of 2015?
11 other time. If it were to be in late 2014, of 11 A Was that a meeting at Dan Stacy's office?
12 course, I could've only given such advice in the 12 Q Yes.
13 very last month and a half. I didn't do that. As 13 A I was present very briefly. Your client, Ms.
14 far as I know, Henrietta didn't do that, and I 14 Mitchell, asked that I leave after I gave a very
15 don't know of anyone at McNair that would've done 15 brief report on what I knew about the matter. So I
16 that and I don't see anything in the file that says 16 -- I, essentially, was there. I was present for
17 that anybody did that. 17 the part where I talked, and then Ms. Mitchell
18 Q Okay. And 17 is -- is, basically, the same 18 preferred that I exit and I was glad to accommodate
19 question, but with regards to modifications in 15 19 her request.
20 and 16. 20 Q Were you aware that West Town had requested
21 A And it's the same answer, again: We did not have a 21 financial records from Jack Rabon at that meeting?
22 strategy against the Mitchells. We had a strategy 22 A I was only there for the part where I talked and
23 to recover assets wrongfully taken from our 23 then they asked me to leave, so while I was --
24 clients. I don't recall ever advising Jack Rabon 24 while I was talking, they were listening. They
25 not to cooperate with a loan modification. I don't 25 were not requesting things. They were listening to
Page 83 Page 84
1 me. 1 text messages, dated 09/22/14 through
2 Q Did you ever have any conversations with Dan Stacy 2 02/09/16.
3 about obtaining financial records from Jack Rabon, 3 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) This is Number
4 so -- for the purpose of a potential modification? 4 5?
5 A I do remember Dan Stacy asking for financial 5 THE COURT REPORTER: (To Mr. Watson) Yes.
6 records. I don't remember the purpose of it. I 6 MR. PLAYER: Yes.
7 think, as I recall, and I don't remember the year - 7 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Is this my copy?
8 - you might find it in paperwork. As I recall, one 8 Q And before we get into this, did Jack want to evict
9 of the difficulties that Jack Rabon had in 9 Karon?
10 providing his tax returns was that the Mitchells, 10 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
11 who controlled the entities, were not filing those 11 A Tell me what you mean.
12 tax returns, so there were no K-1s or other 12 Q From the brick house back in 2015.
13 documents from which Jack Rabon could file his tax 13 A My memory is that Karon was -- Karon and Kyle
14 returns. So we did -- I recall having some 14 Mitchell were -- I don't know if they were evicted
15 difficulty getting those documents, not because 15 or asked to leave, but, at some point, they left
16 Jack Rabon was, you know, sandbagging or refusing 16 the house. My understanding was, as I recall --
17 to comply. It's because the Mitchells simply 17 and you might find documents that would shed more
18 hadn't provided to him what he needed in order to 18 light on this. But my understanding was that the
19 create his documents. But I don't remember if that 19 house was, at that time, an asset of the
20 was in the context of the West Town refinancing or 20 corporation that had a fair-market rental value.
21 some other context. 21 It was not being rented by the Mitchells. And my
22 Q Okay. 22 recollection is that the message to the Mitchells
23 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) Can you 23 was, "You can't personally occupy the corporate
24 mark that? 24 asset without paying the fair-market value. You
25 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5, Copy of 25 need to pay the fair-market value, or the

Page 85 Page 86
1 corporation will have to get somebody in there who 1 them. And here -- here's the issue with it,
2 can pay the fair-market value." That's my 2 obviously. It's a fragment of text messages. It's
3 recollection. Now, I know that, at some point, 3 not in context. You can't see what's before it or
4 they moved out of that house. I don't immediately 4 what's after it. There's no real way to know, by
5 recall whether they moved out voluntarily, they 5 looking at it, that -- that it's even authentic,
6 were evicted, or -- or whatever. 6 but it sounds familiar. I do remember there was
7 Q Okay. On Exhibit 5, first page, that's really in - 7 some discussion around that time frame about trying
8 - do you recognize this text? 8 to settle this matter or something along those
9 MR. WATSON: Let me just make an objection on 9 lines, so that -- it could be. I just -- I can't
10 completeness for Exhibit 5. It appears to be 10 say just by looking at this fragment, though.
11 these are partial excerpts of what appear to 11 Q Do you have any of these text messages?
12 be cut-off text messages, so I'll -- I'll just 12 A Not that I'm aware of. This -- back in 2014? I --
13 make a continuing objection throughout all of 13 I would have no reason to keep old text messages.
14 the -- the pages of Exhibit 5 on that ground. 14 Q Okay.
15 MR. PLAYER: Okay. 15 A I am a little surprised that whoever took this
16 Q Do you recognize it, Lane? 16 screenshot saw fit just to take a fragment of it
17 A No. Let me read it here. 17 and exclude everything that would give context to
18 Q Okay. 18 this from which we could derive some -- some
19 A Is it just this one page? 19 meaning, but I'll answer your questions as best I
20 Q For right now, yeah. 20 can based on this fragment.
21 A Just . . . Because there's -- it's cut off at the 21 Q Oh, yeah. I really only have a -- a question about
22 bottom. Does it, like, go -- is there another page 22 a sentence that's in the -- the bottom, grey part
23 where it's continued? 23 where you said, "It's probably, at this stage, the
24 Q Nope. 24 less conversation with Kyle, the better." I was
25 A That's just it? You know, I think I recognize 25 wondering why you were telling Jack not to talk to
Page 87 Page 88
1 Kyle. 1 it's authentic. It's certainly incomplete, and,
2 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 2 so, whoever took this picture left out everything
3 A That does -- you know, I don't know that I said 3 that would give context to this. But it does sound
4 that in this text because, again, I don't know what 4 familiar because around that time, assuming these
5 this is, but that sounds like advice that I have 5 dates are correct, that would have been about the
6 given Jack Rabon in the past, and -- and the reason 6 time that Shai David was negotiating his purchase
7 is this: Jack Rabon loves to talk and, in this 7 with Jack Rabon. So that -- that makes sense, and
8 instance, he was talking to the other side in a 8 I do remember having text conversations with Jack
9 lawsuit. And Henrietta and I consistently told 9 Rabon about that purchase.
10 Jack Rabon, "Consult with us, let us help you make 10 Q Okay. Then, what was he talking about, bottom
11 sure that you're delivering your message and only 11 left-hand corner, "We can personally work something
12 your message, that you're not saying something that 12 out between us to compensation you for the off-the-
13 you will -- it will inadvertently harm the interest 13 record part"?
14 of yourself or -- or any of the other clients. 14 A You know, I don't know what Jack Rabon was talking
15 Just be careful in how you speak to the other 15 about there, assuming that's -- that's him. I can
16 side." And we gave that advice to Jack Rabon 16 tell you this, the thrust of this -- two things,
17 regularly. He didn't, unfortunately, listen to it 17 really. The thrust of this conversation is about
18 much and tended to talk a -- a lot. 18 him working out a deal with Shai David. That's
19 Q Okay. We can go to the second page. 19 what the conversation appears to be about. It was
20 A Now, what's your question on the second page? 20 held -- and when you sent over this document to me,
21 Q Do you recognize the text? 21 I went and looked up some dates. It was held, as I
22 MR. WATSON: Same objection as before. 22 think it says here somewhere, "middle of your
23 A You know, it looks familiar. Again, it is cut off 23 personal time with your family." It was on the
24 midsentence at both the beginning and the end. 24 weekend. It was seven o'clock on a Friday or
25 It's impossible to tell from this document whether 25 Saturday night. I was not at my desk, obviously.

Page 89 Page 90
1 The thrust of this was about the Shai David deal. 1 that wouldn't the -- that wouldn't the point of the
2 I can tell you this about how I use text. I can't 2 conversation.
3 -- without these, I cannot see squat closer than 3 Q So the grayed-out -- the grey portion, "Perfect.
4 about arm's length away. I hit the button -- I 4 Congrats. Anything we need to do tonight or just
5 have Siri read me my text, I hit the button, and I 5 talk tomorrow? That's really great news, Jack."
6 dictate a reply. It is not the same level of 6 You didn't type that?
7 thoroughness that you'd see in, like, an e-mail, 7 A Like, type it with my fingers? I mean, I -- that's
8 for example. So I responded to the part of this 8 the -- that's the me portion of that conversation,
9 text that I needed to respond to. I didn't respond 9 so that would be my reply. So if this is actually
10 to Jack on this sentence about, "We can personally 10 a real conversation, that's what I said.
11 work something out between us to compensation you," 11 Q Okay. So -- but you just told me you didn't reply
12 because I'd already responded to him on that on 12 to the "off-the-record part," and that's
13 numerous other occasions. Jack Rabon had 13 immediately after that.
14 frequently offered to pay me, outside of McNair, to 14 A Right. It's also immediately after the, "We have a
15 handle certain things for him. And I consistently 15 deal. He'll be down in 48 hours. Agreed to" --
16 told him, "You don't need to do that. McNair pays 16 and he lays out these terms. And what I am saying
17 me fine. I'm glad to do a -- a freebie for you as 17 to Jack Rabon in here is, "Anything we need to do
18 I would for any good client on some unrelated 18 tonight?" You know, they have -- they have reached
19 matter. You get a speeding ticket, you want me to 19 an oral deal. As you know, you can't sell real
20 walk with you down there, and you're a good client? 20 estate in South Carolina orally. You have to
21 Of course, I'll do that, and I'm not sending you a 21 reduce it to writing, and that's what my message
22 bill for it. That's what you do for good clients. 22 back to Jack Rabon is about. And it says,
23 But I'd repeatedly told him that I didn't need 23 somewhere in here, "He's coming down in 48 hours."
24 money for anything that I did. I'd help him out as 24 Q Uh-huh.
25 a good client. I didn't respond to that because 25 A So the sense of urgency there was: In 48 hours,
Page 91 Page 92
1 we've got to get paperwork together for this guy on 1 compensation you," part because I'd already told
2 this relatively-complex corporate deal, and we're 2 Jack Rabon that "I didn't need that; I didn't want
3 talking on a Friday or Saturday night. And, so, 3 that; McNair paid me fine."
4 the question to him is, essentially, "Do I need to 4 Q Sure. And -- and my focus isn't on compensating
5 round up Henrietta and get into the office first 5 you; it's the fact that he refers to "off-the-
6 thing tomorrow morning and bang out a whole bunch 6 record part."
7 of paper, or do we have more time than that?" 7 A I see your point. Yeah, you know, Tucker, we're
8 Because I don't know how long Shai David's coming 8 looking at a fragment of a text conversation where
9 down here for. Is he staying for a week, etc.? 9 the beginning has been cut off, apparently
10 That's what this message is about. 10 intentionally, the end has been cut off
11 Q Okay. But you -- you get -- is there ever a real 11 intentionally. I am listening to this on my phone
12 estate transaction where there can be an off-the- 12 while I am out, whatever, barbecuing with my
13 record part and be legitimate? 13 family, and you're asking me if I picked up four
14 A Well, I don't know the answer to that. I know 14 particular words, not about the subject of the
15 there was no off-the-record part that I was aware 15 conversation, and isolated and responded to those
16 of in any of these transactions. 16 while I was listening to this on my phone? No.
17 Q Okay. 17 That's not the way regular human beings are. I'm
18 A And I don't know what Jack Rabon -- assuming this 18 not parsing this as if it were a -- a -- a brief
19 is -- this fragment is real, I don't know what he's 19 I'm submitting to the Supreme Court. It's a text
20 talking about in there, but that's not my concern 20 message, so no. I -- I don't even know that I paid
21 with this message. My concern with this message 21 any attention to that when Siri said it in my ear
22 is, he is laying out a deal he needs to have put 22 because it's not the focus of this conversation,
23 together for Shai David and whether I need to get 23 which we would know if the person who screenshotted
24 into the office and put that deal together. I 24 this hadn't cut off everything before and
25 didn't concern myself with this compensation -- "to 25 everything after, leaving us with just this

Page 93 Page 94
1 fragment to guess at the meaning of. 1 27th of 2015. Shortly before that, there were
2 Q Okay. We'll go to the next set, which is the next 2 several lawsuits in play against the Mitchells.
3 three pages. 3 Shortly before this text, there was a lawsuit filed
4 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) You're on the 4 against Jack Rabon by the Mitchells -- Jack Rabon
5 third, fourth, and fifth pages of this 5 and others. I can't remember who all the
6 exhibit? 6 defendants were. It was filed by Sid Connor on
7 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 7 behalf of the Mitchells. One of the allegations in
8 MR. WATSON: Okay. 8 that complaint was that Jack Rabon was taking money
9 MR. PLAYER: There -- there's T -- there's a 9 "under the table" in a deal with Shai David. When
10 T-3 in the bottom right-hand corner of -- 10 Jack became aware of that complaint, the first
11 MR. WATSON: Very large? 11 thing he said to me was, "Well, Sid's own clients
12 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 12 are doing exactly the same thing. They had a deal
13 MR. WATSON: Okay. 13 with" -- I think it was Rusty Helms, if I recall.
14 A And what's your question on this? 14 "They had a deal with Rusty where they were going
15 Q Do you remember this text? 15 to get money under the table."
16 A I do. This is a fragment of a text conversation, 16 And he said the reason that he knew this is
17 but I do remember having this, and this appears to 17 that at the time he was getting along with his
18 be, as far as I can tell -- I mean, it's pretty 18 sister, and she had offered to share the under-the-
19 brief, so it's easy to look through. As far as I 19 table money with him. And what he wanted me to do,
20 can tell, this appears to be an authentic text. I 20 which I told him was a stupid idea, was to go fire
21 don't know that for sure because I don't know where 21 immediately back at Sid Connor and say, "Sid, your
22 it came from, but it looks right. 22 clients are engaged in exactly the same thing."
23 Q Okay. What is he talking about "the under-table 23 And what I told Jack on the phone and in this text
24 money to the Mitchells"? 24 was, "That's a really bad idea. Right now, we know
25 A So, this text, according to this date, was on March 25 something that Sid doesn't know. Sid is the
Page 95 Page 96
1 opposing party. We know something that he does not 1 worried about.
2 know. That is gold in litigation, when you know 2 A The one that begins with November 12th?
3 something that the other side doesn't know. You 3 Q Yes.
4 don't just go bring them up to speed with it. You 4 A All right.
5 hold on to that information." We knew that the 5 Q Do you recall that text message?
6 Mitchells had done something shady. I wasn't about 6 A No.
7 to tell the other side that we knew. 7 Q Okay.
8 And after whatever it is, some period of time 8 A I mean, it's -- is it a part of -- no. It's not a
9 -- so I replied when Jack says, "After some 9 part of the previous page. That's November 11th.
10 thought, if you haven't already told Sid about the 10 Q It's not.
11 under-table money to the Mitchells, don't. If you 11 A Is this something that -- what is this?
12 have, that's my bad," it looks like he says. 12 Q It's a text message, supposedly, from you to Jack.
13 I replied, "Have not told Sid. Information is 13 A Just like plucked completely out of context? No.
14 power only when not everyone has it." And he 14 I can't -- if you show me a picture of something
15 agrees that my advice to him was good advice: I 15 where they've cut off everything before and
16 should not tell Sid. 16 everything after, I -- I can't tell you what that
17 Q Okay. All right. We'll go to the next three, 17 is. I have no idea.
18 where I've got T-4 in the bottom right-hand corner. 18 MR. J. RABON: (To the deponent) You can only
19 MR. WATSON: Right here? 19 take what fits on the screen.
20 MR. MILLS: Uh-huh. 20 THE DEPONENT: (To Mr. Watson) Did he chime
21 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) And how many 21 in about something?
22 pages? 22 MR. WATSON: No.
23 MR. PLAYER: It's three. 23 THE DEPONENT: No?
24 MR. WATSON: So go to the T -- okay. 24 MR. WATSON: We're good.
25 Q And, really, the second page is the only one I'm 25 Q So -- and -- and my question is: Do you -- do you

Page 97 Page 98
1 -- would -- this says, "Let me know when you're 1 was he didn't actually still have them, but he
2 ready for Nicole to pick up the letter for the lis 2 could make them. And he felt okay about doing that
3 pendens." And you don't remember ever sending that 3 because he had really had these conversations, he
4 to Jack? 4 said, so he didn't feel like he was doing anything
5 A No. I don't remember ever sending that to Jack. 5 wrong to go ahead and make them up.
6 Q Do you know what happened on November 12th, 2015? 6 The first thing I asked him was, "How do you
7 A Well, you're going to have to narrow that down. A 7 even do that?"
8 lot of things happened on November 12th, 2015. 8 He explained to me, "Actually, it's terribly
9 What are you talking about? 9 easy. You can go to a website and do it." And he
10 Q That's the day he filed those lis pendens you told 10 seemed to have -- be perfectly comfortable doing
11 him not to file. 11 that.
12 A I believe you if you say that's true, but I don't 12 I went through with him how you can't -- you
13 know anything about this. And I -- and let me back 13 know, regardless of the reason, you can't fabricate
14 up and tell you something, too, that -- that -- one 14 evidence. And I asked him if he'd ever done that
15 of the reasons that we are so doubtful about these 15 with anything he'd given to me so far and he said,
16 messages. Back up a few pages here to this, "If 16 "No." And I -- as I looked at the stuff, I didn't
17 you haven't told Sid about the" -- 17 see any reason to believe that he had. But after
18 Q Uh-huh. 18 that, I was extremely skeptical of things -- Jack
19 A -- "under-table money." The part of the text 19 Rabon would send me pictures and pictures of texts
20 conversation and oral conversation that's left out 20 and pictures of purported Facebook posts all the
21 here is where I asked Jack Rabon if he had any 21 time. And I rarely did anything with them because
22 evidence of this. And Jack Rabon told me, "Yeah." 22 I was always skeptical about their authenticity.
23 He had text conversations with his sister about 23 I'd have to check it out for myself. When he sent
24 sharing that money. I asked him why he had never 24 me a photo purportedly of construction at Shark
25 produced those to me before. And what he told me 25 Attack, I actually went down and stood on the
Page 99 Page 100

1 street and looked up to see if it was really that 1 we were gathering up corporate papers ahead of the
2 way because I was that skeptical. So when Jack 2 closing, so that would make sense. I mean, I don't
3 Rabon, who tells me he can make fake text messages 3 have a specific memory of it, but it sounds about
4 at a website and describes in detail how easy it is 4 right.
5 to do and pops up with a single page that says 5 Q Okay.
6 exactly what he wants it to say, yeah. I'm highly 6 A It would help if we could see what came before it,
7 skeptical of that. 7 what came after it, but, you know, obviously,
8 MRS. KARON MITCHELL: Tucker, can we take a 8 that's cut out. But it -- it looks about right.
9 break? 9 Q But you do admit that you sent him the screenshot
10 MR. PLAYER: Yes. Quick break. Five minutes. 10 with the Berkshire Hathaway address on it?
11 (Off the record from 12:20 p.m. 11 A Yeah. I volunteered that earlier. He, again,
12 until 12:34 p.m.) 12 asked me to look that up and, because he was
13 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES. 13 driving, I did and sent it to him.
14 Q Okay. I think we'll move to the next one, which is 14 Q Okay. And my understanding is, the green is Jack
15 T-5. 15 and the grey is you, and you --
16 A Now, what's your question about that one? 16 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
17 Q Do you recognize the text string? 17 Q You change -- you say -- you talk about articles of
18 MR. WATSON: Same objection that -- it should 18 incorporation, and then you say, "Pardon me,
19 be continuing through all of these. 19 articles of organization, not incorporation."
20 A Yeah. I think the -- at least the one where 20 Why'd you do that?
21 there's a photograph of the address of Berkshire 21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
22 Hathaway; that's the photograph that I referred to 22 A I just -- as I said, I don't know. Out of context,
23 earlier that I had texted to Jack Rabon, so I 23 I don't know what it was we were gathering up,
24 recall that part. 24 although, I -- I see the date here. August 26th
25 The rest, yeah, that -- that could be. I know 25 was obviously just a few days ahead of the closing,

Page 101 Page 102

1 so I'm sure we were gathering up documents in 1 Q Okay. We'll go to the next one.
2 preparation for the closing. 2 A This is T-6?
3 Q Okay. 3 Q Uh-huh.
4 A And I don't know whether those could've been -- for 4 A Oh. All right. What's your question about that
5 instance, if I were referring to the LLC, MB 5 one?
6 Boardwalk Entertainment, I would obviously be 6 Q Do you recognize this text string?
7 talking about articles of organization because it's 7 A Yeah. Again, it's out of context, and, you know,
8 an LLC versus Rabon & Rabon, Inc., which is a 8 there's nothing before it and after it. But I do
9 corporation. But I don't know specifically what 9 remember, leading up to the closing, there was --
10 this would've been about, absent -- you know, it's 10 there were a number things that we had to get into
11 just a fragment -- absent in context, I don't know. 11 place that weren't into place, and one of them was
12 Q Why would you need the articles of organization for 12 getting Gabi paid for his work managing the motel,
13 the same of Rabon & Rabon property? 13 and I do remember having oral conversations and
14 A As I said, I don't know specifically what we were 14 text conversations about that.
15 trying to gather up here. And, at that time, 15 Q Okay. Why would you be responsible to pay Gabi?
16 again, August 26th of 2015 would put me at about a 16 A I wasn't responsible to pay Gabi, but I had been
17 nine-month-in junior-associate attorney, so I 17 tasked with making sure that the closing got done.
18 would've been gathering up things that people above 18 So we had -- at that time, we had three or four
19 me told me to get. 19 things that were kind of standing in our way.
20 Q Do you know what Jack was going to Columbia for? 20 One was, we needed West Town Bank to give us
21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 21 the release because it had a mortgage -- had a
22 A No. I don't. My understanding was that he was 22 second, I think. We needed to get that release
23 ultimately going to -- up to the mountain property 23 paperwork from West Town; we didn't have that.
24 at the time where -- where he requested the -- that 24 We needed a confirmation from BB&T that it
25 address. But, no, I don't have any idea. 25 would do the short-sale, so that was another piece.
Page 103 Page 104

1 And I forget when, in there, we got that piece of 1 Rabon, Inc., was in control of those.
2 the puzzle. We also needed documents from Michelle 2 What we advised Jack was, "You've got to put
3 Cohen, as the realtor, and that was one of the 3 them to productive use, same way as the house." So
4 roadblocks that we were facing at that time. 4 Jack made a deal with Gabi Yosef, who he was
5 Of course, the other problem, I already talked 5 introduced, I believe, by Michelle Cohen, to -- to
6 about, was the fact that Biderman was talking about 6 run those hotels, to rent them out, put people into
7 pulling out of half of the deal. So we thought -- 7 the rooms to -- so they would, if not make money,
8 at this stage, September 2nd would've been about 8 at least bring in cash that could be used to pay
9 the time that we were trying to get that solved 9 bills so the -- the company wouldn't lose as much
10 with Biderman, we had not yet solved the West Town 10 money.
11 issue, and I don't really remember if we'd solved 11 So -- and I think that's even in Rabon's
12 the BB&T issue. 12 affidavit here somewhere: that Gabi was managing
13 But the other issue -- and that's what this is 13 the hotels. In any case, Gabi managed those
14 related to, is this: If you'll recall when we were 14 hotels. To get paid, of course, required money.
15 talking about Rabon & Rabon, Inc., assets sitting 15 And my understanding of Jack's arrangement with
16 idle -- so one of them was the house; it was not 16 Gabi was that he would simply pay him out of the
17 being rented, the Mitchells were occupying it just 17 closing proceeds.
18 free. So what Rabon & Rabon, Inc., told them was: 18 For whatever reason -- and I don't know the
19 "You've got to pay rent or you've got to leave. 19 reason -- but Michelle Cohen apparently became
20 You've got to put that asset to use." 20 distrustful of whether that would actually occur,
21 Other assets were sitting there unused -- the 21 and she insisted that Gabi get paid prior to
22 hotel properties -- they were not being used as 22 closing. She was not going to let the deal go
23 hotels; they were just sitting there empty. So 23 through until she knew that her brother was getting
24 Jack Rabon was in control of those; he had the keys 24 paid.
25 to them. You know, he, as the president of Rabon & 25 And the way -- the way she was preventing that

Page 105 Page 106

1 was: She had told us that she actually had the 1 time we get in the office Tuesday morning, we are
2 release from West Town Bank; that they'd signed it 2 selling it on the courthouse steps, and there's
3 and she'd gotten it from them, so we assumed that 3 nothing you can do about that."
4 that was correct. We presumed that she really had 4 Now, that Tuesday happened to follow Labor
5 it; she didn't. 5 Day, so then banks weren't open on Monday. No
6 But she was telling us that, and she was 6 closing could happen on Monday. Of course, no
7 holding that out and saying, "Listen, I'm -- I'm 7 closing could happen on Sunday or Saturday. And,
8 not going to deliver that until I know that Gabi 8 so, that made our actual deadline --
9 got paid for the work that he did." 9 SIRI: Did you accidentally summon me?
10 So I got on Jack. I said, "Listen, scrape 10 MR. MILLS: I'm sorry about that.
11 together" -- it was like $5,000. It was -- it was 11 THE DEPONENT: No.
12 money. It wasn't pocket change, but is wasn't all 12 A That made our actual deadline to get the whole deal
13 the money in the world; it was money that you could 13 done Friday afternoon, which would've been, what,
14 come up with. I said, "Come up with that money and 14 the 5th, I guess? If someone has a calendar, you
15 get Gabi paid so we can get this document from 15 could check. Yeah, probably the 5th. So we were
16 Michelle so that I can stop worrying about that, 16 absolutely coming down to the wire.
17 and I can then focus on putting the rest of the 17 This was a simple problem, and it was one that
18 pieces of this puzzle together so we can actually 18 I just wanted Jack to solve so that I could focus
19 get closed." 19 on the other pieces of the puzzle. Because, at
20 And the reason -- I should point out the 20 that stage, I hadn't even seen the West Town
21 reason that there was a sense of urgency on this 21 release yet. Michelle Cohen said she had it. I
22 was that, on September -- the Tuesday following 22 hadn't even seen it. I didn't know if it would
23 this was the absolute drop-dead date for BB&T; they 23 satisfy the closing attorney.
24 had extended and extended and extended. And what 24 I had a lot of work to do, and I was -- quite
25 they told us was, "If you don't have it done by the 25 frankly, I'm a little more restrained in here than
Page 107 Page 108

1 I was orally with Jack. Because I was saying, 1 you say, "No word yet from West Town except they
2 "Man, just get the man his money so we can get the 2 promised . . . to get it to me."
3 deal done." 3 A Uh-huh.
4 Q So the wire went from Jack Rabon to Gabi? 4 Q So if Gabi's getting paid because she's holding it
5 A I don't know whether a wire ever actually went. I 5 hostage, you -- West Town has not told you that
6 don't know. What I do know is that Michelle Cohen 6 they've signed the release?
7 apparently was satisfied that Gabi got paid because 7 A All right. So, if you look at the dates, "No word
8 she said, "Okay, the deal can go forward." 8 yet from West Town" is on the afternoon of
9 Whether Jack Rabon actually wired the money to 9 September 1; that's a Monday afternoon. Here's the
10 -- Gabi Yosef isn't a -- I don't think, a citizen 10 thing you've got to understand about West Town Bank
11 of the -- of the U.S. I think he's from -- from 11 -- have you ever heard of West Town Bank before
12 Chile. Where he was, I don't know. My 12 this --
13 understanding was this money was to go to his -- 13 Q Uh-huh.
14 his bank account in Chile. I don't know how he 14 A -- litigation?
15 actually got paid. Whether Rabon wired him the 15 Q Uh-huh.
16 money, whether Rabon gave him cash, I have no idea. 16 A Prior to this? You ever done business with them?
17 What I do know is, ultimately, Michelle Cohen 17 Ever gone into one of their branches?
18 -- well, I -- gosh, I guess it would be the next 18 Q No.
19 day, September 3rd, said, "Hey, everything's cool." 19 A They don't have any. All they do is these kind of
20 She delivered those checks made out to McNair, and, 20 loans. They have an office somewhere, I think,
21 at that stage, she told me she didn't actually have 21 like in Raleigh, with a handful of people in it.
22 the West Town document, so I started scrambling to 22 You can't hardly get a human being on the phone at
23 get that, and ultimately got it, like, I think, 23 West Town Bank, so it was very hard to get anything
24 late in the afternoon on the 4th. 24 out of them.
25 Q Okay. So, you know, back on the left-hand side, 25 We had sent them messages; we had sent

Page 109 Page 110

1 messages to Dan Stacy. Dan hadn't replied; West 1 Q -- "Any word yet?"
2 Town hadn't replied, and, so, on the -- on this 2 "Let me call."
3 afternoon, there is nothing. Then we get word from 3 "Nothing."
4 Michelle Cohen; she's got the thing. 4 "Damn, Jack, can you get Michelle on the phone
5 "Great. Bring it on over." 5 and find out if Gabby got his wire?"
6 Then she turns the screws and says, "No. My 6 "Yes."
7 brother's got to get paid before I'm going to bring 7 "She's calling now. As soon as I hear back" -
8 this thing over." 8 - and --
9 Because that's -- she knew that that was the 9 A -- "I'll let you know," at the top, right.
10 last piece of the puzzle. She knew we had no way 10 Q If -- if this is so urgent, and it's only $5,000,
11 of getting the thing other than getting it from 11 why are they not just taking him a check?
12 her, and she turned the screws, and she got her 12 A I have no idea.
13 brother paid. Not that the brother didn't deserve 13 Q Okay. At this time -- at this point, the debt to
14 the money. I think he did the work, and he was 14 Gabi, whose debt is it?
15 entitled to the money. It was just a question of 15 A I don't know. My understanding is that it was
16 when he was going to get paid. 16 Rabon & Rabon, Inc.'s debt to Gabi, but I don't
17 Q All right. So, the middle part, up top, "Just 17 really know. I don't know what arrangements Jack
18 checking in. Any word from the bank?" 18 Rabon made with Gabi. All I know is that they both
19 "Not yet." What are you talking about there? 19 told me that he was working there, that he was due
20 A I don't know. I assume that's related to whether 20 this money, and that he was going to get paid after
21 they sent a wire out to Gabi Yosef or not. Yeah. 21 the closing.
22 And that would be about right. That's -- the 22 I think -- because I never saw any documents
23 timing on that's about right. 23 as to this -- I think they just had an oral
24 Q Okay. Let's look at the bottom: 3:05 -- 24 understanding: "I'll hire you to do this."
25 A Uh-huh. 25 "Okay. I'll do it."
Page 111 Page 112

1 "I'll pay you at the closing." 1 $5,000 of Rabon & Rabon, Inc., funds. Can I get a
2 "Okay. That's fine." I think that's all it 2 check?," Henri would've said no because that
3 was, so it wasn't one of those things where like a 3 would've not satisfied the need for documentary
4 check was going to come out to him at closing, 4 evidence to -- to -- to support that expenditure.
5 where he could rely on a -- a HUD statement to know 5 That's speculation on my part. I don't know
6 he was going to get paid. It was just a promise. 6 that he ever asked. But I can't imagine Henri
7 And we weren't involved in negotiating that 7 would just stroke a trust check based on some
8 deal to manage the motels. McNair had nothing to 8 purported oral agreement to a foreigner.
9 do with that. We just advised, "Jack, you've got 9 Q Did McNair have runners in their employment at this
10 to get somebody in there. You've got rent these 10 time period?
11 hotel rooms out." 11 A We had -- I can't speak to anything except for the
12 Q Okay. So -- 12 office in Myrtle Beach; I don't know about the
13 A And he did that. 13 rest. We had a guy who did runs over to the
14 Q At -- at this time -- at this time, McNair has 14 courthouse and back. It wasn't like a general
15 $90,000 of Rabon & Rabon money that they are 15 runner; he just -- he went to the courthouse, filed
16 purportedly holding for expenses. Why did they not 16 things, brought back filed things for us.
17 pay Gabi? 17 Q Okay. Then, why didn't anybody just drive to Dan
18 A I -- I don't think anyone asked McNair to pay -- to 18 Stacy's office?
19 pay Gabi. At least, no one asked me to pay Gabi. 19 A Oh, I did.
20 I don't know if Jack Rabon asked Henrietta to pay 20 Q I mean, you were telling me that he wouldn't see
21 Gabi. I can tell you I suspect that, in light of 21 you.
22 what we talked about earlier -- the protection of 22 A I drove to Dan Stacy's office when I learned that
23 Rabon & Rabon, Inc.'s funds -- that, if Jack Rabon 23 Michelle Cohen -- see, you've got to remember
24 had come to Henrietta and said, "I have made an 24 Michelle Cohen said she had this thing. I had no
25 oral agreement with a foreign national to pay him 25 reason to disbelieve her. When I found out that

Page 113 Page 114

1 she didn't have it, it was, I think, that very next 1 I said, "All right. I'll come to your beach
2 day that I drove -- I think it was the 4th that I 2 house."
3 drove to Dan Stacy's office. That was, then, the 3 He said, "No. Don't come to the beach house.
4 last piece of the puzzle. 4 I've got the whole family here. I'll meet you at
5 I drove to Dan Stacy's office. Dan says, "I 5 McNair." So, that day -- I think it was the 4th --
6 don't have the thing, but you can get it from 6 I left Dan's office, started driving to -- driving
7 Riddick Skinner, the fellow with West Town Bank." 7 to McNair. Riddick left the beach house in
8 I said, "Do you mind if I call Riddick?" 8 wherever it was -- North Carolina or somewhere --
9 He said, "Not at all." I stood in the lobby 9 started driving to McNair.
10 of Dan's office down in Murrells Inlet -- or 10 I met him in the lobby of McNair; me in my
11 Pawleys Island, I guess it is -- called Riddick 11 suit, him in his board shorts and flipflops, and he
12 Skinner from Dan's office. Finally, I got to a 12 signed that paper and that was the last piece of
13 human being in the Raleigh office of West Town 13 the puzzle. And then I scampered it on over to my
14 Bank. Riddick's not there; he's at his beach 14 -- Emery's office to get the closing done.
15 house. 15 Q Okay. In the last portion of the text, "I'm
16 I begged and pled and did everything in the 16 pushing the closing back again, based in -- based
17 world, saying, "I've got to have this thing or our 17 in the West Town letter, which is almost but not
18 whole world's coming to an end." She gave me 18 quite here." Why are you not mentioning that
19 Riddick's cell-phone number. I called Riddick; I 19 Michelle Cohen is holding it hostage?
20 got him at his beach house. I said, "Listen, I 20 A I don't think at that stage she was holding it
21 need this thing." 21 hostage. I don't know.
22 He said, "Bring it to me. I will sign it. 22 Q Well, this is after you asked about Gabi's wire.
23 Does Dan have it?" 23 And the only reason they're asking about Gabi's
24 "Yes." 24 wire is because she's requiring it before she gives
25 "Bring it to me. I'll sign it." 25 you this release from West Town.
Page 115 Page 116

1 A Right. This is the following day, September 3rd. 1 anywhere I could.
2 So the conversation about -- with Jack Rabon and 2 Q Okay. We'll go to the next one.
3 Michelle Cohen and Gabi getting paid by Rabon & 3 A T-7?
4 Rabon, Inc., or by Jack all takes place on the 2nd. 4 Q Uh-huh.
5 Now we get to the 3rd; we still don't have the 5 A What's your question on that one?
6 letter. I've got to gather this letter up 6 Q Do you remember this e-mail exchange?
7 somewhere. I don't remember whether -- where it 7 A The text --
8 was that I found out she didn't have it, whether it 8 MR. WATSON: Same continuing objection.
9 was the afternoon of the 2nd or the morning of the 9 A Text exchange?
10 3rd. It would've been in there somewhere. But, at 10 Q Yes. Sorry.
11 some point, she told me she didn't have it. I 11 A I don't remember it specifically. Could we have
12 texted Jack, said, "We're shoving the closing 12 had it? Sure. I mean, it would help if it weren't
13 back," because we were trying to do it on the 3rd. 13 cut off, at top and bottom, so we could have some
14 We were not -- you know, you could imagine the risk 14 context as to what it's about. But that -- I mean,
15 you run when you do a closing on a Friday and that 15 it looks like a text exchange, as far as I can
16 is your absolute last opportunity to do it before 16 tell.
17 the property gets foreclosed. If any little thing 17 Q So were you going to get -- are you meeting Jack to
18 goes wrong -- if the guy driving to the courthouse 18 get in his truck and go meet Michelle Cohen?
19 to get the deed recorded breaks down, you're 19 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
20 screwed, so we did not want to do this on Friday. 20 A I don't know from this. We might have been going
21 We didn't even want to do it on Thursday. We 21 to meet Michelle Cohen. Yeah. I know we met
22 wanted to do it as early in the week as we could, 22 Michelle Cohen on the 3rd when she delivered those
23 so we were pushing hard to get it done. That's why 23 checks, so this could relate to that. It could
24 I had to shove the thing back, because we didn't 24 relate to going over to Emery's office to sign
25 have all this stuff and I was scrambling to get it 25 papers. I -- I can't really tell just from looking

Page 117 Page 118

1 at this. 1 A And your question on that is?
2 Q Okay. And do you recall how Michelle Cohen set up 2 Q Do you recognize these text messages?
3 the meeting where she brought you the checks? 3 MR. WATSON: Same continuing objection.
4 A I don't know how she did it. She arranged that 4 A Yeah. I think I do. I mean, again, they're also
5 with Jack Rabon. Michelle Cohen, as a realtor, she 5 out of context and cut off before and afterwards.
6 had a -- I don't know if it's unique among 6 But I do remember about this time of 2016, a guy
7 realtors, but she almost never wanted to meet in 7 named "Isaac" -- and I don't think his last name's
8 the office. I mean, if she came inside my office 8 on here, but his last name's Nechemia. A guy named
9 once, I would be surprised and certainly not twice. 9 "Isaac Nechemia" had some interest in remaining
10 Whenever we had to get a piece of paper from her 10 properties -- and I can't remember whether they
11 she was always asking us to meet her on her way 11 were Rabon & Rabon, Inc., properties or whether
12 from one place to another. Showing one house to go 12 they were Myrtle Beach Boardwalk, LLC, properties -
13 on to show some other house. So we -- we met at 13 - but he had some interest in properties. At one
14 every manner of random gas station; sometimes at 14 point, Michelle Cohen had represented to us that
15 the Sea Palms properties if she was going by there. 15 she actually represented Mr. Nechemia and she was
16 She met us -- I think she's right that she met us 16 in the deal. Later, I got a call from Nechemia's
17 at the 38th Avenue Bi-Lo to give us these checks. 17 lawyer and he indicated that, no, Michelle Cohen
18 That's just how you dealt with Michelle. She was 18 was not an agent involved in the deal. And, so, we
19 never in her office. She was always out -- she had 19 began dealing -- and when I say "we," I mean Jack
20 this Mercedes SUV. She was always out driving 20 Rabon on behalf of the entities them self and
21 around somewhere or another. So we would've met 21 McNair -- began dealing with Isaac Nechemia and his
22 her sometime on the 3rd, because that's when that 22 attorneys at the Bellamy Law Firm to discuss a
23 thing's dated. I don't remember exactly when it 23 possible deal.
24 was. 24 Q Okay. And the last section from you in grey, you
25 Q Okay. And then the last one, T-8? 25 say, "Let his lawyer talk to me and we'll work out
Page 119 Page 120

1 the part that goes on paper, then you can work out 1 about and memorialize your -- whatever your
2 the other part with him." What other part? 2 business idea is.
3 A Jack Rabon and Nechemia had some -- and I don't 3 I don't know what it was, and I don't know if
4 know the details of it. They had some idea for a 4 Isaac ever did it. And I -- I don't think Isaac
5 business that they wanted to do together in -- in 5 ever did it with Jack Rabon.
6 one location down there along the waterfront. I 6 Q Okay. And that's what you're referring to when you
7 don't remember if it would've been in one of the 7 say "No sense taking the risk of talking about the
8 Rabon & Rabon, Inc., buildings or not, but both of 8 other part . . . ."?
9 them were, you know, businessmen in that area. So 9 A Exactly. They had some idea -- and I don't know
10 they had some kind of business idea; like I said, I 10 what it was, again. But they had some idea for a
11 don't know exactly what it was. But what they 11 business. And, you know, if you're -- if you're
12 didn't want to do is tip their hands to everybody 12 the first guy there -- if you got something unique
13 in the world. So my concern with Jack -- Jack was 13 and you're the first guy there to do it, you got a
14 just a talker, and my concern with Jack was there - 14 huge advantage. And Isaac seems to be successful,
15 - you should not be talking about your brilliant, 15 so whatever it was, I had some faith that it was
16 new business idea out in the whole wide world 16 actually a decent idea. The risk that they were
17 before you get it nailed down. If you're not 17 running is putting that word out on the street and
18 actually nailing down this other piece with -- with 18 somebody else -- Shai David or anybody who was in
19 Isaac, if you're not doing the property deal on 19 business down there -- getting it done long before
20 which Isaac says that all the rest of this depends, 20 they did. I was telling them, "Just shut up about
21 if y'all aren't going to do that, then you don't 21 it, man. Don't -- if you talk about your business
22 want to put out there in the rest of the world 22 deals, you'll kill your business deals. Just let
23 whatever your business idea is to be stolen away. 23 that part lay. Don't risk somebody stealing your
24 Hold that. Wait on that. Get your thing nailed 24 idea."
25 down, get that done, then you and Isaac can talk 25 Q And I guess my question is: Were you advising Jack

Page 121 Page 122

1 that he should go into business or even talk about 1 business deal. At that stage, remember as I said,
2 going into business with Isaac without any type of 2 we were done opening up files for -- for Rabon.
3 documentation with regards to their arrangement? 3 There wasn't going to be another file opened up for
4 A No. No. I mean, you couldn't -- I mean, I guess 4 Rabon because Rabon was already owing a lot of
5 you could go into business without memorializing 5 money on the existing files. So I wasn't going to
6 it; that would be unwise. What I was advising Jack 6 be involved in setting up a new LLC, doing their
7 to do, or really not to do, was not to talk about 7 non-compete, or any of that work. That was not
8 new business ideas until the time was right, until 8 going to be the McNair Law Firm. So -- and that's
9 he could get a non -- a confidentiality agreement, 9 why I have no idea what it was. My advice to him
10 a nondisclosure agreement -- all that stuff that 10 was "Let that sit until you get done the thing that
11 you do around a business that -- those guys were 11 I am working on for you, which is this property
12 still in the early stages and none of that was 12 deal," through the attorney.
13 going to happen unless and until they actually did 13 Q Okay.
14 the property deal. 14 A And all my communication, by the way, was either
15 Q But your statement is, "Let his lawyer talk to me 15 through the attorneys at the Bellamy Law Firm or in
16 and we'll work out 'the part' that goes on paper"? 16 the presence of the attorneys at the Bellamy Law
17 A Right. The sale of the property. 17 Firm. I never had a conversation with Isaac
18 Q Right. So -- and then y'all can talk about the 18 Nechemia outside of the presence of his lawyers. I
19 other stuff? Y'all can work -- you say -- 19 mean, it was all a deal sitting right there in a
20 A Right. 20 conference room at Bellamy.
21 Q -- "Then you can work out the other part with him"? 21 Q Okay. All right. The folder -- it's -- I think it
22 A Right. 22 says "BB&T-West Town."
23 Q The part that doesn't go on paper? 23 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) Mark
24 A I didn't say the part that doesn't go on paper. I 24 these as the next two. There's a --
25 said the other part. I wasn't involved in their 25 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6, E-mail
Page 123 Page 124

1 correspondence in reference to "Time 1 MR. WATSON: And then the other one is 7.
2 Sensitive, re: your loan renewal offer 2 Okay.
3 of August 7, 2014, 738002894200005 Rabon 3 MR. PLAYER: Yeah.
4 & Rabon, Inc." 4 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES.
5 MR. WATSON: Is it Number 6? 5 Q Do you recognize those documents?
6 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 6 A I definitely recognize 6, at least the part below
7 MR. WATSON: Is this the -- 7 where it's a message between Nicole and Jack Rabon
8 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 8 and -- and your office. I don't -- wasn't involved
9 MR. WATSON: Which one is it? 9 in that. The rest of it appears to be an e-mail
10 MR. PLAYER: It's an e-mail from Kraig 10 chain that I was involved with. As to 7, yeah. I
11 Moormann, and then a BB&T work-out form would 11 think I've seen that before.
12 be the 7. 12 Q Okay.
13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 7, Letter from 13 A Yeah. That -- that looks like -- I mean, I can't
14 BB&T in reference to "Rabon & Rabon, Inc. 14 say for certain that that's the loan-renewal letter
15 - 738002894200005." 15 that -- that I saw at the time, but it certainly
16 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Can I just see 16 looks like it.
17 what you're talking about? 17 Q Do you know what -- why that renewal was not
18 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. 18 executed in 2014?
19 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Mills) I think that's 19 A No.
20 marked on 7. 20 Q Did you ever have any input on that decision?
21 MR. MILLS: Okay. 21 A No. I wouldn't have -- at that stage, I was not an
22 Q These are for you, obviously. 22 attorney yet, so I wouldn't have been a decision
23 A Yeah, that's right. I got it. 23 maker on that. I did, essentially, some -- the
24 MR. WATSON: So, the e-mail is 7 -- 6 -- 24 administrative kind of step-and-fetch at work,
25 THE DEPONENT: Six, yeah. 25 gathering information, trying to line up people to

Page 125 Page 126

1 -- to -- to discuss the renewal, but I was not in a 1 deposition.
2 position to make any decision or give any advice 2 A Oh, yeah. I've read it.
3 about it. 3 Q Do you have any personal knowledge of that e-mail
4 Q Okay. Oh, here we go. 4 from Jack? Do you remember getting it?
5 MR. WATSON: You done with these, Tucker? 5 A I'm sure I got it because I'm copied on it. You
6 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. (To the court reporter) 6 know, I -- I've probably gotten -- this is, what,
7 Eight. 7 five years old? -- close to five years old -- tens
8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 8, E-mail 8 and thousands of e-mails in that time, so I don't
9 correspondence in reference to "Rabon-- 9 remember every single one specifically, but I'm
10 West Town Savings Bank potential 10 sure I got this.
11 foreclosure of $3.6M USDA loan to MB 11 Q Okay. Is Jack mentioning the modification?
12 Boardwalk Entertainment." 12 A Well, let me see. Well, this appears to be an e-
13 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Is that in the 13 mail about a modification of a West Town Savings
14 same folder? 14 Bank loan, whereas the documents you were showing
15 MR. PLAYER: Yes. It's an e-mail from Jack, 15 me a moment ago are related to a modification of a
16 dated December 4th, 2014. 16 BB&T --
17 MR WATSON: Can I see it for a minute? 17 Q No. That was a renewal --
18 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. 18 A -- loan.
19 THE DEPONENT: Thanks. 19 Q -- with BB&T.
20 MR. WATSON: I'm just going to just say this 20 A Oh, I'm sorry. A renewal. Okay. So, what's your
21 for the record. To the extent that any of 21 question on this one?
22 these e-mails don't reflect the complete 22 Q Earlier, we talked about whether or not McNair
23 communications, we'd just object to the form 23 advised Jack to not participate in a modification.
24 or object to the use, and I'll make that a 24 A Okay.
25 continuing objection through the course of the 25 Q You said you had no information about that.
Page 127 Page 128

1 A Right. 1 A Tell me what you mean.
2 Q And my question is: Is your client in this e-mail 2 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
3 asking McNair to tell him what to do about the 3 Q The -- the -- I mean specifically the $3.6 million
4 modification? 4 loan with West Town on the MB Boardwalk
5 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 5 Entertainment, LLC, property? Did you understand
6 A Well, if you want know what my client meant, you 6 what it meant that it was a USDA loan?
7 should probably ask my client. But it appears that 7 A I'm not sure I understand your question. I mean, I
8 he is asking about the West Town Savings Bank 8 -- I've seen loan paperwork before. I know the
9 modification, yes. 9 concept of loans. Is there some aspect of the USDA
10 Q Okay. 10 loan in particular you're asking me whether I know
11 A I don't see where any advice was rendered to him on 11 about it?
12 that, but it does appear that that's his question. 12 Q Yes. What -- what -- what is special about a USDA
13 Q Okay. And do you know if any advice was ever 13 loan?
14 rendered in response to his question? 14 A I don't know that there's anything special about a
15 A Off the top of my head, no. I -- I don't know. 15 USDA loan. It's from the USDA or -- or -- or
16 Q Okay. 16 insured by the USDA or endorsed by the USDA. Your
17 A I mean, if you -- you might have e-mails that -- 17 question's pretty broad. I have no idea. If you
18 that show that; I have no idea. But off the top of 18 tell me what you're asking, I can answer it.
19 my head, I don't know. 19 Q What happens if the debtor defaults on a USDA loan?
20 Q Do you know if Jack Rabon ever signed anything that 20 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
21 allowed West Town to consider a modification of the 21 A I don't know.
22 loan in 2014? 22 Q Did y'all not think that was important before you
23 A I don't -- I don't know. I don't remember if he 23 represented all these parties that were under a
24 did or not. 24 USDA loan?
25 Q Okay. Do you understand how a USDA loan works? 25 A Well --

Page 129 Page 130

1 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 1 Dan Stacy on behalf of potential purchasers of the
2 A -- on December 4th, 2014, I'd been a lawyer for 2 Hammerhead Grill and Shark Attack?
3 three weeks, so I wasn't in charge of giving advice 3 A I don't remember that. The -- the -- could there
4 about the USDA loan. If I were in charge of giving 4 have been? Yeah. But I -- I don't really remember
5 advice about a USDA loan, I would become highly 5 one way or the other.
6 familiar with the terms of the USDA loan, but that 6 Q Okay.
7 was never my role. So would it be important? I 7 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) Mark
8 would think it would be important. 8 that. Mark that one.
9 Q Okay. Back when you were -- well, not back, by a 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 9, E-mail
10 look back. When you were dealing with Isaac, were 10 correspondence in reference to "Rabon --
11 you still working with Dan Stacy to try and 11 Re: Sale of Oceanfront Property."
12 organize the sale of Shark Attack and Hammerhead 12 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) What -- is this
13 Grill? 13 out of that same folder?
14 A I said a -- the -- back up a second. I was never 14 MR. PLAYER: It should be.
15 working with Isaac. I was dealing with Isaac 15 MR. WATSON: Okay.
16 Nechemia's attorneys -- 16 MR. PLAYER: It's really just that underlined
17 Q Okay. 17 sentence.
18 A -- at the Bellamy Law Firm. And that would've been 18 MR. WATSON: Well, I don't -- let me . . . I
19 -- I don't remember the dates of that. I mean, I 19 don't know where it is, but -- here. What
20 would have been -- is it reflected in the 20 number is that, 9?
21 documents? I don't remember when we were talking 21 THE DEPONENT: Number 9.
22 to the Bellamy Law Firm. It seems like it would've 22 MR. WATSON: It's actually the last one.
23 been relatively late in our representation of -- of 23 That's . . .
24 the Rabons, but I don't remember the dates. 24 MR. PLAYER: Uh-huh.
25 Q Okay. Do you remember making short-sale offers to 25 MR. WATSON: -- always the case, isn't it?
Page 131 Page 132

1 And I'd just lodge an objection to the extent 1 A Okay. So it looks like Marty Dawsey -- or I e-
2 the exhibit is -- is not reflective of the -- 2 mailed Marty Dawsey and asked about the status of
3 whatever purports to be the original. 3 Isaac Nechemia making an offer. And I see, it
4 MR. PLAYER: That sounds like one of my 4 says, "Isaac." I assume that's who we're talking
5 objections. "The original," you mean that -- 5 about here; it'd be Isaac Nechemia.
6 that it's not the -- 6 Q Yes.
7 MR. WATSON: Well -- 7 A Spelled differently here than it is in some other
8 MR. PLAYER: -- full conversation or -- 8 places.
9 MR. WATSON: -- you've -- you've got some 9 He replies, "I'm working on a draft. Do you
10 underlining -- 10 have the originals in Word so I can copy and paste
11 MR. PLAYER: Oh, okay. 11 . . . .?"
12 MR. WATSON: -- on there, and the -- I'm 12 I replied and said, ". . . it doesn't look
13 assuming that the original e-mail didn't have 13 like we drafted it." It might've "been drafted by
14 a -- 14 Brad King."
15 MR. PLAYER: No. It did not. 15 Marty replies and says, yeah, he got the Word
16 MR. WATSON: -- handwritten underlining on it. 16 versions and he's sending them to us.
17 And I would make the same objection, whether 17 And then I reply, saying I'm sending it --
18 this is a complete -- full completeness, which 18 that I -- I made some handwritten notes. I'm
19 I lodged and made continuing for all e-mails 19 sending him that and I will send him a redline.
20 presented in the course of this deposition. 20 And then I tell him, "A hearing on Rabon's
21 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES. 21 rule to show cause is scheduled for Monday, March
22 Q It's not -- it's not a complex question. I just 22 14 . . . . If Isaac would like to attend to speak
23 want to know what you thought Mr. Nechemia's 23 in favor of getting this deal done, that -- that
24 testimony would do to -- to help make the sale 24 would likely be helpful. Please let me know if he
25 happen. 25 intends to do so."

Page 133 Page 134

1 And, so, what was your question about that? 1 of the personal guarantees, pay their taxes, and do
2 Q How was his testimony going to help get the deal 2 all that, would be for a buyer to say, "Yes. I
3 done? 3 stand here ready and willing and able to purchase
4 A Oh. I think the -- the -- as I recall, and -- but, 4 these properties."
5 again, I don't have anything but this e-mail that 5 And, so, that -- I'm pretty sure that's the
6 I'm looking at, so I don't see the context that it 6 reason that I was encouraging Marty Dawsey to get
7 was in. But if that's the rule-to-show-cause 7 his client to make that offer so we'd have
8 hearing on March 14, 2016, I think that would be 8 something to show to the Court before foreclosure
9 the hearing to enforce the settlement agreement, to 9 happened.
10 compel the Mitchells to do what they had agreed to 10 Q Now, my recollection is that you actually didn't
11 do, part of which was to sell various properties. 11 appear at that March 16th hearing. Do you remember
12 As you know, in dealing with a judge, if you 12 why?
13 present a hypothetical to the judge: "Make them 13 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
14 sell the properties," the very first thing that the 14 A I think that you filed an appeal on the underlying
15 judge is going to do is say, "Well, do you have a 15 -- on the underlying action which we believed
16 buyer?" And if your answer is no, that -- that's 16 stayed of that hearing. That's my recollection. I
17 not a very good answer. The judge is like, "What - 17 -- I could be wrong about things, because I don't
18 - what you -- I actually have to decide a 18 have any of the documents in front of me. But
19 controversy, not a hypothetical 'Make them sell.'" 19 that's what I recall.
20 So one of the things that would've been 20 Q Okay. You were never instructed by Ms. Golding not
21 extremely helpful toward getting the properties 21 to appear at a hearing?
22 sold, getting out from under the debt, putting 22 A I think that McNair determined that the hearing was
23 money back into the entities that had been -- you 23 actually -- should have been stayed, based on the
24 know, that had been looted, so that the entities 24 appeal, so that there was no ability to appear.
25 could pay their debts, get their shareholders off 25 Q Okay.
Page 135 Page 136

1 A No -- no need to go down to the courthouse if I 1 THE DEPONENT: It's a beautiful room.
2 couldn't appear. 2 MR. PLAYER: It's like . . .
3 Q Okay. 3 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) The air is right
4 A But, again, that's -- you know, those decisions 4 there, if we need to cut it on.
5 would've been a higher level -- 5 MR. PLAYER: No. It's just the light.
6 Q -- above your pay grade? 6 MR. WATSON: You want to move your chair from
7 A -- than me. You need to ask Henrietta about that. 7 that spot?
8 Q Okay. But do you ever recall her telling you not 8 MR. PLAYER: No.
9 to go to a hearing? 9 THE DEPONENT: Just trying to help you see the
10 A Not to go to this hearing? 10 light, Tucker.
11 Q Or any hearing in -- where you represented Jack 11 Q Miscellaneous, "Misc," there's three documents in
12 Rabon, or Rabon & Rabon. 12 there, and the first one is a single page -- it's a
13 A Oh. 13 letter from Lane to a lady -- oop, let me get it
14 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 14 marked, I'm sorry.
15 A Yeah. Not specifically. I mean, I'm -- I'm sure 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 10, Letter to
16 if there -- if a hearing were moot or stayed or not 16 Catherine Marlowe in reference to "Rabon
17 happening, she would have told me not to go. What 17 & Rabon, Inc., Property."
18 I don't remember is her saying, "I know that a 18 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) Is this
19 hearing is going forward, and I know our client is 19 8?
20 supposed to be represented, and I'm consciously 20 THE COURT REPORTER: Ten.
21 deciding not to send an attorney." She never said 21 MR. PLAYER: Ten.
22 anything like that to me. 22 Q If you'd just read through it real quick.
23 Q Okay. 23 A Yes.
24 MR. PLAYER: I don't like how I picked this 24 Q Who is Ms. Marlowe? Do you know? Do you have any
25 room. 25 recollection?

Page 137 Page 138

1 A I -- I don't know anything about her other than she 1 property.
2 was one of a number of people who called to 2 A You know, I don't remember. I remember that --
3 inquired about Rabon property down along the -- 3 this: I -- I remember that it was to be taken
4 down on the oceanfront. 4 down, kind of in stages, and -- and I think it was
5 Q Okay. So that would've been -- okay. Rabon 5 one property, then a combination of two, then maybe
6 property on the oceanfront or MB Boardwalk 6 another combination of two, and then maybe whatever
7 Entertainment? 7 was remaining, was how it was supposed to be taken
8 A Oh. I -- from this, I can't -- 8 down.
9 Q Sure. 9 I remember the first deal went through. When
10 A -- tell you which it would be. 10 it came time for the second deal to happen -- and
11 Q Okay. 11 this is why Jack Rabon was so alert to this with
12 A But I -- I could -- this says that whatever 12 Biderman. When it came time for the second deal to
13 property she was inquiring about was apparently 13 happen, the two pieces of property, Shai David
14 under contract, so you could probably figure it out 14 said, "Listen, I can't take them both down. I can
15 that way, but it looks like it says "Building 3, 15 only take one of them, and I need you to give me a
16 Rabon & Rabon, Inc." -- 16 lower price on that one, because the bank won't
17 Q Okay. 17 finance it for this price. I need you to give me a
18 A -- so . . . 18 lower price on that one. I'll make it up to on the
19 Q I think at that point everything was under contract 19 second one. I'll give you more on that second
20 with Shai. 20 one."
21 A That could be -- 21 Jack trusted in this, and the property closed.
22 Q What -- and what's your recollection about why all 22 And Shai David never bought the second one. So he
23 that fell through? 23 got this -- I think over $100,000 discount, or
24 A What do you mean, "all that"? 24 maybe a hundred and a quarter or something on the
25 Q Shai's deal to buy every -- all the Rabon & Rabon 25 first property -- and he never closed the second
Page 139 Page 140

1 one. He never made up that difference. He just 1 MR. PLAYER: That has --
2 stiffed Rabon & Rabon, Inc., on that amount of 2 MR. WATSON: It's right under it?
3 money. 3 MR. PLAYER: It -- it's the -- yeah. It's the
4 And that's one of the reasons why -- why 4 back. And that's one's kind of a big one.
5 Rabon's antenna was so up when Biderman suggested 5 MR. WATSON: I'm sorry.
6 he was going to do exactly the same thing. It was 6 MR. PLAYER: That's okay.
7 like, "No. We're not going to suffer this twice." 7 MR. WATSON: Let's keep them together.
8 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) There 8 MR. PLAYER: And these three documents are
9 you go. We'll mark that one as 11. 9 just something that doesn't make sense, so I
10 A Now, to Biderman's credit, he bought both 10 just wanted to see if Lane could clarify.
11 properties just like he said he was going to. He 11 MR. WATSON: Okay. I'm sorry.
12 didn't do what Shai David did. 12 MR. PLAYER: It's okay.
13 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Is this the next 13 MR. WATSON: Yeah.
14 one -- 14 MR. PLAYER: Let me get them marked.
15 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11, E-mail
16 MR. WATSON: -- of this stuff? So -- okay. 16 correspondence in reference to
17 MR. PLAYER: Is that the -- on top or not? 17 "Rabon/David lease terms as discussed on
18 What's on -- what's the first page? Is it a 18 Friday, March 13, 2015."
19 HUD? 19 MR. WATSON: And, so, this is how many pages?
20 MR. WATSON: No. 20 MR. PLAYER: Five or six, maybe. Excuse me.
21 MR. PLAYER: Okay. 21 MR. WATSON: Through that? Okay. And that is
22 MR. WATSON: It's -- it says -- 22 -- I'm sorry, that's Number 11, right?
23 MR. PLAYER: No. At the -- of what you've 23 MR. PLAYER: Yes.
24 just looked at. 24 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES.
25 MR. WATSON: The -- it -- it -- yeah. 25 A No. Okay. So it's not HUD; it's -- it's --

Page 141 Page 142

1 Q Yeah. The next one is -- and I -- 1 didn't -- and it didn't make sense, especially
2 A -- this and handwritten notes. I got you. Okay. 2 considering the timing. He still -- it looks like
3 Let me look through this for a moment. 3 he's still going to buy it, but now he's pushing it
4 Q And -- and I'll just go ahead and tell you my 4 to 2016.
5 question is -- 5 I didn't -- I just didn't know if you could
6 A Okay. 6 elaborate on what -- I mean, I've met and talked
7 Q There is discussions -- this is March '16 -- or 7 with Shai, so I know he can be difficult to pin
8 March 2015. 8 down. I just didn't know what was going on in the
9 A Right. 9 negotiations at that point.
10 Q And there -- this is what you were just talking 10 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
11 about, from my understanding. That -- and what I 11 MR. PLAYER: (To Mr. Watson) Why?
12 don't understand is yet 11 days after this Shai 12 MR. WATSON: Because it was --
13 buys Sea Palms 2, and he gets a $25,000 reduction 13 MR. PLAYER: -- a soliloquy?
14 off the sales price. 14 MR. WATSON: Yes.
15 This is a discussion about him leasing Sea 15 A So, it looks like I have some handwritten notes,
16 Palms 2, paying over the span of a year, and then 16 which I then typed up a -- essentially, a draft e-
17 getting a deduction on the sales price at -- at the 17 mail to Brad King with the Bellamy Law Firm, who
18 back end. 18 represented Shai at the time. Henrietta made some
19 So my question was: Why is he leasing 19 handwritten revisions to my note, something she
20 something he's under contract to buy? 20 wanted me to change. And it looks like I then made
21 I just didn't understand why y'all were having 21 those revisions and sent the -- sent the e-mail.
22 discussions of him leasing "2" when he signed a 22 So I'm really -- and I copied Henri on it --
23 contract to -- to buy -- 23 I'm really sending it, you know, at Henri's
24 A -- to buy it. 24 direction, so she might be better able to say why
25 Q -- buy "2" in -- in February. So I -- I just 25 it says what it says. But let me read it and see
Page 143 Page 144

1 if I can help you. Lease term . . . 1 the meantime -- I know you need more time -- in the
2 All right, so you're -- tell me again what 2 meantime, we've got to have some cash flow from it
3 your question is. 3 to pay these notes coming due," which it looks like
4 Q I just didn't know why Shai was talking about 4 it's $1,000 on the 15th of each month for a few
5 leasing a building he was supposed to purchase 5 months, maybe, according to this note. "Go ahead
6 within -- and actually did purchase within the next 6 and lease it and that'll cover the overhead."
7 three weeks. 7 That'll cover these notes to whatever bank Jamie
8 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 8 Kahn represented -- and I don't know if you're
9 A I don't know for certain. You could ask Shai 9 familiar with Jamie; he's an attorney down in
10 David; you could ask Brad King. It could be -- and 10 Charleston. What -- that'll cover the note
11 we've seen this in, you know, other instances where 11 payments to whatever bank Jamie Kahn represented.
12 a buyer's having trouble actually getting the deal 12 "And then when you're ready to buy it, you can go
13 closed -- and I think that was part of the deal 13 ahead and buy it."
14 with one of the buildings, was he wasn't able to 14 And that would serve both entities' goals of -
15 get the financing on it, which is why there was a 15 - of not losing the property and of the buyer being
16 reduction in price. And it was done in kind of two 16 able to purchase it, ultimately.
17 steps. And, so, as opposed to just abandoning it 17 So that's what I would think. You know, Henri
18 altogether or there being a new buyer coming in or, 18 might be better able to -- to answer that, but
19 perhaps -- and I see this in here from Jamie Kahn, 19 that's what it appears from me.
20 there might have been some sort of encumbrance on 20 Q Okay.
21 this property where loan payments were due. And 21 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) That's
22 that's what indicated on these notes from Jamie 22 the last one.
23 Kahn. Instead of losing it for failure to pay the 23 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay.
24 note, that one option would be to say to the buyer, 24 Q And quite --
25 "Hey, listen. We'll still sell it to you. But in 25 MR. PLAYER: (To the court reporter) Let me -

Page 145 Page 146

1 - let me -- I'm going to let him look at it 1 for. Well, it's out -- it's out of order and in a
2 first. 2 different type font, so I can't really tell you for
3 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. 3 sure, but it appears to be a set of corporate
4 Q This was in the production from McNair. If you 4 bylaws.
5 don't know what it is, I'm not going to make it an 5 Q Okay.
6 exhibit. That if you just -- this was a block of 6 A Not -- this set appears to be unsigned by anybody.
7 Bates-stamp numbers, and I just had no idea what it 7 I don't know if that has any significance to you.
8 was and -- it -- was it something that was 8 Then there's --
9 transmitted to somebody in a closing? 9 Q Oh, I have no idea what it is. That's why I was
10 A Yeah. I -- it tell you what it looks like. It 10 asking you.
11 looks like an unsigned draft HUD. But without any 11 A I don't really know. Just by looking at this
12 knowledge of what it was attached to, I can't tell 12 without any context, to who sent it to us and why,
13 you the purpose of it, whether it was a final copy 13 I don't really know, other than what -- I don't
14 to be signed, whether it truly was a preliminary 14 know anything about it other than what it says on
15 draft. 15 its face.
16 Q And my question focuses -- 16 Q Okay. Then, we won't make it an exhibit. Shark
17 A I -- 17 Attack?
18 Q -- mostly on the articles of incorporation and the 18 A Are we finished with -- with these?
19 bylaws that are -- that are attached to the back. 19 Q Yes.
20 A Okay. So, let me look down into this. 20 A All right.
21 All right. So I'm setting the HUD aside. 21 Q I -- I --
22 Q Okay. 22 MR. WATSON: (To the deponent) Wait. Let's
23 A I'll just hand that back to you. 23 keep those separate.
24 I see what appears to be a set of bylaws for - 24 Q Are those all the originals?
25 - well, it's not immediately obvious what they're 25 A Oh, they might -- some of them might be. Let me
Page 147 Page 148

1 hand them across to the court reporter. 1 Q Do you recognize that letter?
2 Q Yeah. Are the ones on the floor -- are those 2 A Yes. This appears to be a letter that Jack Rabon -
3 yours? 3 - it's not signed, but it appears to be a letter
4 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Those are mine. 4 from Jack Rabon to Tammy Young with the South
5 MR. PLAYER: Okay. 5 Carolina Department of Revenue.
6 MR. WATSON: Those are the copies that -- 6 Q Okay. Did you draft that letter for Jack?
7 yeah, I've been marking as we've been moving 7 A I don't know whether I drafted it. I can tell you
8 along. Are you just starting at the top of -- 8 I think it's unlikely that Jack drafted it. It
9 in this folder or . . . 9 doesn't sound like something he'd say. Whether I
10 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. But I'm not sure that 10 drafted it, Henrietta drafted it, somebody else
11 they're in the same -- 11 drafted it, I couldn't -- I couldn't tell you for
12 MR. WATSON: -- order for me? 12 certain.
13 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. And do you see a letter 13 Q Okay. And let's see.
14 from Tammy Young? 14 MR. PLAYER: (To Mr. Watson) Actually, I
15 MR. WATSON: That's -- yeah. The last one in 15 think you have the better folder.
16 here. 16 MR. WATSON: Oh, sorry. What -- what are you
17 MR. PLAYER: Okay. 17 looking for? And I'll hand it to you. Why
18 MR. WATSON: And the rest are e-mails and -- 18 don't we make it the original, if you'll tell
19 at least in the folder I have. So Tammy 19 me what it is, or I can -- you want to look
20 Young's letter is going to be Number -- 20 yourself?
21 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 21 MR. PLAYER: Yeah.
22 MR. WATSON: -- 12? 22 MR. WATSON: If you'll hand me the bad copy,
23 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 23 I'll -- that'll be fine.
24 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12, Letter to 24 MR. PLAYER: Yes, I promise. All right.
25 Tammy Young. 25 That's the . . . I'll have to give you

Page 149 Page 150

1 another one. And I -- you have the follow-up, 1 Attack."
2 which I do not have a copy of. That's why I 2 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14, E-mail
3 said you had the -- 3 correspondence in reference to
4 MR. WATSON: So this is going to be the 4 "Potentially dangerous problems at Shark
5 exhibit? 5 Attack."
6 MR. PLAYER: That'll be one of them. This 6 MR. PLAYER: Yes. All right. Thirteen and
7 will be the other one. 7 fifteen.
8 MR. WATSON: Okay. 8 MR. WATSON: So, which one is which? Which
9 THE DEPONENT: David, any chance you could 9 one's 13? That's 13? Okay.
10 hand me a bottle of water from over there? 10 MR. PLAYER: The one that says it is to Nicole
11 MR. MILLS: Glad to be of service. 11 from Lane. Sorry. There goes my voice. Did
12 THE DEPONENT: Thank you, sir. 12 I give you your folder back? No? Clean.
13 MR. WATSON: You don't need any ice? 13 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES.
14 THE DEPONENT: No. I'm good. 14 A All right. I've -- I've looked at them.
15 MR. WATSON: Anybody else need anything? 15 Q Okay. Do you recall that exchange with Nicole?
16 THE DEPONENT: I'm not a prima donna. 16 A Yes.
17 MR. PLAYER: (To Mr. Watson) Oh. I -- that's 17 Q And what were -- what was the purpose?
18 why I don't have them, is I put them in here. 18 A The -- so, I don't know if you're -- how familiar
19 That's sorry. 19 you are with Shark Attack Golf Course, but it is a
20 MR. WATSON: So you have the -- 20 miniature golf course. It's not your typical,
21 MR. PLAYER: You can keep those. 21 like, all outside. There's a portion of it that is
22 MR. WATSON: Okay. 22 inside of the building. It has a roof overhead.
23 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13, E-mail 23 It came to Jack Rabon's attention that parts of
24 correspondence in reference to "Rabon-- 24 that -- and that roof is made out of concrete and
25 email to Karon Mitchell, re: Shark 25 rebar -- over time in the salt air, that rebar
Page 151 Page 152

1 corrodes. It causes the concrete to fracture. And 1 and that would've wiped out the LLC. That was one
2 if it were on the ground, it'd be no big deal. But 2 concern.
3 when it's overhead, the concrete then falls in big 3 The second concern is: There are members of
4 chunks onto the ground. And, of course, the 4 that LLC, and given the way that, at least the
5 concrete doesn't have any idea whether somebody's 5 Mitchells had treated the LLC: as if it were their
6 under it when it falls. It can fall at night, fall 6 private piggy bank, there was very good argument to
7 on people when they're playing golf. 7 be made about piercing the corporate veil and
8 So it came to Jack's attention that this was 8 seeking recovery from the LLC members themselves.
9 going on at the Sharp Attack golf operation in -- 9 And, so, Jack was extremely concerned. I
10 well, at least by January 2nd of 2015, and that the 10 mean, obviously, your first concern is some
11 operation was getting ready to open to the public. 11 innocent person getting conked in the head and
12 That was obviously a concern for Jack Rabon two- 12 dying. Beyond that, he was extremely concerned
13 fold. 13 that that would wipe out the LLC and that it would
14 I mean, one is it was a concern because of the 14 wipe out all four of the members personally,
15 liability that the LLC itself would have if a piece 15 himself included.
16 of concrete fell out of the ceiling and killed or 16 And -- and that purpose of this communication
17 injured somebody that's playing golf underneath of 17 was to say, "Hey, guys, whether you know it or not,
18 it. It was a major concern to Jack Rabon that, 18 we know that there are problems that are very, very
19 given the LLC's inability -- because of the money 19 dangerous, that endanger the public, that could be
20 that the Mitchells had extracted from it -- and the 20 bad for all of us. You need to address these
21 LLC's inability to pay its taxes, pay its mortgage 21 problems."
22 payments, pay its other bills, that it very likely 22 Q Okay.
23 hadn't paid its insurance either. And, so, that if 23 MR. PLAYER: We'll go -- not that one.
24 somebody was hurt, there was going to be a claim, 24 MR. WATSON: Okay.
25 and there was going to be no insurance to pay it, 25 MR. PLAYER: This one and your folder has

Page 153 Page 154

1 "messing with Shark Attack" in the top right- 1 MR. WATSON: -- note -- okay. I'll withdraw
2 hand corner in my handwriting? 2 that part of the objection. I'll just object
3 MR. WATSON: Uh-huh. Okay. So you -- are you 3 on completeness.
4 -- you finished with 13 and 14? 4 A Okay. I've -- I've looked at that.
5 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 5 Q Okay. What is that document?
6 MR. WATSON: All right. So this would be 15? 6 A This appears to be an e-mail exchange between
7 MR. PLAYER: Yes. And -- well, I had to get - 7 several people, starting off with a person named
8 - I want to get it marked. 8 "Heidi" -- and I don't know how to pronounce her
9 MR. WATSON: Yeah. I see it. 9 last name -- "S-o-o-s," with the City of Myrtle
10 MR. PLAYER: I'm sorry. Lane, can you hand it 10 Beach.
11 back to me real quick? 11 An e-mail to me saying, "Please see attached
12 THE DEPONENT: Oh, sure. 12 documents per your request."
13 MR. WATSON: So this would be Number 15? 13 Then it appears to be an e-mail where I
14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 15, E-mail 14 forwarded that to several folks, including Heidi
15 correspondence in reference to "Shark 15 and some other addresses at the City of Myrtle
16 Attack CAB 02042016." 16 Beach. It's with respect to the -- a pretty
17 A Now, you didn't have any questions about 14, right? 17 significant difference between the attached plans
18 We just talked about -- 18 and what's actually going on at Shark Attack Golf
19 Q Correct. 19 at the time in terms of construction.
20 A -- 13? Okay. 20 And it looks like I would've -- well, I don't
21 Q And we just -- the -- that was the follow-up with 21 see where I copied Nicole or Jack Rabon on it. But
22 the Nicole's, 13. 22 I see where they forwarded it back to me with some
23 MR. WATSON: And I'll object to the extent 23 comments about the Mitchells' meeting with Leigh
24 there seems to be a handwritten -- 24 Anna's daddy -- Leigh Anna Mitchell being their
25 MR. PLAYER: It's not on his. 25 daughter -- with respect to plans being drawn up.
Page 155 Page 156

1 Q Okay. So was that where you were making a 1 taxes, couldn't pay its mortgages, have every
2 complaint with the City about the construction 2 reason to believe it couldn't pay its insurance.
3 activities at Shark Attack? 3 Innocent people would be injured or killed. The
4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 4 LLC would be wiped out in the resulting lawsuits,
5 A No. I wouldn't construe it as a complaint. The 5 and because of the way that, at least, the
6 concern, obviously, that we were raising with the 6 Mitchells treated the LLC as if it were one in the
7 City was to the extent that there is construction 7 same with them, there was a very good argument to
8 activity going on that's not permitted, that's not 8 be made to pierce that corporate veil and go after
9 based on approved designs, that's not -- well, not 9 all those members, personally Jack Rabon included.
10 legal, let's say. It presents the same sort of 10 So that was a very big concern that we were raising
11 issues that you have -- in addition to others, the 11 with the City. Obviously, if the plans had been
12 same sort of issues that you have with pieces of 12 approved by the City, this would be a far different
13 concrete falling out of the ceiling. If the plans 13 thing. And we didn't know, so we were just raising
14 -- I think the plans that are referenced in here 14 the question.
15 were modifications to a -- a sidewalk to, like, 15 Q Okay. Though we are to the billing file. Trust
16 install a -- a ramp; maybe an ADA-compliant ramp or 16 billing?
17 something along those lines. But the actual work 17 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) No more in the
18 was far different. If that actual work wasn't 18 Shark Attack?
19 approved, if the -- for instance, part of the 19 MR. PLAYER: No.
20 structure couldn't bear the weight of what was 20 MR. WATSON: Okay.
21 being put on it, had never been approved, the whole 21 Q And it's the top document. It should be that next
22 thing collapses, and people are injured; it has the 22 folder.
23 exact same issues. You have an entity that -- 23 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) This one?
24 because the Mitchells had looted it of all its 24 MR. PLAYER: Yep. Nope. You just had it in
25 cash, couldn't pay its bills, couldn't pay its 25 your hand.

Page 157 Page 158

1 MR. WATSON: This one? 1 A You mean right there?
2 MR. PLAYER: Yep. The very top document. It 2 Q Yes.
3 says -- 3 A Where is says --
4 MR. WATSON: -- S -- S of E? 4 Q -- "Jesse Cagle."
5 MR. PLAYER: Oh, is that what that is? What's 5 A -- "C -- CSR Name"? Yes. I do see that.
6 that first document? Well, then, I put it in 6 Q Have you ever had any conversations with Mr. Cagle?
7 that folder right over there. That's -- 7 A And Mr. Cagle works with PNC Bank?
8 that's what I'm talking about. 8 Q Yes.
9 MR. WATSON: That -- 9 A Yes.
10 MR. PLAYER: The certification and that -- 10 Q What did you tell -- what did Mr. Cagle call you
11 that should be stapled for you. 11 about?
12 MR. WATSON: Okay. And this will be Number -- 12 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
13 MR. PLAYER: -- 16. 13 A I don't know why he called me. But I -- I -- and
14 MR. WATSON: -- 16. Okay. 14 come to think of it, I don't know that he called
15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 16, 15 me. I think I called him.
16 "Certification." 16 Q Okay.
17 Q Have you ever seen that -- those documents before, 17 A But, in any event, what we discussed was -- was
18 Mr. Jefferies? 18 this, was that he had concerns about withdrawals
19 A I think these were among the documents that you 19 being made out of a PNC Bank account by Jack Rabon
20 sent to us prior to this deposition, so. . . I'm 20 -- made at ATMs, I think, primarily. And he had
21 not especially familiar with them, but I've seen 21 apparently reached out to Jack Rabon about this in
22 them, at least in that context. 22 some way. And Jack Rabon reached out to me. And I
23 Q Okay. I think it's the -- the last page or the 23 called Mr. Cagle at PNC Bank to see if there was
24 second to last page; there's a reference up top 24 some -- something improper being done, if something
25 with a J. Cagle, C-a-g-l-e. Do you see that? 25 illegal was being done, what his concerns actually
Page 159 Page 160

1 were. It turns out that there was nothing, as far 1 and not by way of serious suggestion that Jack had
2 as I understood from the conversation, illegal or 2 a girlfriend or a gambling problem. I'll tell you
3 improper about somebody using their ATM card. It 3 why I said that. As you recall, the -- the
4 was frequent, he -- he said, but there was nothing, 4 original lawsuits against the Mitchells all
5 you know, illegal about frequently using your ATM. 5 revolved around mismanagement and improper
6 Q Okay. Was there any discussion about PNC 6 siphoning off of funds. In the documentation that
7 unilaterally shutting down that account? 7 we saw, the siphoning off of funds was huge amounts
8 A I don't remember. I remember that they did shut 8 of money, sometimes $100,000 being withdrawn at a
9 down the account at one point. And they mailed a 9 whack, just for no apparent purpose whatsoever,
10 check for -- I can't remember -- but $1500, 10 business purpose. We also saw that there were
11 something like that. Essentially the balance left 11 almost no deposits of cash into that business
12 in the account. Mailed it to my office address. 12 account, even though the business was very largely
13 It was made payable, I think, to Jack Rabon, but 13 a cash business. So that cash was going somewhere.
14 they mailed it to my office address, and I just 14 We were trying to recover that money that had been
15 delivered it to Jack Rabon. 15 wrongfully taken, to get it back into the entities
16 Q Okay. And do you know the name of the account that 16 so they could pay their taxes, pay their bills, pay
17 the PNC account was for? 17 their insurance, pay their mortgage, that they
18 A I think Mr. Cagle told me it was a Daisy Ridge 18 could go on as ongoing businesses. And hopefully
19 account. I don't know if this paperwork reflects 19 turn a profit and make distributions out to their
20 that or not. But that's my recollection of what he 20 owners. What I knew would be very detrimental to
21 told me. 21 that, would be the IRS or some other government
22 Q Do you remember telling him "Jack might have a 22 agency coming in, determining that the Mitchells
23 gambling problem or he might have a girlfriend; 23 had taken this money, essentially as income,
24 what does it matter?" 24 because that's what it is, not paid taxes on it and
25 A Yeah. I do. I -- I meant that by way of example 25 then seizing everything. That would be bad for the

Page 161 Page 162

1 Mitchells. It would be bad for the Rabons. It 1 us out." And that was the point of my call. And
2 would be bad for the entities. It would be bad 2 that's why I offered that up. I needed to give him
3 everybody. I also knew, as I'd mentioned earlier, 3 some idea that there are legitimate reasons to take
4 that at the time the vending machines were 4 money out of an account.
5 operating, that was a cash business. That cash 5 Q Okay. And with regards to issues of the money that
6 apparently was taken out and divided between Jack 6 was in the trust account at McNair and the way that
7 Rabon and -- and the Mitchells. No indication that 7 that money was used for writing an array of
8 taxes were ever paid on that money. So I had a 8 expenses or any, I guess -- any distributions from
9 very big concern that if anyone flagged the federal 9 that account, did you have any role in that while
10 government, that before we could get that money 10 the Rabons were clients of yours at McNair?
11 back, before we could capture it, put it back into 11 A Yes. I would've had a very small role, really an
12 the entity and let the entity pay its taxes, that 12 administrative role in that. Like, I would
13 if the federal government came in before that 13 communicate between Henrietta and the Rabons. I
14 happened, they'd seize everything and it would wipe 14 didn't have a decision-making role in that --
15 out the entire value of the enterprise. So my goal 15 Q Okay.
16 with Jesse Cagle was to say, "Listen, this guy has 16 A -- as a, you know, a first-year, second-year
17 all manner of potential, legitimate reasons for 17 associate.
18 taking money out of the account. He might have a 18 Q Did you have any role in doing any monthly -- any
19 girlfriend he doesn't want his wife to know about. 19 reconciliations with the trust account with regards
20 He might be going up to Cherokee to go gambling. 20 to the Rabons?
21 He might do any number of things, but unless he's 21 A No. I don't think I had any role at all in that.
22 violating some law, leave him alone because I need 22 Q Do you know if there were multiple accounts with
23 time to get back the money that the Mitchells 23 trust money in it for the Rabons? I mean, how --
24 stole, to put it into the account where it belongs, 24 how did that normally work at McNair? If you have
25 to get the taxes paid, so that the IRS doesn't wipe 25 a client with multiple files, do you -- do you --
Page 163 Page 164

1 do you know what happened when you were there, in 1 the form.
2 terms of an initial retainer? 2 Q I didn't -- I didn't last very long over there,
3 A I might have received an e-mail copy of it, but I 3 so . . . Yeah. I'm -- we're done with billing.
4 don't really know. 4 MR. PLAYER: We've been going almost another
5 Q Okay. 5 hour and a half. Do you want to another break
6 A And I wasn't involved in, obviously, setting that 6 so --
7 retainer or processing it in any way, so I don't 7 THE DEPONENT: Sure.
8 really know. 8 MR. WATSON: Yeah. We can take another --
9 Q Was your income at McNair based on production in 9 MR. PLAYER: And, Cal --
10 any way? 10 (Off the record from 1:51 p.m. until
11 A No. Straight salary. 11 2:07 p.m.)
12 Q No bonus? 12 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES.
13 A No bonus, no -- it wasn't hourly. It wasn't a 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 17, "Judgment
14 percentage. It was "This is what you make" -- 14 in a Civil Case."
15 Q Yeah. They're -- 15 MR. WATSON: (To the deponent) Just give them
16 A -- "and that's it." 16 to him.
17 Q They're cheap, because I worked for one of them and 17 Q I'll hand you what's been marked as 17.
18 we got a bag of oranges every year. 18 THE COURT REPORTER: (To Mr. Player) I need
19 A Now, listen, those oranges -- 19 to make you some more, don't I?
20 Q And I'd just -- 20 MR. PLAYER: Ma'am?
21 A -- are delicious, so let me just tell you. 21 THE COURT REPORTER: What was the last one you
22 Q I'd just let it sit in the corner until somebody 22 marked?
23 said, "Have you got something rotten in here?" 23 MR. PLAYER: Twenty-two. (To Mr. Watson)
24 I'd say, "Yes, it's my bonus." 24 Looks like that's another one from David.
25 MR. WATSON: Okay. Object to the -- object to 25 MR. WATSON: Thank you. So these are . . .

Page 165 Page 166

1 MR. PLAYER: -- these are after, but I'm just 1 under which BB&T was going to essentially sell the
2 saying -- 2 property that Rabon & Rabon, Inc., was attempting
3 MR. WATSON: This would be 18 and 19? Or 3 to sell on September -- I think it was 8th, was the
4 you'll just tell us at the time? 4 final deadline that BB&T had given, so I believe
5 MR. PLAYER: No, no, no. Those are 21 -- 5 that this is the order that enabled BB&T to
6 they're down at the bottom right-hand corner. 6 foreclose and -- and sell that property on
7 Put it in the back of the stack. 7 September 8th of 2015.
8 MR. WATSON: Oh, I see. I get it. I get it. 8 Q Okay. And do you know the date of this order?
9 Okay. Thank you. 9 A Well, I can read the order, I suppose, just as well
10 Q All right. Do you recognize what Exhibit 18 is? 10 as anybody else. It appears to have been clocked
11 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Is it 17 or 18? 11 in on May 28th of 2015.
12 MR. PLAYER: Seventeen. I'm sorry. 12 Q Okay. Would you agree that this constituted a
13 THE DEPONENT: I'm -- yeah. I'm holding 17. 13 judgment against Rabon & Rabon and all of its real
14 MR. PLAYER: I'm looking at 18. 14 estate holdings?
15 A Yes. Seventeen looks like a -- looks like a Form 4 15 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
16 and then a -- a -- a more formal order attached to 16 A I -- yeah. I don't know that I can render that
17 that. 17 legal opinion without reviewing this in a lot more
18 Q Okay. But do you know what the order is and what 18 detail. It says that it is a judgment, and I have
19 it says? 19 no reason to doubt that it's what it says it is.
20 A It looks like a -- well, it says it's a "Master's 20 But I can't give you a legal opinion on this thing
21 Order and Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale," and 21 without spending some -- good bit of time looking
22 that's what I believe it is. 22 through it.
23 Q Okay. Do you know how it relates to this case? 23 Q Okay. Do you know what the law in South Carolina
24 A I believe -- and I'm not certain, but I believe 24 is with regards to money judgment and its
25 that this is the foreclosure order that BB&T was -- 25 attachment to real estate?
Page 167 Page 168

1 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 1 the two contracts; is that how you understand it?
2 A I'm not sure I understand the question. 2 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
3 Q If I get a judgment against you, does it attach to 3 A I don't know whether it's -- it probably is, given
4 any real estate that you own? 4 the timing. It doesn't say in here which contracts
5 A I don't know. 5 it relates to. But given the timing, it -- that
6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 18, E-mail 6 would be about right for the -- for the Biderman
7 correspondence in reference to "Rabon2 -- 7 sale.
8 062992.00002, Re: Rabon -- offer on 8 Q And did you advise against the two contracts
9 Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on 9 initially?
10 House." 10 A No. I didn't advise against it. I questioned why
11 Q Okay. We will go to 18. Is that -- okay. 11 there were two contracts that were going to be
12 A All right. 12 closed at the same time and that had, kind of,
13 Q Do you recognize those e-mails? 13 different terms to them, which seemed like a -- an
14 A Yes. 14 awful lot of unnecessary work, absent some reason
15 Q What are they? 15 for doing it that way. So I think raised that as a
16 A This appears to be an e-mail exchange on -- and if 16 -- just as a question. And it was responded to.
17 this is the complete thing, I -- I don't know if 17 Q And how was it responded to?
18 anything precedes it. But assuming it's the 18 A Nicole -- looks like Nicole Rabon wrote back and
19 complete e-mail exchange, it would begin on July 19 said -- well, let me look. Oh, here it is. I
20 30th, 2015, with an e-mail from me to Jack Rabon 20 can't tell whether it's Jack or Nicole Rabon there.
21 with respect to some offers that he received. And 21 The e-mail address says "Jack & Nicole" -- oh, she
22 the e-mail exchange goes back and forth between 22 signed it, "Nicole." Said, "The reason there are
23 then and it looks like the last one is August 2nd 23 two contracts is because there isn't a mortgage on
24 of 2015. 24 the house, so we didn't want BB&T to get the sale
25 Q And I think this is the Biderman transaction with 25 price of both properties. We will need the money

Page 169 Page 170

1 from the sale of the house to pay capital gains." 1 Q Okay. And if a money judgment attaches to all real
2 And that made sense to me. 2 estate in South Carolina, just if you'll assume
3 Q So, you agreed at that point that it was okay to 3 that for a moment, wouldn't that mean that the --
4 conceal the sale of the brick house from BB&T? 4 Exhibit 17, the judgment there of $417,000, that
5 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 5 would've attached to all of Rabon & Rabon's real
6 A No. I don't think anywhere in here we indicated we 6 estate?
7 were going to conceal the sale of the brick house 7 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
8 from BB&T. If BB&T had inquired about other 8 A I don't know. You're asking me to provide a legal
9 contemporaneous sales, we would have almost 9 opinion as to a hypothetical. I -- I don't know
10 certainly been obliged under our ethics rules not 10 the answer to that, absent more facts and doing the
11 to mislead them. 11 legal research to give you an answer.
12 Q Okay. And is it your testimony that BB&T never 12 Q Okay. Did you know it at that time period?
13 asked if Rabon & Rabon could pay the loan that they 13 MR. WATSON: Same objection.
14 had a foreclosure on? 14 A Yeah. I -- I don't know the answer to that
15 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 15 question. You're asking me a -- a legal
16 A I don't know that BB&T ever asked that question. I 16 hypothetical. I'm not, you know, here as an expert
17 don't see it. I mean, if you have an e-mail or 17 witness to answer legal hypotheticals. I'm just a
18 something where they asked it . . . 18 fact witness. I'll tell you what I know. But I --
19 Q Unh-unh. 19 I can't give you legal conclusions based on a two-
20 A I don't recall them ever asking me. 20 page e-mail.
21 Q Okay. And the funds from the brick house, those 21 Q Okay. Did you -- what was the essential nature of
22 were -- those belonged to the corporation, correct? 22 your negotiations with BB&T during this time
23 A The brick house belonged to the corporation, so, 23 period? What did you want from them?
24 yes, the sale proceeds would belong to the 24 A If I understand your question correctly, what we
25 corporation, as well. 25 were hoping to achieve for Rabon & Rabon, Inc., was
Page 171 Page 172

1 simply selling some property, some of which that 1 will need the money from the sale of the house to
2 BB&T had a mortgage on. 2 pay capital gains."
3 Q Okay. And what else? 3 If you want to know more about what Nicole
4 A I'm not aware of anything else. 4 Rabon meant by that, you'd have to ask Nicole
5 Q Wasn't there a second property, the brick house? 5 Rabon. And I -- I'm reading it the same as you
6 A What would that have to do with BB&T? I'm not 6 are.
7 understanding your question. Tell -- just say that 7 Q Okay. Well, what was your response to it?
8 again. 8 A I said, "Nicole, thanks. That makes sense. In
9 Q All right. This real estate transaction, it was a 9 that case, let's see if Michelle will have Brad
10 mutually-contingent transaction, correct? 10 King draft two contracts that are identical but for
11 A That's my memory, yes. 11 the property descriptions. Brad can make them
12 Q Okay. And you told the probate court that, 12 even-handed, so I won't have to make a lot of
13 correct? 13 revisions to provide R&R" -- Rabon & Rabon-- "with
14 A Yes. 14 the same protection provided to the buyer. If
15 Q Okay. Mutually contingent -- you initially say, 15 Michelle wants to have Brad contact me (or me him)
16 "This is going to complicate things to make two 16 to discuss, that would be fine. Please just let me
17 contracts." 17 know. As soon as we have an agreement on paper
18 She says, "I don't want the bank to know about 18 (containing the contingency for shareholders/court
19 the second one." Right? 19 approval), I will contact Scott Hutto and/or the
20 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 20 probate court to attempt to get the sale approved.
21 A Well, she says whatever she says in here. I don't 21 Please let me know what response you get from
22 want to put words in her mouth. She says, "The 22 Michelle."
23 reason there are two contracts is because there 23 Q Okay. And did you copy anybody with that e-mail
24 isn't a mortgage on the house, so we didn't want 24 chain?
25 BB&T to get the sales price of both properties. We 25 A Yes. I would have sent it to Jack and Nicole, and

Page 173 Page 174

1 it indicates I copied Henrietta Golding and Donna 1 Mitchells. By the way, this deal was
2 Brady. 2 demonstratively beneficial to your clients, as well
3 Q Okay. And did you understand Nicole to be 3 as to mine, and it was entirely ethical. I can't
4 instructing you that she doesn't want BB&T to be 4 just go put their financial information on the
5 told about the brick house? 5 street. And she was asking me not to do that, and
6 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 6 I didn't do it.
7 A I understood that in service to my client, my 7 Q Okay. And, at -- at this time period, did you know
8 instructions were to provide BB&T with everything 8 how much money was in McNair's trust account that
9 they asked for, but not to volunteer additional 9 was owned by Rabon & Rabon?
10 information that they didn't ask for. For 10 A I might have seen trust reports, but I -- you know,
11 instance, if you were going to buy a -- a car or 11 I don't think I had it at the forefront of my mind.
12 something, and they were asking $20,000 and you had 12 Q Okay. And if BB&T had a monetary judgment through
13 offered only ten, you would not expect your lawyer, 13 the foreclosure order back in March, or whatever
14 and you -- or your lawyer would probably be 14 the date was -- let me see -- I'm sorry -- May, do
15 breaching a duty to you. If your lawyer stood 15 you think that they might have a claim on the funds
16 beside you and said, "You know, he can pay more 16 that were being held in the trust account at
17 than ten; he can pay twenty. Tucker has more money 17 McNair?
18 than that." Your lawyer -- I -- I have a duty not 18 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
19 to do that. I have a duty to third parties to be 19 A Once again, I don't know. That's a -- a
20 honest when they ask questions -- and I did. But I 20 hypothetical that you're asking me about. I do
21 don't have a duty to spill my client's financial 21 know this: I know that if you have a claim, it's
22 information to the whole world, especially to the 22 up to you to assert that claim. That there -- I
23 client's detriment. Had I spilled that, I would 23 certainly, as an attorney, am not going out into
24 have violated my duty to Rabon & Rabon, Inc., I 24 the world asking people if they would like to make
25 would have cost money to Jack Rabon, and to the 25 a claim against my client. If they have a valid
Page 175 Page 176

1 lien, they have a lien. If they have some other 1 away with cash from the table at the closing?
2 claim and they assert it, then they assert it. But 2 A Closing of --
3 there's -- certainly, I couldn't go out and ask for 3 Q -- the brick house?
4 people to stand in line to get money from my 4 A -- the brick house. I understood that the closing
5 client. 5 of the brick house and the other -- whatever that
6 Q Sure. And what you've just said is kind of my 6 other building was -- which were to occur
7 point. They had a judgment from May. Isn't that a 7 contemporaneously, would result in some net
8 valid lien? 8 proceeds to Rabon & Rabon.
9 A I don't know the answer to that question. I don't 9 Q Okay. And despite that and the money in the trust
10 think it's a valid lien, quite honestly. It's a 10 account, did you make any representations to BB&T
11 judgment. It's up to them to execute the judgment. 11 that they simply would not get any money unless
12 As you well know, you can have a judgment, put it 12 they agreed to the deal?
13 in your desk drawer, and never attempt to execute 13 A I -- if -- I don't remember making a representation
14 it. That's -- they're not self-executing. 14 like that. I mean, if you have some --
15 Q But they are self-attaching, correct? 15 Q Okay.
16 A I don't know the answer to that question. 16 A -- document or something that you can show me that
17 Q Okay. Were you aware, while you were negotiating 17 you want to ask me about, but . . .
18 with West Town and BB&T, that Rabon & Rabon, if 18 Q And I think it's -- it's 22. And we'll just go out
19 everything went through as planned, would have the 19 of order.
20 money to make everybody, except West Town, whole? 20 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) So which one is
21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 21 this?
22 A A -- ask that question again, because I'm not sure 22 MR. PLAYER: This is 22. Should be the last
23 I understand it. 23 one in the stack. It's a e-mail to Kerk.
24 Q Okay. And maybe I can rephrase it. Did you 24 MR. WATSON: Okay.
25 understand that Rabon & Rabon was supposed to walk 25 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 22, E-mail

Page 177 Page 178

1 correspondence in reference to "Rabon2-- 1 not pursue the borrower, but won't pursue the
2 062992.00002--Sale of Building 3 and 2 personal guarantors either." Which include -- it
3 Middle Lot." 3 doesn't say this in the e-mail -- which include
4 A Okay. Yes. I recognize this. What's your 4 Karon and Kyle Mitchell. Of substantial benefit to
5 question about this? 5 them, I would note. "Sue and I were very clear on
6 Q What information were you conveying to Mr. Spong? 6 this point, because without it, there is no sale --
7 And I assume these are part of the negotiations 7 just wanted the letter to be equally clear.
8 with BB&T. 8 "It probably doesn't need stating that after
9 A You want me to just read you the e-mail? 9 BB&T is paid the agreed-upon . . . 397 . . ., it
10 Q Well, my question is -- I mean, are -- are you 10 will dismiss the foreclosure action, but just to be
11 asserting that unless they meet the demands of 11 thorough, I included it. At least two days before
12 Rabon & Rabon, to waive the deficiency and take a 12 closing, when we send you the final settlement
13 short sale, then BB&T will get no money and they'll 13 statement, I'd like you to send me a draft of the
14 have to go to judicial sale? 14 dismissal. At that time, we will also send to you
15 A I don't think I said that. I think I said, "Kerk, 15 a release of mortgage and assignment, which we
16 thanks for the draft of the short-sale approval 16 would appreciate your having signed and holding in
17 letter. I have made a few changes to conform the 17 trust pending the closing.
18 letter to terms Sue Williams and I agreed upon. 18 "That's it. I have attached a PDF of the
19 See," and then it lists the name of a document. 19 revised letter . . ., as well as a redline in Word.
20 "They are as follows: Sue and I orally agreed that 20 Please let me know if my changes are acceptable."
21 payment must be made before September 8th, though I 21 That's what I told BB&T.
22 note that our e-mails say by September 7th. I'd 22 Q Right. And you said if there's no personal --
23 like the letter to reflect the same. 23 waiver of the personal deficiencies, there will be
24 "I tightened up the language around waiving 24 no sale, correct?
25 the deficiency. As agreed, BB&T will not -- only 25 A I said, "Sue and I were very clear on this point,
Page 179 Page 180

1 because without it, there is no sale." And that's 1 from, with the sale of the brick house, was
2 in reference to not pursing the personal 2 "material information" to these negotiations?
3 guarantors. 3 A Well, I don't know. I know that BB&T was
4 Q Right. So is that a yes or a no? 4 represented by Kerk Spong who's a very experienced,
5 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 5 very good attorney, knows what he's doing, and that
6 A Ask your question again. 6 if that had been relevant to his client, I -- I --
7 Q Did you tell them there would be no sale if they 7 I'm certain he would have asked about it.
8 did not waive the personal deficiency? 8 Q Did he ever make any statement to you that no
9 A I told them that there would be no sale if they 9 proceeds were contemplated to the -- to the seller
10 didn't agree not to pursue the personal guarantors. 10 in your communications?
11 Q Okay. At any time, was there any discussion about 11 A Did Kerk ever make a statement to me that no
12 a possibility of paying additional funds to BB&T 12 proceeds were contemplated to the seller?
13 other than what was being offered by Jacob 13 Q That their agreement was contingent upon no
14 Biderman? 14 proceeds to the seller?
15 A You mean did I offer, on behalf of Rabon & Rabon, 15 A Well, I don't know. Do -- do you see where he says
16 Inc., to pay B& -- BB&T more than they were willing 16 that?
17 to take, to the detriment of my client? No. 17 Q That'd be 21.
18 Q I didn't say "offer." 18 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 21, E-mail
19 A That would be ridiculous. No. I think -- I mean, 19 correspondence in reference to "Rabon2--
20 this is the -- unless you have -- have something 20 062992.00002, Re: Rabon -- offer on
21 else you want to ask me about, that's what I told 21 Building 3 and Middle Lot, and offer on
22 BB&T on behalf of the client. 22 House."
23 Q Okay. Did you think that the -- the money in 23 A This 21 is an e-mail that predates Exhibit 22 by
24 McNair's trust account that belonged to Rabon & 24 two months.
25 Rabon and the money that they were walking away 25 Q And you think in those two months that Kerk changed

Page 181 Page 182

1 his mind and decided that they'd take a short sale 1 release it. Obviously, if they release it, I have
2 and let the seller walk away with a -- over 2 to release it accurately and truthfully. If they
3 $100,000 in cash? 3 decline to release it, then, of course, the other
4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 4 side can exercise its free will and not enter into
5 A Do I believe that Kerk changed his mind? Yes. He 5 the deal. I provided everything to Kerk Spong that
6 demonstratively -- obviously changed his mind. His 6 Kerk Spong asked for. Everything I provided was
7 June 25th letter says the bank will not waive its 7 accurate and truthful, to the best of our knowledge
8 deficiency claim, and the bank did waive its 8 and belief. I have to feel confident that Kerk
9 deficiency claim. So, apparently, his advice to 9 Spong, with his years of experience, did everything
10 the bank changed. I can't tell you why. You'd 10 he was supposed to do on behalf of his client to
11 have to ask Kerk Spong why his advice to the bank 11 get the information that his client needed. If --
12 changed. 12 -- if Kerk didn't ask for it, then it's very likely
13 Q Do you know -- did you ever tell Kerk Spong about 13 that his client didn't want it or need it.
14 the brick house sale? 14 Q So, do you believe that BB&T would have agreed to
15 A I -- I don't know. 15 waive -- to take less than they were owed in their
16 Q Okay. Did you ever send him a copy of the contract 16 judgment and waive all personal deficiencies if
17 for the brick house? 17 they knew Rabon & Rabon was going to walk away with
18 A No. I doubt I would have done that. Kerk Spong, I 18 over $100,000?
19 don't think ever asked me about the brick house, 19 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
20 and I -- I can't volunteer confidential information 20 A I can't possibly speculate as to what BB&T believed
21 about my clients to people willy-nilly. If Kerk 21 or the advice that was given by its attorneys.
22 Spong asked a material question and his advice to 22 That's between Kerk Spong and BB&T. You could ask
23 his client is a client agreeing to the terms of the 23 Kerk Spong. You could ask BB&T. But I -- I can't
24 sale is contingent on that information, then I'd 24 read their minds any more than you can.
25 have to talk to my client and see if they'll 25 Q Okay. This is 19.
Page 183 Page 184

1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 19, E-mail 1 this deal today for a little less money than you
2 correspondence in reference to "Rabon2-- 2 might get selling it on the courthouse steps, but
3 062992.00002--Sale of Building and Middle 3 it will be done and there will be no ongoing
4 Lot." 4 litigation."
5 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Which one? Is 5 I don't know whether he gave that advice or
6 that a . . . 6 not. But I give similar advice to clients, certain
7 MR. PLAYER: It's the e-mail with Dan Stacy. 7 circumstances, when they're contemplating an offer
8 MR. WATSON: Okay. 8 to settle a personal-injury claim. Sometimes the
9 MR. PLAYER: Sorry. We went out of order. 9 cost of litigation outstrips the greater amount of
10 I'm sorry. 10 money that you could get through litigation, so
11 A You know, this -- in reading this e-mail, it does 11 that could be reasonable advice. But, again, I
12 bring to mind -- and, as I said, I don't know what 12 don't -- I don't know. You'd have to ask Kerk
13 was in BB&T's mind, but it does bring to mind 13 Spong what advice he gave. But, yeah, I've -- I've
14 reasons why people would choose a deficiency over a 14 read through this -- this. I recognize this.
15 judicial sale. The same reason injured plaintiffs 15 Q And similar, did you tell West Town that if the
16 might choose a settlement for less money than they 16 deal did not go through, they would get nothing for
17 might get at trial: because there's finality when 17 the property?
18 all the parties consent and there's not through 18 A I told West Town, "Following up with you on our
19 litigation. BB&T -- now, and, again, I don't know 19 conversation with respect to the sale of Building 3
20 the advice that Kerk Spong gave BB&T. I have no 20 in the middle lot on which West Town holds an
21 idea. But reasonable advice could be, "BB&T, if 21 underwater second mortgage. The deal has been
22 you pursue the foreclosure, you may engage in 22 approved by all the shareholders of Rabon & Rabon,
23 protracted litigation with Rabon & Rabon, Inc., 23 Inc., and we are moving ahead for closing by
24 costing you a great sum of money over years before 24 September 4th, 2015, latest. What do we need to do
25 you finally get this done. Or you can agree to 25 for West Town in order for West Town to release its

Page 185 Page 186

1 second so we may close on time? Whatever it is, I 1 been nothing left for the second-place holder, West
2 need to know very soon so that Rabon & Rabon, Inc., 2 Town. I told Dan that. Far be it from me to tell
3 can approve it. As we discussed by phone, if we 3 Dan his business. Dan has more experience than I
4 don't close by 9/4, the property will be sold 4 do in the law. But Dan agreed with that, that
5 judicially on 9/8 and West Town will realize zero 5 their second mortgage was underwater. So it made
6 dollars -- that is [sic], bad for everybody. I 6 sense for them to get something as opposed to
7 know I've given you only a few days heads up, but 7 nothing if we could get the deal done. I don't
8 can you get a response from West Town today? I 8 remember if $10,000 was the final number, but that
9 appreciate your help." 9 sounds about right.
10 So yes. I told them that they would realize 10 Q Okay. We'll go to 20.
11 "zero dollars." I told that actually to Dan Stacy, 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 20, E-mail
12 their attorney. Dan, who is also a well- 12 correspondence in reference to "Rabon &
13 experienced attorney -- and Dan agreed with that 13 Rabon, Inc., Building 3 and Middle Lot."
14 assessment. They, West Town, had a second mortgage 14 A It says here they took a little less, $7,500.
15 on a piece of property that stood behind a gigantic 15 Q Right.
16 first mortgage. Which is the meaning -- I don't 16 A All right. I've read that.
17 know if you're familiar with the term "an 17 Q Okay. Do you agree or disagree with what -- what
18 underwater mortgage." You know what that means? 18 Mr. Skinner says?
19 Q Uh-huh. 19 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
20 A Okay. Underwater mortgage is ones you're never 20 A What part of what Mr. Skinner says?
21 going to collect on because the property is worth 21 Q That the information about the money in the trust
22 less money than the first mortgage holder has a 22 and the sale of the brick house was material to
23 mortgage for. So had it gone to a foreclosure 23 their negotiation position?
24 sale, it almost certainly would have sold for less 24 A I can't possibly know what criteria Riddick Skinner
25 than was owed to BB&T, which means there would have 25 used to assess whether they should enter this deal
Page 187 Page 188

1 or not. I can tell you that Riddick Skinner's bank 1 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
2 was represented by Dan Stacy, and if there was 2 A How are they to know to ask whether there's another
3 information that was material to their decision, 3 sale going?
4 then they should have instructed their attorney to 4 Q Uh-huh.
5 get that information. We provided all the 5 A Geez. Attorneys that do real estate closings ask
6 information that Dan Stacy asked for, everything he 6 it all the time. When I settle personal-injury
7 asked for. And, again, I can't -- I'm bound by 7 claims, one of the first things that the other side
8 ethical obligations. I can't just go dump random 8 asks me is, "Is your client married?" They always
9 confidential client information on the other side 9 ask that question. Why? Because they want to know
10 that they haven't asked for. I can't do that. You 10 if there's a loss-of-consortium claim out there
11 can't do that. Cal can't do it. David can't -- no 11 pending from a wife or husband.
12 attorney can just dump his client's confidential 12 They don't wait for me to say, which I can't,
13 information. It was never requested. If Riddick 13 by the way, volunteer, because it's confidential
14 thought that this information was material, he 14 information. They don't wait for me to say my
15 should've requested it from Dan Stacy. If he did 15 person's "married" or "not married."
16 and Dan didn't ask us for it, well, then, that's 16 They do their due diligence and they ask the
17 unfortunate and probably bad for Dan. But we 17 question, "Is your client married? Is your client
18 provided absolutely everything that was asked for 18 not married?" I respond truthfully. If they don't
19 and we answered every question truthfully, and the 19 ask, I'm not at liberty just to divulge that. So
20 information we provided was accurate and truthful, 20 they do their due diligence, because that's what
21 to the best of everyone at McNair's knowledge and 21 they do for a living, is they settle personal-
22 belief. 22 injury claims, so they know what to as about.
23 Q Okay. How is Dan Stacy or Rick Skinner supposed to 23 These attorneys doing closings of -- of real
24 know what information to request when it's never 24 estate, if they're concerned that money is coming
25 disclosed to them in the first place? 25 in elsewhere, it wouldn't have to be a sale, it

Page 189 Page 190

1 could be anything. You know, an especially 1 MR. WATSON: Okay. I don't know if I've seen
2 profitable year, they could ask that question. Are 2 that. (To Mr. Player) We're ready when you
3 there other funds that could satisfy this mortgage? 3 are.
4 They can know to ask. And had they asked, we would 4 MR. PLAYER: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.
5 have provided the information. 5 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 23, "Affidavit
6 Or, if my client said, "Don't provide it," I 6 of Jack Isaiah Rabon, Jr."
7 would have had to tell the other side, "I'm sorry I 7 A All right.
8 can't answer your question." 8 Q Did you draft an affidavit?
9 And they could have decided at that point, 9 A I -- I don't know. Just looking at this document,
10 "Whoa. That sounds fishy. We're getting out of 10 void of any context, I don't know.
11 this." All right? I told -- I provided everything 11 Q Okay. And can you tell from the date?
12 they asked for. It was all truthful and all 12 A It says "18th of November 2014." I was working at
13 accurate. If they forgot to ask something, that is 13 McNair on the 18th of November 2014. I had been a
14 unfortunate, but there's nothing -- I can't 14 lawyer for one day. But I can't, you know, seeing
15 volunteer it. I'm bound by an ethical duty to keep 15 this thing without a civil action number at the
16 those confidences. I can't volunteer it any more 16 top, without -- I mean, I just don't know whether I
17 than you can. 17 would have drafted that or not.
18 Q Okay. 18 Q Okay. If you had drafted it, would you have
19 MR. PLAYER: (To Mr. Watson) I honestly don't 19 reviewed the shareholders' transcript before you
20 know if you got a copy of it, so -- I have 20 drafted it?
21 just one quick question. 21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
22 MR. WATSON: Is this a new affidavit? 22 Q Because it's attached to the exhibit.
23 MR. PLAYER: No. It's a old one. 23 A Would I -- would I have reviewed the transcript in
24 MR. WATSON: This is the old one. 24 order to attach it as an exhibit?
25 MR. MILLS: I've seen it. 25 Q And -- no. My question is, if you had drafted
Page 191 Page 192

1 this, it says that, "The transcript is attached as 1 what it says it is. So I don't know.
2 an exhibit." 2 Q Okay. So do you have any recollection of reviewing
3 A Uh-huh. 3 the shareholders' transcript to see if there were
4 MR. WATSON: So, I would object to the form of 4 any objections made?
5 the question and object to the exhibit since 5 A Any objections made to what?
6 it appears to be not complete, unless you have 6 Q To the election of Jack as the president and vice-
7 the rest of it. 7 president?
8 MR. PLAYER: That, I do. I just . . . 8 A You know, I'm sure I would have read this
9 Q This is what was attached to it. 9 transcript at some point. I don't know that I
10 A Okay. Well, again, you're asking me a 10 reviewed it for any particular purpose.
11 hypothetical. But I can tell you what my typical 11 Q Okay. Do you think that Jack using his power as
12 practice would have been. My typical practice 12 the personal representative to vote himself as the
13 would be if I were attaching a document to an 13 president of the corporation constitutes a conflict
14 affidavit, and the affidavit made representations 14 of interest?
15 about what's in the document. For instance, "So- 15 A I don't know the answer to that question. I can
16 and-so says, on Page 9, X, Y, Z," then I would, of 16 tell you that from what I saw, everything that was
17 course, review the document to make sure that "So- 17 done, with respect to Rabon & Rabon, Inc., was
18 and-so" actually said, on Page 9 "X, Y, Z." On the 18 proper as far as I knew. Now, I wasn't privy
19 other hand, if I were attaching a document to an 19 necessarily to everything. I didn't attend the
20 affidavit simply saying, "This is a" -- I don't 20 shareholders' meeting, so I don't know what
21 know -- "This is a -- a -- a list of things that 21 happened there. I don't know whether that's a true
22 somebody wants." Without any reference to what's 22 and accurate transcript. I mean, I have no reason
23 inside it, there'd be no reason to review it. I'm 23 to doubt that it is. I don't know. I wasn't
24 simply providing it, saying it was provided to me, 24 there. I'm not aware of anything improper being
25 and now I'm providing it to the next person it is 25 done, certainly not by myself, nor by Henrietta

Page 193 Page 194

1 Golding, or by anybody else at McNair. 1 morning. Honestly, I don't even know what
2 Q Okay. 2 they're in. Yeah. There's some --
3 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) Which -- 3 MR. WATSON: So, where did -- what -- where
4 MR. PLAYER: I'm marking just the lis pendens. 4 did these come from?
5 MR. WATSON: Okay. Have we marked that 5 MR. PLAYER: Well, one, I just received
6 before? 6 yesterday. The other is from your discovery.
7 MR. PLAYER: I don't know. 7 I just didn't find them until I was going
8 MR. WATSON: Which folder would that have been 8 through the file last night. They're not --
9 in? 9 you have them because you gave them to me, but
10 MR. PLAYER: We're in lost territory at this 10 I didn't have them on the list because I
11 point. 11 hadn't found them.
12 THE DEPONENT: Uh-huh. 12 MR. WATSON: I -- I get it.
13 MR. PLAYER: Let's -- let's do this. I -- I 13 MR. PLAYER: Well, I found out where my stuff
14 have stuff that I just got yesterday, and I've 14 went. All right. And . . . All right. Hold
15 just picked up at the printer this morning 15 on. All right. All right. These are the
16 that y'all are obviously -- it wasn't even on 16 additional texts. I'm not going to do that
17 my list of stuff because it's just new. So 17 one or that one. These are -- this is kind of
18 why don't I give that, along with this, to you 18 a collection of stuff.
19 now so that y'all can go discuss them. And 19 MR. WATSON: Uh-huh.
20 then we'll come back and hopefully finish up. 20 MR. PLAYER: And then I got this yesterday.
21 MR. WATSON: Oh. They -- they weren't 21 This has not -- this has never been disclosed
22 included in the -- 22 because Buddy didn't get it to me until
23 MR. PLAYER: No. I -- 23 yesterday, so we'll just take a break. This
24 MR. WATSON: -- what you sent us? 24 is all stuff that was not previously disclosed
25 MR. PLAYER: I didn't get them until this 25 within two days, so y'all can discuss them,
Page 195 Page 196

1 and then, when you're ready, we'll get back on 1 Q I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about
2 the record. 2 some things that Ms. Golding said in her deposition
3 MR. WATSON: So these are texts that haven't 3 to see if you have any personal knowledge of this
4 been disclosed before? 4 stuff.
5 MR. PLAYER: No. These are -- these are texts 5 A All right.
6 that are in the main text file. 6 Q Are you aware of any attorney's fees that the
7 MR. WATSON: Oh, okay. 7 estate of Peggy Jo Rabon paid to McNair?
8 MR. PLAYER: They're just not part of the 8 A Not either way. I don't have any knowledge of
9 first eight. 9 attorneys' fees, one way or the other, on that.
10 MR. WATSON: What have we not seen before? 10 Q Ms. Golding said that Buddy Lindsay had told her
11 Just this affidavit? 11 that Karon was "wacko." Did you ever hear anything
12 MR. PLAYER: Only the affidavit. The -- 12 along those lines from Mr. Lindsay?
13 MR. WATSON: Okay. 13 A You know, I don't remember. I remember hearing
14 MR. PLAYER: The -- the big packet, the first 14 that phrase used to describe Karon Mitchell. I
15 page is just the answer, and then it's a 15 don't remember who said it, necessarily.
16 collection of e-mails that y'all produced in 16 Q Okay. And she stated numerous times that she was
17 discovery behind it -- 17 the one in charge of the file and had ultimate
18 MR. WATSON: Okay. 18 decision-making power. Do you agree with that?
19 MR. PLAYER: -- so . . . 19 A I do.
20 MR. WATSON: Sure. 20 Q Okay. She said she didn't have any communications
21 MR. PLAYER: And, for some reason -- 21 with you about these cases since it was filed; is
22 MR. WATSON: We'll be back. 22 that accurate?
23 (Off the record from 2:48 p.m. until 23 A Yeah. That sounds right.
24 3:04 p.m.) 24 Q Okay. Have you had any communications with her
25 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES. 25 since November of '17?

Page 197 Page 198

1 A Since November of 2017, I would've had some because 1 understanding from your previous testimony is that
2 I left the McNair Law Firm and certain clients came 2 you didn't think you were hiding it; is that
3 with me, so we would've talked about the exchange 3 accurate?
4 of those files, that sort of thing. But nothing of 4 A That we were not hiding anything; we were an open
5 any substance. 5 book. Any information that was requested, we
6 Q Okay. We talked about that earlier. 6 provided --
7 She made a comment there in her deposition 7 Q Okay.
8 that there was a settlement agreement and the 8 A -- and provided it accurately and truthfully, to
9 settlement agreement still exists. Do you know 9 the best of our knowledge.
10 what she was referring to? 10 Q Okay. And we touched on this earlier about the
11 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 11 eviction, and you gave a very lawyerly answer.
12 A I could speculate. I don't really know. If you'd 12 MR. WATSON: Object to the description.
13 give me some context to where -- like, where that 13 Q My -- my question is: Did Jack ever express any
14 fell in her deposition, what she was talking about. 14 reluctancy to evict his sister from the brick
15 Q Well, we were asking about the affirmative defenses 15 house?
16 by McNair and there was an estoppel waiver, 16 A I don't remember any specific reluctance to -- to
17 acquiescence, and it was along that vein of where I 17 evict, and, again, I don't know that his sister was
18 said, "What are the basis for these?" 18 evicted from the house. I know that she ultimately
19 And she said, "My understanding is there is a 19 moved out. I do know that, yeah, Jack was very
20 settlement agreement and it still exists." 20 concerned about the welfare of his sister, and --
21 A I -- I don't really know. 21 and he expressed that. And he had kind of, I
22 Q Okay. And I asked her a bunch of questions about 22 think, mixed emotions about doing what he knee --
23 hiding the sale of the brick house. And she said 23 knew needed to be done with respect to Karon and
24 that would not happen. She wouldn't agree to it. 24 Kyle having looted this money out of the entities,
25 And I just want to kind of get a -- my 25 and his, you know, love for his sister at the same
Page 199 Page 200

1 time. 1 Q Right.
2 Q At some point, did that concern or conflict inside 2 A -- it was --
3 of Jack change into just pretty much an all- 3 Q -- all of you collectively.
4 consuming rage? 4 A -- McNair. I don't remember whether there was
5 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 5 specifically like a bullet-point list. I mean,
6 A I -- you'd have to ask Jack Rabon that. I -- I 6 there was obviously writings going back and forth.
7 don't know what goes on in his head. 7 If you have them, I can tell you whether, you know,
8 Q Okay. And, well, just from your personal 8 I recognize them or anything. But -- but five
9 observation that he is -- that his concern for 9 years on, I don't remember, you know --
10 Karon's welfare -- did it change at some point 10 Q Sure.
11 during the litigation? 11 A -- the form of any particular writings.
12 A I don't really know. 12 Q And that they were a victim of my dead copy or so.
13 Q Okay. Do you remember when you were trying to 13 I just didn't know if you had any recollection
14 negotiate a global purchase by Shai David early 14 where a communication was sent to Dan Stacy, where
15 '15, when there were communications between Sid 15 you said -- where it was relayed that $230,000 were
16 Connor and Dan Stacy about a potential global 16 needed for attorneys' fees in pursuing the
17 settlement where -- where Shai would pay 1.5 17 Mitchells.
18 million, and, at some point, there was a -- a 18 A No. I don't remember that.
19 bullet point -- where a list of bullet points for 19 Q Okay. Do you remember any conversations with -- or
20 what would happen with the proceeds from those 20 communications with Sid Connor about potential
21 sales in order to come up with a number that West 21 under-the-table money between Shai and Jack?
22 Town would accept to release their mortgages? Do 22 A Well, Sid put that allegation into a -- a lawsuit
23 you recall that? 23 against --
24 A When you say that -- you said "When you were 24 Q Sure.
25 negotiating the sale." Of course, it wasn't me -- 25 A -- Jack Rabon, so to the extent we ever discussed

Page 201 Page 202

1 the lawsuit, we -- we discussed the allegation. 1 A Uh-huh.
2 Q Okay. And what was -- what did McNair communicate 2 Q -- are you aware of any breaches of fiduciary duty
3 to Sid? 3 committed by Jack Rabon?
4 A Yeah. You have to be more specific than that. I 4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
5 mean, we had lots of conversations with Sid Connor. 5 A No. I'm aware that people have alleged that. I
6 Q What? Did you tell him that there was under-the- 6 see it in the complaint. I see it in various
7 table money? 7 affidavits. I know that I haven't seen Jack
8 A Did I admit the allegation on behalf of my client? 8 Rabon's side of that story, so I -- I just can't
9 Q Yeah. 9 draw any conclusions about that.
10 A No. I think you can look at the answer and see 10 Q Did you or Henrietta ever talk him out of a
11 that my client denied that allegation. 11 potential compromise that he suggested to you two?
12 Q Do you recall having a conference call with Sid 12 A I don't remember doing that now.
13 where he asked the question, point blank, to you 13 Q Okay.
14 and Henrietta? 14 A Can you tell me -- color in the picture. What are
15 A I don't remember that happening. It could have. I 15 you talking about?
16 -- but I just don't remember that. 16 Q It was, I believe, January 5th or 15th --
17 Q Okay. Are you aware of any breaches of fiduciary 17 MS. KARON MITCHELL: Uh-huh.
18 duty committed by Jack Rabon while he was 18 Q -- and Jack said the tactics that you and -- and
19 represented by McNair? 19 Henrietta were -- were not working, and that you
20 A Not that I can think of right now. 20 needed to have a more sympathetic approach. And
21 Q And just to make sure that I qualify the question: 21 his basic offer was, "If they'll just give me the
22 This is not "Did you know it was happening at the 22 brick house and get me off the loans, I'll dismiss
23 time?" But after everything that's happened 23 everything and they can have Rabon & Rabon."
24 through discovery and the litigation that has 24 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
25 occurred up to this date -- 25 A And this would've been, you said, January. January
Page 203 Page 204

1 of what year? 1 it.
2 Q 2015. 2 Q And when you would -- I mean, you actually drafted
3 A You know, I don't remember a conversation like 3 some settlement agreements that were sent to Buddy,
4 that. If there is some, you know, note or document 4 correct?
5 that says he says that, I'll be glad to look at it. 5 A Henrietta and I put together several -- I don't
6 But I -- 6 remember if they were formal settlement agreements
7 Q Okay. 7 or if they were still at the bullet-point kind of
8 A I don't remember. 8 list stage. But, yeah, there were a number of
9 Q Do you know -- 9 those with Buddy Lindsay and maybe Sid Connor and
10 A I do remember that Jack Rabon's position often 10 maybe Scott Hutto. You'd have to ask Henri,
11 changed as to himself personally. You know, what 11 because that was her -- the negotiations were hers,
12 he would agree to in order to get out of this 12 not mine.
13 litigation. 13 Q Okay. And during that time period when you were --
14 Q Okay. 14 and this was a global settlement for everything; is
15 A And sometimes he wanted more, and other times, he 15 that accurate?
16 wanted less. At no point were -- were we able to 16 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
17 get what he wanted from the other side. Every time 17 A I believe that's what we would've discussed, would
18 we thought we had some sort of a deal, Buddy 18 be a global settlement, as opposed to, you know,
19 Lindsay would say, "Yes. I can get Karon to agree 19 piecemealing it.
20 to that. She's agreed to that," etc. "Go ahead 20 Q Okay.
21 and write it up." We'd write it up and then find 21 A That's my memory.
22 out that Karon wouldn't do it. 22 Q And at -- during those negotiations and then the
23 So there was never an instance where we 23 proposed settlement terms, were you -- did McNair
24 actually achieved something for Jack that the other 24 have a fiduciary duty to the other clients, Rabon &
25 side agreed to. They would always just back out of 25 Rabon, and the PR of the estate?

Page 205 Page 206

1 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 1 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) That's the "Who
2 A Well, if what you're asking is if a law firm and 2 owns that battleship?"
3 its attorneys have a fiduciary duty to their 3 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. No. This is -- "Do you
4 clients, I think, yes, that's black-letter law. 4 need me to help you bring stuff [sic] down --
5 Q Sure. 5 "anything down?"
6 A They have a fiduciary duty to their clients. 6 MR. WATSON: And, again, I'll object to the
7 Q And -- and you may not know the answer, but, you 7 next series of exhibits on the grounds of
8 know, in the settlement proposals that were made 8 completeness or lack of completeness.
9 back in -- the ones that I saw were December '14 -- 9 MR. PLAYER: Okay.
10 do you know if those agreements adequately 10 MR. WATSON: They appear to be partial
11 protected the interests of all of McNair's clients? 11 portions of text messages and not complete.
12 A Without looking at those agreements, I couldn't 12 Q And it's Page -- the fourth and fifth pages.
13 judge that. And I couldn't have judged it back 13 A Begins with, "Well, that's encouraging"?
14 then as a two-week-old lawyer. 14 Q Yes.
15 Q Sure. 15 A All right. And what's your question there?
16 A I just -- I couldn't have an opinion on that. 16 Q "Now if she has a big -- if she has a giant black
17 Q So that would've been on Henri? 17 trash bag full of cash, that would be a good
18 A Could -- that's correct, yeah. 18 start."
19 Q Right. Okay. 19 A Right. And I said, "Well, that's encouraging,
20 A Henri would call the ball on that. 20 although nothing is ever a done deal." What am I
21 Q Okay. All right. We'll get into -- this is Number 21 replying to there?
22 24. 22 Q Michelle Cohen said that she'll have a contract
23 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 24, Copy of 23 ready.
24 text messages, dated 11/02/15 and 24 A "Just got a text from Michelle, saying she'll have
25 11/03/15. 25 a signed contract ready on Wednesday. She ended by
Page 207 Page 208

1 saying, 'It's a done deal.' We'll see what she 1 MR. WATSON: Same objection. Continuing on
2 has." And then I reply to that. 2 all these text messages, though.
3 And that's true. Michelle Cohen frequently 3 Q And what was the discussion?
4 would pop up with proposed deals. So-and-so, who 4 A So, this relates to Jack Rabon's settlement -- I
5 she won't disclose, will pay such-and-such for 5 guess Nicole Rabon's settlement, too, with Shai
6 portions of the property. 6 David out of the lawsuits we filed on their behalf
7 It was invariably situations where she 7 against Shai David for shooting Jack Rabon. Those
8 wouldn't tell us who the buyer was and the details 8 lawsuits were ultimately settled for, I believe,
9 were shaky, and when it would come time for the 9 $400,000.
10 buyer to actually make a deposit, that deal 10 Q Okay.
11 wouldn't come together. There'd be nothing to it. 11 A One of the -- one of the issues in those lawsuits
12 So I was highly skeptical of what -- of any 12 from Jack Rabon's perspective was -- he had about
13 deal that Michelle Cohen was bringing to the table, 13 $300,000 in medical bills. BlueCross BlueShield
14 because she -- aside from bringing Shai David to 14 paid those, and I think they paid about 90 grand,
15 the table and bringing Biderman to the table, all 15 as my memory serves. So they had a subrogation
16 the numerous other "I have somebody's" turned into 16 lien against his proceeds for that $90,000 and they
17 nothing. I don't know if they ever existed or not. 17 were willing to settle it for 25 percent off of
18 Q Okay. 18 that so they wouldn't have to bother suing him, so
19 A So my reply is exactly that: is, "I'll believe it 19 like 70 grand.
20 when I see it." 20 And that's what I remember. The actual
21 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 25, Copy of 21 numbers might be a little bit different. I don't
22 text messages, dated Wednesday, August 9. 22 have the documents in front of me. But, in
23 Q Okay. All right. Then we will go to 25. 23 general, that's what it is.
24 A All right. I -- I recognize 25. 24 Jack Rabon didn't want to pay that 70 grand to
25 Q Okay. 25 -- to BlueCross BlueShield. He was grasp -- in

Page 209 Page 210

1 fact, I think he even said that. He doesn't say 1 Jack Rabon proposes that Shai David give the
2 "grasping at straws," but he says "grasping." 2 money to someone he trusts. With Nicole and him
3 "Just grasping before it's done." 3 nowhere around, then his trusted friend gives me
4 At that stage, Jack Rabon was representing 4 some money as a gift. Who's, you -- as you know,
5 that he was very short on money. Any way he want - 5 as -- as you know as an attorney, that is wildly
6 - he could, you know, avoid paying a dollar, he 6 unethical. It -- it'd be -- BlueCross BlueShield
7 wanted to avoid. 7 clearly had a subrogation lien. We were clearly on
8 The thing I have learned about Jack Rabon at 8 notice. Not only is it unethical, it's impossible.
9 that stage was: When you explain something to 9 And that's what I told Jack here. I said, "I
10 Jack, he didn't care about the ethical reasons or 10 understand the difficult part of doing such a deal
11 the legal reasons. Kind of like we saw with 11 is not so much the doing but the planning. You and
12 withdrawing money from the MB Boardwalk 12 Shai would have to set it up directly with each
13 Entertainment account. What he cared about were 13 other. Also, the lawsuit would have to be" -- and
14 the practical reasons. If he could practically do 14 then the message is cut off.
15 it, he wanted to do it. He didn't much care if we 15 Q Okay.
16 told him -- and I'd seen this with MB Boardwalk 16 A And I can tell you what's in the rest of it.
17 Entertainment -- "It's not proper. You shouldn't 17 What's in the rest of it is -- and I -- you know,
18 do it. Whether you can or not, you shouldn't do 18 Tucker, why didn't Jack Rabon produce the rest of
19 it," and he took the money anyway. 19 the message? He's got it. And I'll tell you why.
20 So what I had learned with Jack Rabon was when 20 Because what's in the rest of it says, "The lawsuit
21 you explain something to Jack, you better lead off 21 would have to be dropped. That would be very
22 with the practical reasons "It won't work." And 22 difficult to engineer. And, by the way, it's
23 that would convince him. You could tell him later 23 completely unethical. BlueCross has a lien. They
24 all the ethical reasons you shouldn't do it at all. 24 would sue me; they would sue Natasha Hanna's firm;
25 And that's exactly what I did in here. 25 they would sue Scott Bellamy's firm. No lawyer
Page 211 Page 212

1 would dream of doing this. No lawyer on the other 1 may relate to our inquiry about the construction
2 side would dream of doing this. It's impractical 2 being done because that obviously brought that to
3 and it's unethical and we can't do it." And that's 3 our mind, but I -- I can't really tell you this
4 the part of the message he left out to you. 4 from this little fragment of a text message.
5 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 26, Copy of 5 Q Do you know why the band was staying in the RV on
6 text messages, dated 03/17/16. 6 the street?
7 Q Okay. Twenty-six. 7 A I have no idea.
8 A What's your question about that? 8 Q Okay. And did you ever make any complaint about
9 Q Do you know what y'all are discussing there? 9 the RV being parked on the street?
10 A I remember we had a discussion -- and if we can 10 A I don't think so.
11 find a date and that date's probably about right -- 11 Q Okay. We'll go ahead and do 27.
12 we had a discussion about the big RV that, 12 A Uh-huh.
13 apparently -- I didn't know that these were band 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 27, Copy of
14 members until Jack Rabon told me this -- that the 14 text messages, dated 05/03/16 and
15 folks doing the construction work and the 15 05/04/16.
16 demolition work on the Shark Attack building were 16 A I recognize that. It's a part of -- again, it's a
17 actually members of some band and they lived in 17 fragment of a text conversation out of context, but
18 this big RV, that that was parked outside. 18 I do recognize it.
19 And, so, that's me. I think I describe it as 19 Q Okay. And what is --
20 a "battleship." 20 MR. WATSON: Same objection as --
21 Q And what were you -- what did you do with them in 21 MR. PLAYER: Sure.
22 the morning? You said, "They'll be handled in the 22 MR. WATSON: -- that I'll continue to make.
23 morning," or something along those lines. 23 Q What -- do you know what y'all are discussing at
24 A I said, "We will see about them tomorrow." Seeing 24 that point?
25 this entirely out of context, I have no idea. It 25 A I believe it is the -- yeah, and here's the date on

Page 213 Page 214

1 it, so that's about right. I believe it is the 1 MR. WATSON: Okay.
2 withdrawal of money from the MB Boardwalk 2 A Your pile of e-mails, all right. What's your
3 Entertainment account that we advised Jack Rabon 3 question about this?
4 not to do, and that he did anyway, and shortly 4 Q Well, on -- you know, we talked about this earlier,
5 thereafter -- I can't remember, Tucker, if we got a 5 where, in the answer, you said, "Defendant
6 letter or an e-mail from you, but you notified us, 6 Jefferies signed the receipt attached to the Second
7 somehow, that that withdrawal had been made. 7 Amended Complaint as Exhibit O," and that you
8 Q Okay. And at anywhere in that text, do you tell 8 "understood these checks to be security for the
9 Jack that he shouldn't have done it or did 9 closing of the brick house. Defendant Jefferies
10 something that he shouldn't have? 10 later determined that funds for the closing would
11 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 11 be wired . . . to the closing attorney's trust
12 A Well, as I said, I told him before he did it that 12 account." And I just didn't -- you got to be
13 he shouldn't have done it. 13 kidding me. It is blocked out -- the highlighted
14 Q Sure. 14 portions on my computer.
15 A And not to do it. And I think I pointed out to him 15 And I wanted to go through the e-mails as
16 right here, toward the end, "He accused you of 16 they're highlighted, as we go -- that are in here.
17 taking company money. Same thing we accused Karon 17 Because it seems to me like you were getting e-
18 of. His remedy is to sue you." And I believe 18 mails just about every day from Emery Law Firm
19 that's -- that's accurate. 19 about Mr. Biderman's wire.
20 Q Okay. And then we will do Exhibit 29. 20 A Right. There was no question, Tucker -- to be
21 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 29, Excerpt of 21 clear, there was no question that funds were going
22 filing, including e-mail correspondence. 22 to be wired. The -- obviously, the man was in
23 MR. WATSON: (To Mr. Player) This is that 23 Europe. That's the only way you get money across
24 large -- larger package? 24 the ocean.
25 MR. PLAYER: Uh-huh. 25 The question was whether all the funds had
Page 215 Page 216

1 been wired, whether we had all the money. 1 them back to the office.
2 Remember, he was talking about backing out of half 2 Q Okay. And that was on September 3rd, correct?
3 of the deal. So there was no doubt at all. We 3 A That's correct. Now, had -- here's part of what I
4 exchanged wiring information, all of that went on. 4 counted on: Come their date of closing, if all the
5 There was no doubt that there was going to be at 5 money wasn't there, well, then, clearly, I know the
6 least one wire and that it was going to be for some 6 lawyer would've called me, so I was not -- I had a
7 amount of the funds. Our concern was whether he 7 lot of fish to fry. I had to go deal with West
8 had sent all of the money or some of the money. 8 Town, deal with BB&T, etc. I wasn't making
9 Q Okay. And my question is: Why do you not ask 9 unnecessary phone calls to check about wires.
10 Emery Law Firm who you're communicating with by e- 10 Michelle Cohen wanted to give us some security. We
11 mail every day? 11 took it. I signed for it; three checks payable to
12 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 12 McNair.
13 A Why didn't I ask Emery Law Firm what? 13 Q Okay. Now, if you'd go to the back -- I think it's
14 Q "Is the money there? How much is there? How much 14 the second page from the last. What's the date of
15 is the wire for?" 15 that e-mail?
16 A Well, I had no reason to. I spoke with Biderman on 16 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
17 -- in the afternoon of one day. Told him, "You got 17 A At the top of the page, where it's highlighted in -
18 to do the whole deal." 18 - in yellow?
19 The very next day, Michelle Cohen said she's 19 Q Uh-huh.
20 concerned, that we don't believe him, that he's 20 A It says "September 1st, 2015."
21 really going to do the whole deal. He wanted us to 21 Q And this is Emery Law Firm, and they say, "Sounds
22 have these checks as security. I accepted them as 22 good. The buyer is transferring money now. We are
23 security. I had no reason to run around and make 23 all set on our end."
24 extra telephone calls to see if the wire had 24 A Correct.
25 already been received. I had the checks. Took 25 Q "Thank you for the update."

Page 217 Page 218

1 A Right. 1 from West Town, not to worry about that.
2 Q Okay. So at this point, you're -- it's your 2 Q Okay. And -- but you --
3 testimony that you didn't know that the money was 3 A She did not.
4 being wired? 4 Q You spoke with Dan Stacy the morning of September
5 A No. That's not my testimony. I'll say it again, 5 1st, and it hadn't even been approved by the USDA?
6 very clearly this time. We knew that a wire was 6 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
7 coming. We were told by Michelle Cohen that 7 A According to -- to what? I mean, that could be
8 Biderman was backing out of half of the deal. So 8 true. I don't know. Is there an e-mail that says
9 what we did not know and what this e-mail does not 9 that?
10 say, is whether it was a wire for all the money or 10 Q The exhibit in front of you. Just read down after
11 whether it was a wire for the part of the deal that 11 the highlighted portion.
12 we were told Biderman was going to do, and he was 12 A All right. So . . . where am -- show me where I'm
13 backing out of the rest, so we did not know. 13 looking here.
14 So when Michelle Cohen came to me with those 14 Q The page -- this part.
15 checks, that made sense to me. If Biderman hadn't 15 A Oh.
16 wired all the money, it made sense that he wanted 16 Q The e-mail --
17 us to hold those checks. To me, I had no reason to 17 A It's "To All; From: Dan Stacy."
18 question that. 18 Q No. It's from you.
19 Q Okay. But you also stated that on September 1st or 19 A Oh. "To -- From: Lane Jefferies: To all. See
20 2nd, that Michelle's telling you she has the 20 the below response to my call this morning to Dan
21 release, correct? 21 Stacy in follow-up to our conversation yesterday.
22 A On -- yeah, 2nd or 3rd? 22 West Town knows that the deal -- that this deal
23 Q Okay. 23 closing on time is the only way they will receive
24 A I don't remember which day it was, but, at some 24 any money at all for their second mortgage, since
25 point, she was telling us that she had the release 25 it will be extinguished on Tuesday if the deal
Page 219 Page 220

1 doesn't go through. 1 Q I'm not -- not asking why she did it. I'm asking:
2 "I suggest we continue to plan on closing 2 All of the communications for the -- for the
3 tomorrow at ten. I'll keep after Dan, and we will 3 previous week are between you and the attorneys.
4 get the letter when we get it." 4 And that's every day.
5 Right. That's 11:30 on the 1st. 5 A Uh-huh.
6 Q Right. 6 Q And now, suddenly, Michelle shows up and says, "I'm
7 A Subsequent to that, Michelle Cohen indicated that 7 going to, basically, extort you out of money from
8 she had obtained the letter. And, remember, 8 my brother and hold the document hostage and you
9 Michelle Cohen, she's the real estate agent. This 9 don't call Dan Stacy and you don't call Laurie
10 is what she does, is make these things happen. So 10 Emery. I mean, Emery Law Firm had $527,000 in
11 I -- I, of course, believe that she had obtained 11 their trust account the day -- two days before you
12 the letter. It's their job. 12 signed that receipt.
13 Q Do you know who drafted the letter? 13 MR. WATSON: Object to the form, if that's --
14 A No. 14 if that's a question.
15 Q McNair did. 15 Q And my question is: With the urgency, why didn't
16 A If you say so. 16 you ever call anybody?
17 Q Okay. Bhumi Patel drafted the release. 17 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
18 A Okay. 18 A What do you mean, why didn't I call anybody? I
19 Q So my problem with all this is -- is: How was 19 called lots of people. I was working with Dan
20 Michelle getting in between you and Emery and you 20 Stacy. I was working with Kerk Spong. I was
21 and Dan Stacy and -- and, I mean, it -- Emery -- 21 working with Michelle Cohen. I was juggling a lot
22 A Why don't you ask Michelle? I have no idea how she 22 of balls to get the deal closed. What I wasn't
23 obtained the letter. 23 doing was running around, making random telephone
24 MR. WATSON: Wait, wait, wait. Object to the 24 calls. I was solving each problem as it came up.
25 form. 25 Q Okay. And was there something magic about this

Page 221 Page 222

1 sheet of paper that Michelle Cohen had? I mean, 1 wired. Is that your language, or is that your
2 couldn't you just go back to Dan Stacy and get 2 attorney's language?
3 another one if she was holding it hostage? 3 A Are you asking me if I actually typed the answer?
4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 4 Because the answer to that is "no." No. I relied
5 A I related to you the issue we had tracking -- once 5 on my attorney to type the answer.
6 we learned that Michelle Cohen was not telling us 6 Q Okay. And, I mean --
7 the truth, the issue we had tracking that sheet of 7 A And had my attorney known that out of the entire
8 paper down, it was -- it was significant. 8 answer, you were going to seize upon this one
9 Remember, that bank doesn't have branches. They 9 single word and try to parse it down to whether I
10 certainly don't have any branches in South 10 later learned that some of the money or all of the
11 Carolina. They're based out of Raleigh. They're 11 money would've been wired, we probably would have
12 never in the office. Stan (as spoken) Stacy was 12 spent a lot of time making what I think should be
13 hard to find, so we were doing a lot of things to 13 obvious to you, clear. But it is obvious that we
14 obtain this letter. The simplest way to get it, if 14 knew a wire was being sent. What we didn't learn
15 Michelle Cohen had had it -- and why would I think 15 until later was whether it was for all the money
16 she was lying to me about having a letter? And a 16 for both pieces or just some of the money. If
17 perfectly normal thing for a real estate agent to 17 you'd like us to amend to say that, I'm sure we
18 go get, to get their deal done. The simplest thing 18 could. But it should be obvious from the answer.
19 to do is get it from her. And she didn't have it. 19 Q It's obvious that the word "later" is completely
20 Q Okay. But, go back to the first page of this 20 unnecessary and inaccurate?
21 exhibit -- 21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
22 A Uh-huh. 22 A Is that a question?
23 Q -- and what you put in your answer. 23 Q Yeah.
24 A Uh-huh. 24 A I disagree with you that the word "later" is
25 Q That you found out later the funds were going to be 25 unnecessary and inaccurate.
Page 223 Page 224

1 Q What does "later" mean? 1 Pyade in November 2014?
2 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 2 A What do you mean by "better"?
3 A Tucker, you know what "later" means. 3 Q Well, the last paragraph of that affidavit says
4 Q So, tell me. Right? "After"? 4 that when he contacted Ms. Golding and asked her
5 A (No response.) 5 what happened to the half-a-million-dollar offer,
6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 28, "Affidavit 6 she said, "We got a better one." What offer was
7 of Ross "Buddy" Lindsey [sic], III." 7 that?
8 Q All right. We'll talk about 28. I recognize the 8 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
9 time period is when you are, at best, a baby 9 A Well, you'd have to ask Henrietta Golding what she
10 lawyer. But my question is -- and I have been 10 was referring to if she indeed said this. I don't
11 through 17,000 pages of documents, and e-mails, 11 know that she said this. Buddy Lindsay says she
12 texts -- do you have any reason to disagree with 12 did. I can't possibly imagine . . .
13 what Mr. Lindsay says in the affidavit? 13 You know, to -- to be clear, there's more than
14 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 14 one aspect to an offer. There's money, but there
15 A I have no knowledge -- I mean, let me take that 15 are other features of an offer, right? Two people
16 back. I have knowledge that "Buddy Lindsay" is in 16 could offer the same amount of money, but one of
17 fact "Ross Buddy Lindsay," so I can say, "Yeah. I 17 them be more trustworthy or solvent, etc., and that
18 absolutely agree with that." And I believe he's 18 would make that a "better offer." It could also be
19 over 18. As to the rest of this affidavit, I don't 19 true that a smaller dollar figure offer that was
20 know one way or another. I wasn't a participant in 20 able to close in cash -- you know, not borrowing
21 any of these conversations that he refers to. I 21 money -- or close earlier, might be better than a
22 can't tell you whether he -- what he said, didn't 22 slightly higher one that closes later or is
23 say, etc. I just -- I don't know. I wasn't there. 23 contingent on financing.
24 Q Okay. Are you aware of any offers that were better 24 So I can't -- what she meant by "better
25 than the half-a-million-dollar offer made my Noam 25 offer," it could mean any number of things. I

Page 225 Page 226

1 don't know. You'd have to ask her. 1 that's what I saw.
2 Q Okay. Well, I did. And she doesn't remember much. 2 Q I think initially it was one contract for
3 But my specific question to you is: Are you 3 everything but four, and then they broke them up,
4 aware of any other offers that were anywhere close 4 before he actually bought them, into individual
5 to half a million dollars for Sea Palms 1? 5 contracts.
6 A Just for that one building? 6 And would you agree that -- well, let me say -
7 Q Uh-huh. 7 - let me phrase it this way: Do you have any
8 A I don't remember offers more or less than that for 8 information that Sea Palms 1 and 2 were sold for
9 just that one building. And as far as I recall, 9 $85,000 less than the single offer from Mr. Pyade?
10 the offers that I saw were all for groups of 10 A I don't have any information on the offer from Mr.
11 buildings, an entire package, for a lot more money 11 Pyade, so I can't tell you whether such an offer
12 than $500,000. You know, for a million or a 12 exists or what it was for. I see what Buddy
13 million two, something along those lines. So it 13 Lindsay says, but I don't -- I don't know anything
14 was apples and oranges. 14 about that.
15 Q Do you remember how the ultimate purchaser of Sea 15 Q Okay. If Val Trask and Noam Pyade both confirmed
16 Palms 1 and Sea Palms 2, Shai David -- how his 16 what he says, do you have any idea why she would
17 offer and acceptance was done? Was it individual 17 say there was a "better offer" --
18 contracts, or was it one global contract? 18 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
19 A I don't remember for certain. I -- my recollection 19 Q -- than the half a million dollars from Noam Pyade?
20 is that it might have started as a single global 20 A Well, I could --
21 contract that -- that got broken out into 21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
22 individuals that were supposed to be mutually 22 A I can only speculate as to why Henri said whatever
23 contingent. That's my -- my memory. I'm not 23 she said. And, again, I don't know that she said
24 certain. I mean, if you have the contracts, I 24 this. I know that Buddy Lindsay says she said
25 could look at them and tell him -- tell you if 25 this. I could only speculate as to that. I can't
Page 227 Page 228

1 do that. 1 know anything about a Noam Pyade offer.
2 I've also said that "better offer" can refer 2 Q Okay.
3 to a lot of other things besides dollar figure: 3 A Whether it existed? Who told who about it? What
4 rapidity of closing, reliability of the buyer, 4 was done about it? I just -- it -- it's -- you may
5 contingency on financing, any number of things. So 5 as well ask me about the, you know, inner workings
6 if you want to know what she meant on a particular 6 of the Chinese parliament. I just -- I have zero
7 occasion by "better offer," the -- you would have 7 knowledge on that subject.
8 to ask her what she meant. 8 Q Okay.
9 Q Okay. Do you know why she didn't tell Jack about 9 MR. PLAYER: Let's take -- oh, Lord -- a quick
10 the Noam Pyade offer? 10 break. I think I'm done.
11 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 11 MR. WATSON: Is Mary Madison still on here?
12 A I don't know that there was a Noam Pyade offer. I 12 (Off the record from 3:43 p.m. until
13 don't know that if there was, Henrietta didn't tell 13 3:52 p.m.)
14 Jack. I was not present for every conversation 14 THE EXAMINATION BY MR. PLAYER CONTINUES.
15 that Henrietta had with Jack, so I can't tell you 15 MR. PLAYER: I do not have any further
16 what she did or didn't tell him -- 16 questions for Mr. Jefferies.
17 Q Sure. And -- and -- 17 THE DEPONENT: Thank you.
18 A -- at any time. 18 MR. PLAYER: (To the deponent) Please answer
19 Q -- my question is just, do you know any -- anything 19 any questions that anybody else has.
20 about the offer or why Jack wasn't told or what the 20 MR. WATSON: I have no questions. Mary
21 "better offer" was that -- they -- caused them to 21 Madison, do you have anything? Mary Madison?
22 reject it? 22 MR. PLAYER: (To Ms. Langley) You're on mute?
23 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 23 MR. WATSON: Mary Madison?
24 A Your presumption is that Jack wasn't told about 24 MS. KARON MITCHELL: (To Mr. Watson) She said
25 some offer. I don't know that to be true. I don't 25 she'd be leaving right at -- to go pick up the

Page 229 Page 230

1 kids, I think. 1 look at this."
2 MR. WATSON: Yeah. (To all counsel) Do you 2 A I learned that Nicole no longer worked at PNC,
3 think we can take this as "no questions"? All 3 roughly, two or three weeks ago. And that was my
4 right. That's it. Thank you very much. 4 first knowledge of it.
5 (Off the record from 3:53 p.m. until 5 MS. N. RABON: That's it.
6 3:54 p.m.) 6 MR. PLAYER: (To Mr. and Ms. Rabon) That it?
7 EXAMINATION 7 MS. N. RABON: (To Mr. Rabon) Is that it?
8 BY MR. RABON: 8 MR. RABON: Yep. That's it.
9 Q Since Karon didn't seem to have too much motivation 9 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT.
10 when it happened, did you get Nicole fired from her 10 (Whereupon, there being no further
11 job? Did you send a packet of stuff that -- 11 questions, the deposition was
12 because, I mean, you're -- very few people knew 12 concluded at 3:55 p.m.)
13 where she worked, so -- or did you give it to Henri 13 (*This transcript may contain quoted material.
14 -- or did -- did you, you yourself, anybody else, 14 Such material is reproduced as read or quoted
15 did you have anybody else, did you have any 15 by the speaker.)
16 involvement in it, a wink, a nod, a handshake, 16 (**Certificate accompanies sealed original
17 anything? 17 only.)
18 A I had -- 18
19 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. (To the 19
20 deponent) But go ahead. 20
21 A I have no knowledge that Nicole stopped working at 21
22 PNC Bank until about two or three weeks ago, when I 22
23 saw it in an affidavit. I don't know whether she 23
24 was fired or whether she quit, but I -- 24
25 Q Well, somebody sent a big package, said, "Take a 25

Transcript of the
Deposition of
Bhumi Patel
5/9/2019
Mitchell, et al. v. Rabon, et al.

2017-CP-26-05757
COPY
Southern Reporting, Inc.
Phone: 803.749.8100
Fax: 803.749.9991
Email: Depos@southernreporting.net
CC
Bhumi Patel Page 1 (1 - 4)
Page 1 Page 2
1 State of South Carolina 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
In the Court of Common Pleas
2 County of Horry 2 For the Plaintiffs:
3 3 1415 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
4 Karon Mitchell, Kyle Mitchell, 4 By: Tucker S. Player, Esq.
and Rabon & Rabon, Inc., tucker@playerlawfirm.com
5 Plaintiffs, 5
For the Defendants McNair Law Firm and
6 6 Lane Jeffries:
V. 2017-CP-26-05757 Robinson Gray Step & Laffitte, LLC
7 7 1310 Gadsden Street
Jack Rabon, Nicole Rabon, Lane Jeffries, McNair Columbia, SC 29201
8 Law Firm, P.A., Atid Properties, LLC, 8 By: J. Calhoun Watson, Esq.
Daisy Ridge, LLC, Friends of LBS, LLC, cwatson@robinsongray.com
9 Sarah Ginsburg, Jacob Biderman, Gabriel Yosef, and 9
Michelle Cohen, For the Defendants Sarah Ginsburg, Jacob Biderman,
10 Defendants. 10 Atid Properties and Friends of LBS:
The Brittain Law Firm, PA
11 11 4614 Oleander Drive
Deposition of: Bhumi Patel Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
12 12 By Telephone: Tommy Brittain, Esq.
Location: 2411 Oak Street, Suite 201, Founders Centre tommyb@brittainlawfirm.com
13 13
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina For the Defendant McNair Law Firm:
14 14 Burr Forman McNair
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 100 Calhoun Street
15 15 Charleston, SC 29402
Time: 9:23 a.m. - 10:24 a.m. By: David Mills, Esq.
16 16 dmills@burr.com
Court Reporter: Erica N. Creel
17 17
18 The deposition is taken pursuant to notice and/or 18 I N D E X
19 agreement, in the above-entitled cause pending in 19 Page
20 the above-named court and pursuant to the South 20 Examination by Mr. Player 4
Examination by Mr. Brittain 47
21 Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
Page 3 Page 4
1 1 S T I P U L A T I O N S
E X H I B I T S
2 2 It is stipulated among Counsel that this
Pg/ln Ex. Description
3 3 deposition is being taken pursuant to the South
Premarked 1 Email
4 4 Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; and that all
Premarked 2 Email
5 5 objections, except as to the form of the question,
Premarked 3 Email
6 6 are reserved until the time of trial.
Premarked 4 Email
7 7 It is also stipulated among Counsel for the
Premarked 5 Email
8 8 respective parties and the deponent that the
9 9 deponent will reserve the right to read and sign
10 10 this transcript.
11 11 THEREUPON,
12 12 Bhumi Patel,
13 13 being first duly sworn by the court reporter, as

14 14 hereinafter certified, testified as follows:
15 15 E X A M I N A T I O N
16 16 BY MR. PLAYER:
17 17 Q Ms. Patel, my name is Tucker Player. I
18 18 represent the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Have you
19 19 ever had your deposition taken before?

20 20 A No, sir.
21 ** Uh-huh = Affirmative 21 Q Have you ever taken a deposition before?

Huh-uh = Negative
22 22 A Yes, I have.
23 23 Q Okay. So do you understand the rules
24 24 that we have to go by in the deposition about

25 25 answering and having discussions with Cal about any

Page 5 Page 6
1 questions that I were to ask you? 1 while you were in Manning?
2 A Yes. 2 A Real estate.
3 Q Okay. How long have you been a lawyer? 3 Q Okay. What kind of real estate?
4 A Eleven years. 4 A Transactional.
5 Q Where did you graduate from law school? 5 Q Commercial, residential?
6 A Charleston School of Law. 6 A Both.
7 Q Okay. Have you worked at McNair since 7 Q Okay. What percentage would be
8 you graduated? 8 commercial versus residential?

9 A No. 9 A I would say fifty-fifty.
10 Q Where did you work before? 10 Q Okay. Do you usually represent the
11 A I worked for an attorney named 11 buyers or the sellers?

12 Bill Deschamps. 12 A Both.
13 Q Okay. So you -- 13 Q Okay. Do you have any regular
14 A For six years. He's in Myrtle Beach. 14 consistent clients with regard to your real estate
15 Q And what did he do? 15 practice that you represent?
16 A He did -- when I initially graduated, 16 A I do have a builder client --
17 we did mostly foreclosure work because I graduated 17 Q Okay.
18 in 2008 -- 18 A -- that's a consistent residential
19 Q Okay. 19 client.
20 A -- so -- and we also did a little bit 20 Q Okay. Just one?
21 of litigation. 21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. 22 Q Okay. What do you know about this
23 A And a little bit of real estate when 23 lawsuit?

24 the market picked back up. 24 A Not much.
25 Q Okay. What have you done primarily 25 Q Okay. Do you understand the
Page 7 Page 8
1 transactions that we're mostly focused on in the 1 A Not that I recall.
2 lawsuit? 2 Q Jack Rabon or Nicole Rabon.
3 A At the time, yes. 3 A Occasionally.
4 Q At the time, what do you mean? 4 Q Okay. With regards to this -- and just
5 A I remember the transactions from -- 5 for purposes of designating transactions, you're

6 I'm sure I remember the transactions from when 6 going to have to go by my mind, because that's the
7 they occurred. 7 way it's set up. There were two transactions that I
8 Q Okay. 8 believe you worked on with Brad King in February and

9 A I don't have much memory of them 9 March of 2015 for the sale of two Rabon and Rabon
10 because it was so long ago. 10 Hotels. Do you recall that?
11 Q Okay. Okay. I want to make this as 11 A Vaguely, yes.
12 quick as possible because I know you're not billing 12 Q Okay. And then the one that's mostly
13 hours right now. So I'm going to ask a couple of 13 focused -- that this case is focused on I call the
14 preliminary questions that will kind of clear the 14 September closings, which was the sale of -- back
15 way. Did you ever speak with Jacob Biderman? 15 then it was Building Three. Now It's called the
16 A Not that I recall. 16 Palms Court. And it was the transaction with
17 Q Okay. Did you ever speak with -- 17 Jacob Biderman, Sarah Ginsburg and their companies.
18 MR. BRITTAIN: Excuse me, I couldn't 18 So when I say the September closing, that's --
19 hear her response. 19 that's what I'm talking about.
20 THE DEPONENT: Not that I recall. 20 A Okay.
21 MR. BRITTAIN: Yes, ma'am. 21 Q Okay. With re--- with regards to the
22 BY MR. PLAYER: 22 September closings, who was in charge of

23 Q -- Sarah Ginsburg? 23 representing the seller from McNair?
24 A Not that I recall. 24 A In the transaction?
25 Q Okay. Karen Mitchell or Kyle Mitchell. 25 Q Yes.

Page 9 Page 10
1 A I was. 1 September closings?
2 Q Did you answer to anybody? 2 A Do not recall.
3 A I had a supervising attorney, 3 Q Okay. Did Lane mention it to you in any
4 Lynn Stevens. 4 way?

5 Q Lynn Stevens. Okay. Did you ever have 5 A Do not recall.
6 any emails with Mr. Stevens about that transaction? 6 Q Would that be something that you would
7 A It's Ms. Stevens. 7 recall in that kind of transaction?

8 Q Ms. Stevens, I'm sorry. 8 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
9 A And, no, I don't recall that I did, 9 THE DEPONENT: I mean, the
10 but I can't say for sure that I did not. 10 transactions -- there's checks related to
11 Q Okay. At any time during your handling 11 transactions all the time. There's monies that are
12 of the transaction, did you become aware that -- did 12 disbursed, monies that come in. Generally those
13 anybody tell you they had a fear Mr. Biderman was 13 funds are stated on a settlement statement. So if
14 not going to follow through with the transaction? 14 they were, then that's how the settlement took
15 A No, I don't believe I represented 15 place. If not, I am not aware of any checks outside
16 Mr. Biderman so I would not have known that. 16 of what may be on the settlement statement.
17 Q Okay. But if you were representing the 17 BY MR. PLAYER:
18 seller and the buyer was reneging in some way, would 18 Q Okay. Now, you seem pretty definitive
19 that information have not eventually made it to you 19 in that, and we tend to not be definitive in our
20 as -- as -- 20 nature. So why are you so definitive that if money
21 A Possibly, but I do not recall that. 21 was exchanged, it had to be on the HUD?
22 Q Okay. You don't recall that. Do you 22 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
23 recall any receiving or having any knowledge of 23 THE DEPONENT: That is how I do my
24 three checks written to McNair Law Firm from 24 practice and that is how I would expect it to be
25 Mr. Biderman for 45,000 dollars apiece for the 25 done. And I didn't handle the disbursement because
Page 11 Page 12
1 I represented the sellers. I cannot say for sure 1 signing, you know, the settlement statement are
2 there was no money outside of closing, but not that 2 stating that it's true and accurate.
3 I'm aware of. 3 Q Right. And I think that disclosure on
4 BY MR. PLAYER: 4 the bottom of it is -- it's crime to lie to the

5 Q Sure. I want to make something 5 federal government.
6 absolutely clear. I'm not here accusing you of 6 A Yes.
7 doing anything wrong. I'm just -- this is for 7 Q Do commercial HUDs ever get presented to
8 information and primarily about the documents that 8 the federal government?
9 are in front of you. But I used to do real estate, 9 A I'm not sure.
10 and I want to ask you a question about your -- how 10 Q Okay. Is -- are HUDs presented to the
11 you handle it because you were the one in charge 11 federal government only in cases governed by
12 from McNair, correct? 12 R.S.P.A.?
13 A Uh-huh. 13 A Generally.
14 Q Okay. And just yes or no. Uh-huhs 14 Q Okay. Okay. I think that's the general
15 are -- 15 questions. We'll start with -- and that's just --
16 A Yes, I'm sorry, yes. 16 those are your copies, put that on the bottom.
17 Q It's okay. If she types out every um 17 MR. WATSON: These are her copies?
18 that I do then I'll look like an idiot so. See. 18 MR. PLAYER: No -- well, those are your
19 With regards to the HUD ONE is there ever -- what's 19 copies. I'm going to hand her the originals.
20 wrong with making a false statement on a HUD ONE in 20 MR. WATSON: In the same order, right?
21 a commercial transaction? 21 MR. PLAYER: This is Exhibit -- what
22 A There -- I mean, there's everything 22 we've marked as Exhibit 1.

23 wrong with it. You -- you're not supposed to make 23 BY MR. PLAYER:
24 a false statement. I believe there's a statement 24 Q And from my review, these look like some
25 on the bottom of the HUD ONE that the parties 25 of the initial emails that were exchanged once it

Page 13 Page 14
1 looks like the September closings were going to 1 MR. WATSON: Beginning to end.
2 actually happen. 2 MR. PLAYER: And is that how they were
3 MR. WATSON: Let me just say this for 3 separated with regards to the presentation from
4 the record. 4 McNair in discovery? Because like, for example, I
5 MR. PLAYER: Sure. 5 don't care if it's on the record. Exhibit 1, the --
6 MR. WATSON: This is a continuing 6 the production was done 007002 to 70011. And from
7 objection so that I don't have to do it every time. 7 eight back, it's just the same -- it's repeating the
8 But some of the Bates numbers that were presented as 8 same emails from before, but I guess, when we talk
9 potential exhibits -- and I presume these follow 9 about what is the chain, I just don't know what --
10 what you told me -- were not the full email chain. 10 MR. WATSON: But I mean --
11 So to the extent they are incomplete, I would just 11 MR. PLAYER: -- McNair's position
12 object. I'll put that objection on the record and 12 because I'm using your documents, and if McNair's
13 I'll do it for all the exhibits and that way I won't 13 position is that 7002 through 11 because that's the
14 have to do it for each one. 14 way it was presented is the full chain?
15 MR. PLAYER: Okay. Well, actually, I 15 MR. WATSON: No, our position is that
16 think that one -- and I -- and just, I guess, for 16 the full chain is the first email to the last email
17 clarification, when you say email chains, are you 17 and rather than one in the middle. And it may be
18 talking about all of the emails that came in that 18 that it makes no difference, or that's it's in the
19 batch of numbers in McNair's production? 19 context of your questions or this deposition
20 MR. WATSON: Yes, to the extent any of 20 there's -- it's irrelevant. I'm just saying that
21 the email chains that you were presenting as 21 some of them were presented were not the complete
22 exhibits do not include the entire chain, I -- I 22 chain from beginning to end. And to the extent that
23 just lodge an objection to that. 23 is relevant or makes a difference, we -- I would

24 MR. PLAYER: Okay. And I guess my -- my 24 just put that objection out there now so that it
25 question is, how do you define the chain? 25 will continue through the deposition.
Page 15 Page 16
1 MR. PLAYER: Okay. I just didn't know 1 Because it's difficult to -- we'll -- we'll deal
2 if there was something specific or -- 2 with that later. That's fine.
3 MR. WATSON: No. No. I mean, several 3 BY MR. PLAYER:

4 of the emails or the groups of documents that you 4 Q Let's see. Page 7002 at the bottom,
5 identified were not the complete chain. And I'm 5 this is from you to Laurie at Emery Law Group. That
6 assuming that you had specific exchanges within the 6 was my last question. Sorry to jump. You
7 chain to want to question -- 7 represented the seller in this transaction, correct?

8 MR. PLAYER: Yes. 8 A From my recollection yes, that's --
9 MR. WATSON: -- the witness on. Which 9 okay.

10 is -- which is fine and that's appropriate. All I'm 10 Q Okay. And Ms. Melanie Emery represented
11 saying is that to the extent that the email chain 11 the buyer. Is that your recollection?
12 contained something -- 12 A That's my recollection.
13 MR. PLAYER: Something that's not 13 Q With regards to communication with
14 contact -- 14 clients that are represented by attorneys, what is

15 MR. WATSON: -- something before or 15 your position with regards to speaking -- could you
16 after that may make a difference, we object as -- as 16 have spoken with Jacob Biderman without going
17 to the -- to the completeness. 17 through Mel--- Melanie Emery during that time period
18 MR. PLAYER: Yeah. 18 when you were trying to formulate -- complete the
19 MR. WATSON: And I'll say that now so 19 transaction?
20 that it will carry through on all of these exhibits 20 A I'm generally really strict on myself
21 to the extent it applies. 21 about not contacting clients on the other side,
22 MR. PLAYER: And I don't have any 22 especially if they're represented by counsel. I
23 objection. I just wanted -- 23 go through them even -- sometimes if I get emails

24 MR. WATSON: Yeah. 24 coming from the clients on the other side, I do
25 MR. PLAYER: -- make sure I understood. 25 not respond. I forward it directly to their e---

Page 17 Page 18
1 to their attorneys and let them know. 1 A No.
2 Q So even though it's not an adversarial 2 Q Okay. So what -- what were the fees
3 transaction, you still go through the attorney. Is 3 for?

4 that correct? 4 A They were fees that were due to
5 A Yes. 5 McNair Law Firm on other matters that were owed.

6 Q Okay. Down here, please charge 6,000 6 Q Okay. And there was no need to document
7 dollars per closing for McNair's fees. So -- and 7 that to the closing attorney.
8 I've gotten -- both Henry and Lane have said that 8 A Not unless the client required or
9 that wasn't a charge for the closing fee. 9 request of it.

10 A Correct. 10 Q Okay. Was it ever presented to the
11 Q What was it for? 11 client?

12 A McNair's fees. 12 A I don't recall.
13 Q What fees. 13 Q Okay. Did you ever have any meetings
14 A Attorney's fees. 14 with Jack and Nicole to discuss those charges?

15 Q Was an itemized bill or any 15 A No.
16 documentation supporting that charge ever provided 16 Q Okay. Would that have been the
17 to Emery or -- or anybody? 17 responsibility of somebody else in the firm?

18 A They would not have requested that. 18 A Yes, either Lane Jeffries or
19 They just wanted to know how much we wanted to 19 Heneretta Golding.

20 charge on those closings. 20 Q Okay. Because they were the attorneys
21 Q And that's my question. Is this a 21 in charge of the files that were being charged?
22 charge -- because there were two closings and it was 22 A They were the -- they -- yes, the fees
23 6,000 dollars apiece. Was it your understanding was 23 that were being charged were -- was for their
24 that was a charge for representing the seller in 24 represent--- their representation of the Rabon's.
25 that transaction? 25 Q Okay. All right. On page 00703 is the
Page 19 Page 20
1 next one. You will see the -- the first full email 1 would have printed an email as I generally do, and
2 on the page from Laurie at Emery Group. Michelle 2 put in the file if it's related to that matter.
3 emailed me this morning. Do you know who Michelle 3 BY MR. PLAYER:
4 is? 4 Q Okay. What about if you had gotten a
5 A Not that I recall. 5 phone call?

6 Q Okay. Do you remember a woman named 6 A Then I would have -- I don't know who
7 Michelle Cohen? 7 she is. I don't recall if she called me and why
8 A The name sounds familiar, but I do not 8 she would have called me.
9 recall from where or what. 9 Q Because she was the real estate agent on
10 Q Did you ever have any communications 10 the transaction.

11 with Ms. Cohen while you were representing the 11 A Okay.
12 sellers? 12 Q Michelle Cohen?
13 A I do not recall if I did. 13 A Okay.
14 Q Okay. Do you recall Ms. Cohen ever 14 Q And someone has testified that she told
15 communicating to you that she had the release from 15 McNair that she had obtained a signed release from
16 West Town Sign, but she would not provide it until 16 West Town's attorney, but she would not turn it over
17 her brother was paid money for operating a hotel? 17 and the closing could not occur until her brother
18 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 18 was paid money.
19 THE DEPONENT: No recollection of that. 19 A I don't know who --
20 BY MR. PLAYER: 20 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
21 Q Okay. If -- if that had happened, would 21 THE DEPONENT: -- her brother is and I
22 it have been something that you would have 22 don't recall any such conversation.
23 documented? 23 BY MR. PLAYER:
24 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 24 Q Okay. With anybody?
25 THE DEPONENT: Not that I recall. I 25 A No.

Page 21 Page 22
1 Q Okay. On 03 the next sentence, buyer is 1 A From my recollection, Lane was the
2 ready to sign and money is in the U.S. -- is in a 2 attorney for the Rabon's. He represented the
3 U.S. account. Do you remember what she was talking 3 Rabon's on other matters. The Rabon's felt
4 about when she made -- when she sent you that email? 4 comfortable with him, and Lane wanted to stay
5 A Do not recall. 5 involved in the matter, and he needed me for the
6 Q Okay. You recall anything about the 6 transactional part.
7 wires that were sent on this file. 7 Q Okay.
8 A Do not recall. 8 A So representation. So he -- he wanted
9 Q Okay. I haven't been in my office since 9 me to copy him on and keep him involved in the
10 last Thursday so just give me a chance to make sure. 10 transaction.
11 I don't want to -- I want to cut this as quickly as 11 Q Okay. Did you engage in any
12 I can. So I'm just trying to make sure. Do you 12 negotiations with the two banks because. BB&T was
13 recall -- no, I just asked that question. 9/4 seems 13 taking a short sale and waiving deficiencies, and
14 to be an important date that is being tossed back 14 West Town was doing a partial release. Did you ever
15 and forth between you and Lane and Laurie. Why was 15 have any communications with the representatives of
16 November -- I mean, September 4th such an important 16 those banks with regards to negotiating what they
17 date? Do you recall? 17 would accept as part of the transaction to release
18 A Do not recall. 18 their lien?
19 Q Okay. Okay. We're going to Number 2. 19 A Communications? Yes. Negotiations, I
20 This is a bank one. Now, earlier we talked about 20 do not recall.

21 you were the associate in charge of -- of 21 Q Okay. Okay. This one -- these may seem
22 representing the seller on this file. Can you tell 22 to be relatively simple questions, but there's a
23 me why Lane was communicating with West Town. 23 method to my madness. This is an email from
24 That -- what was -- was his duties on that that you 24 Lane Jeffries to Dan Stacy. Do you know who
25 can recall. 25 Dan Stacy is?

Page 23 Page 24
1 A Yes, I do. 1 not have the partial release necessary for the
2 MR. WATSON: Are you talking about 190? 2 closing.
3 MR. PLAYER: Yeah, sorry. 3 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
4 BY MR. PLAYER: 4 THE DEPONENT: I cannot tell you that
5 Q The first -- the email up town, Dan, any 5 from this email. I can't recall.
6 paperwork from West Town? So you know that Dan 6 BY MR. PLAYER:
7 Stacy represented West Town? 7 Q Okay. Well, when he says, I'm giving
8 A I gathered that from this email, yes. 8 approval and should have that today. Would they
9 Q Okay. I didn't know if you recalled it 9 sign a release before the U.S.D.A. approved it?
10 or -- 10 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
11 A I do not -- I did not recall that, but 11 THE DEPONENT: I -- I don't recall the
12 I gathered it from this email. 12 order of what was happening at that time.
13 Q Okay. And the date of this is 13 BY MR. PLAYER:
14 September 2nd, 2015, correct? 14 Q Okay. What was necessary to close this
15 A That's what it appears to be. 15 transaction with regards to West Town? What did
16 Q And 10:35 a.m. was the time that this 16 they have to provide for this transaction to close?
17 email was sent? 17 A And I do not recall, but obviously
18 A That's what it says on the email. 18 I've seen these emails.

19 Q Do you have any reason to believe that 19 Q Sure.
20 these emails are inaccurate with regards to their 20 A And so it -- it could be some sort of
21 dates or times? 21 release is what I gather from reading the emails.

22 A No. 22 Q Okay. And if -- if they had a second
23 Q Okay. So is it fair to say that at 23 mortgage on this property, in order to provide clear
24 10:35 on September 2nd, 2015, both you and Lane 24 title to the new buyer, what would you need from
25 knew -- or that you knew that -- that Dan Stacy did 25 West Town?

Page 25 Page 26
1 A A release -- a partial release of the 1 not from my own recollection.
2 property or a satisfaction. 2 Q Certainly.
3 Q Okay. Let's go to 791. 3 A And he asked Laurie and I -- or I --
4 A And can I clarify. I was not -- 4 and I to do so and I did it since we represented
5 Q Absolutely, you -- 5 the seller.
6 A -- I was not providing any title 6 Q Okay.
7 insurance or anything related to this transactions 7 A It's normal. Nothing out of the
8 so -- 8 ordinary that I can see.

9 Q Sure. 9 Q Sure. And -- and it's, you know, my
10 A -- okay. 10 main question is, when Dan Stacy asked at 2:10 p.m.
11 Q So 791 this is from you on September 2nd 11 on September 2nd, 2015, for you to send over the
12 at 2:29 p.m. What are you sending to Dan? 12 partial release to sign, is it fair to assume at
13 A It looks like I've attached a mortgage 13 that -- that you knew at that point he had not
14 satisfaction, and I do not recall what the 14 signed a partial release?
15 A.O.R. -- it must be an assignment of rent 15 A Yes.
16 satisfaction is -- is what I can gather rather 16 Q Okay. 7193 and this one, starting in
17 than a partial release as -- and it says -- I'm 17 the middle, the email from Dan Stacy, we are not
18 just reading the email. As the property being 18 satisfying, and then the top. And you just read
19 sold releases all the property subject to 19 those and let me know what happened -- what those --
20 indebtedness in favor of West Town Bank. So 20 what information were those two emails conveying to
21 that's what I had attached. 21 you?
22 Q Okay. And what was that in response to? 22 A That the satisfaction that I sent was
23 A Dan had asked for a partial release 23 not going to work, and they wanted a partial
24 for the lender to sign, and Lane forwarded it to 24 release to be drafted.
25 me. I'm -- I'm recollecting by reading the email, 25 Q Okay. And did Lane respond to Dan's
Page 27 Page 28
1 request? 1 signed anything.
2 A He said he agreed with Dan. 2 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
3 Q Okay. So if you look on the next 3 THE DEPONENT: Yes.
4 page -- or actually it's going backwards so we'll 4 BY MR. PLAYER:

5 jump to 7196. I guess that's -- that's 5 Q Okay. Why is that?
6 September 3rd. Okay. All right. 7200. Sorry. I 6 A Because I'm still delivering the
7 don't know. All right. 7--- okay. I think I've 7 documents to them that they wanted to sign unless
8 got it straight now. I've got it. When I printed 8 Dan had prepared separate documents for them to
9 mine out, I didn't have the Bates stamp numbers 9 sign.
10 so -- can I look at it real quick. This is what I'm 10 Q But this is the same email chain where
11 looking for. Sorry. I have mine under wrong -- 11 he says send me what you want me to sign, correct?
12 we'll look at 7199. That's the one I was maybe 12 A Uh-huh. Yes.
13 looking at. And then your response to that, that's 13 Q So what basis would you have to think in
14 the continuation of the chain with Lane and Dan when 14 any way that Dan Stacy had already drafted something
15 they said it's -- it's not a full release. It's a 15 when he's asking you to draft the original and then
16 partial. And then up top, what do you tell them? 16 also asking you to amend it.
17 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 17 A I think you had asked me whether they
18 THE DEPONENT: I tell them -- I'm 18 had been signed, and I said my documents that I
19 reading the email. Dan, see attached. Again I 19 sent have obviously not been signed because I'm
20 apologize for the confusion. 20 just attaching them so...
21 BY MR. PLAYER: 21 Q Okay. And that was my question. And I
22 Q What time was that? 22 guess the best thing to do -- I screwed up and got
23 A 3:23 p.m. 23 them out of order. There is an email where you
24 Q Okay. So is it fair to say that at 24 finally send the documents to Dan. It's in that
25 3:00 on September 2nd, you knew West Town had not 25 chain. It should be -- if you can find that email

Page 29 Page 30
1 and tell me what time it was. 1 satisfactions.
2 A I don't -- I don't know. 2 BY MR. PLAYER:
3 Q So let me see. Look at 7199. 3 Q There's no rule of thumb as to who gets
4 A Okay. 4 it.
5 Q I'll look for just a second. 5 A One of the attorneys would probably --
6 A Uh-huh. 6 or their staff.

7 Q Okay. And I think that's up top. Are 7 Q But in terms of one party is always
8 you sending the revised document to Dan at that 8 responsible for it.
9 point? 9 A Every transaction is a little
10 A It -- my email sounds like I am. 10 different -- commercial transactions. Some --
11 Q And does the email indicate that there 11 when I do purchasers' sides, I want to make sure
12 were attachments? 12 those partial releases are done or satisfactions
13 A Yes. 13 are done, so I'll try to, if allowed, communicate
14 Q Okay. And what time was that? 14 directly with whoever the lender is or the
15 A 3:23 p.m. 15 mortgage holder is. Sometimes I put that onto the
16 Q Okay. With regards to you being the 16 seller's attorney. It just depends.
17 attorney in charge of the closing I guess -- who's 17 Q Okay. All right. Hold on. All right.
18 ultimate responsibility did -- would it normally be 18 And then 7206, I'm not sure if it's on that one, but
19 to obtain releases from mortgage holders on the 19 I think it is. I think that should be the next to
20 property where you represent the seller? 20 the last page. And there's an email where Lane sent
21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 21 to Dan Stacy. Do you see that?
22 THE DEPONENT: The question you're 22 A Yes.
23 asking is a little interesting. I mean, the 23 Q And at that point, what is Lane asking
24 seller's attorney would, or the buyer's attorney 24 for?

25 would sometimes get partial releases or 25 A The signed documents.
Page 31 Page 32
1 Q Okay. So if he's asking for it, is 1 attorney for the seller?
2 it -- is it fair to say he knew that it didn't exist 2 A That the wire transfer has been
3 at that point? 3 initiated.

4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 4 Q Okay. And that was on
5 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 5 August 31st, 2015?

6 BY MR. PLAYER: 6 A It appears to be, yes.
7 Q Okay. 7 Q Okay. Did you know anything about
8 A Or if they existed, we hadn't picked 8 this -- the other issues with Rabon and Rabon when
9 them up yet. 9 you were handling the September closings in terms of
10 Q Sure. 10 the litigation that Henry and Lane were handling?
11 A But he's -- scratch that. All right. 11 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
12 Number 3? 12 THE DEPONENT: Besides that there was
13 MR. WATSON: Is this the 7044? 13 something that they were handling, no.
14 MR. PLAYER: No, this is -- and these 14 BY MR. PLAYER:
15 may be -- this is 715 -- no -- yes. 15 Q Okay.
16 MR. WATSON: 7044? 16 A Not the specifics.
17 MR. PLAYER: Yeah, I really didn't drink 17 Q Did you have any information about how
18 enough coffee this morning. Your -- this is 701 -- 18 much -- how much of Rabon and Rabon's money it might
19 yes, this is 7044. I just don't have it in front of 19 have held in trust for payment of expenses?
20 me. There, sorry, 7044. 20 A No.
21 By MR. PLAYER: 21 Q Okay. But you knew that in the
22 Q The top email, this was from Emery Law 22 transaction, the seller was going to walk away with
23 Group to you and Lane. And when she says, we have 23 excess cash from the Brick House sale or do you
24 already asked the buyer to initiate the wire 24 recall?
25 transfer, what does that tell you as the closing 25 A I do not recall.

Page 33 Page 34
1 Q But you drafted -- did you draft the 1 A By communicating with the law firm.
2 HUDs or did the Emery firm do that? 2 Q Okay. And how do you determine if the
3 A Emery would have done that. 3 buyer has paid all the money required on the HUD?
4 Q But you would have reviewed them before 4 A By communication with the law firm
5 the final closing? 5 that's handling the transaction.

6 A For my sellers' side, yes. 6 Q Okay. Would you ever call the buyer
7 Q Okay. Would you have gone to the 7 directly and ask him if he was represented by
8 closing? 8 counsel?
9 A No, usually transactions like these, 9 A No.
10 your clients signs at your office, their client 10 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that on
11 signs at their office and then you deliver 11 August 31st you knew the buyer was going to be
12 documents. 12 wiring the money for the transactions?
13 Q Okay. Do you have any idea when you got 13 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
14 the signed documents from the Emery Law Firm? 14 THE DEPONENT: Laurie has informed me.
15 A I would not have gotten -- well, they 15 BY MR. PLAYER:

16 would have been emailed to me because I didn't 16 Q Okay. And did you have any reason not
17 handle the transaction for the purchaser, so I 17 to believe her?

18 wouldn't have the originals delivered to me. They 18 A No.
19 would have been the other way around. 19 Q Okay. Now, we'll go to 7158. And the
20 Q And I guess not necessarily originals, 20 top email, what is being communicated in that email
21 but how would notification -- to my understanding, 21 that was sent to both you and Lane?
22 like you said, buyers going to one lawyer's office, 22 A That the buyer is transferring the
23 sellers going another. How do you normally find out 23 money now, and they're all set on their end.
24 if the se--- the buyer has appeared and signed 24 Q If the buyer was backing out of half of
25 the HUD? 25 the transaction, is that an accurate statement?

Page 35 Page 36
1 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 1 buying the hotel, would you expect his attorney or
2 BY MR. PLAYER: 2 somebody from that side to inform you of that?
3 Q And I guess I'll give you a little more 3 A Yes.
4 information. This transaction was a hotel, a 4 Q And if they sent an email on
5 parking lot, which were kind of together, and then 5 September 1st saying, he's transferring the money
6 there was this brick house. They were two separate 6 now, we're all set on our end. Is there any
7 contracts. 7 indication that he's backing out of any part of this

8 A Okay. 8 deal?
9 Q If Jacob Biderman had said, I am not 9 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
10 buying the brick house, and Emery knew that on 10 THE DEPONENT: Not unless they
11 September 1st and sent that email to you, would that 11 communicated that with us otherwise. I --
12 be a false email? 12 BY MR. PLAYER:

13 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 13 Q And you would expect that communication
14 THE DEPONENT: I -- I'm not sure I 14 to come from Emery Law Firm?
15 understand your question. 15 A Yes.
16 BY MR. PLAYER: 16 Q Okay. And the last one. This is
17 Q The transaction that you were handling 17 December, 2014. So this is before any of the
18 for the seller, it was to sell -- it was two 18 transactions. This is before both any contracts
19 separate transactions that according to what was 19 that have been executed for the sale of these
20 filed with different courts, it was a mutually 20 properties. This is the settlement agreement of the
21 contentious transaction, a hotel and a brick house. 21 ongoing litigation between the two parties. You got
22 Do you recall that? 22 copied. I just didn't know why. Because it didn't
23 A Vaguely. 23 seem like you were part of any of the Rabon and
24 Q Okay. If Jacob Biderman had decided in 24 Rabon litigation bonanza at that point and -- but
25 the last two days before the closing, I'm only 25 you're getting copied on the potential settlement

Page 37 Page 38
1 agreement and acknowledged. I didn't know why. 1 from the proceedings.)
2 That was the first one where I saw your name 2 MR. PLAYER: Two quick follow-up
3 mentioned. 3 questions and then I'm done, Tommy, you want me to

4 A Uh-huh. 4 do them or do you want to go first.
5 Q And it was earlier than I had seen where 5 MR. BRITTAIN: No, go ahead -- go ahead.
6 you actually were representing parties with regard 6 That's fine.

7 to the Rabon's, and I'm just wondering do you recall 7 BY MR. PLAYER:
8 it and what that was about. 8 Q If there is a payment to be made related
9 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 9 to a real estate transaction, should it be on

10 THE DEPONENT: I do not recall this 10 the HUD?
11 email. I just saw the email this morning and 11 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
12 sometimes Henry will copy me any time there's a 12 THE DEPONENT: It can be or it can be
13 closing involved so that I'm aware of something 13 paid outside of closing.

14 pending or coming down the streamline. 14 BY MR. PLAYER:
15 BY MR. PLAYER: 15 Q Do you -- aren't you supposed to make
16 Q Do you ever conduct business closings 16 P.O.C. notations on the HUD that's paid outside of
17 for the transfer of business assets? 17 closing?
18 A Sometimes. 18 A Are you talking about attorneys?
19 Q So you have done that? 19 MR. BRITTAIN: Object to the form.
20 A Yes. 20 THE DEPONENT: Are you talking about
21 Q Okay. Well, then that makes sense. 21 attorney's fees or are you talking about -- what
22 MR. PLAYER: You want to take a quick 22 kind of payment?
23 break? Let me just look through this. I think I'm 23 BY MR. PLAYER:
24 done. I might have a couple of follow-ups. 24 Q All right. If an individual had been
25 (Whereupon, a break was taken 25 working at the hotel that was being sold, and he
Page 39 Page 40
1 claimed he was owed money, and he was going to be 1 is it a better practice to make sure it's on
2 paid that money at or around the closing, would that 2 the HUD?
3 necessarily have to be on the HUD? 3 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 4 THE DEPONENT: I don't know if it's
5 THE DEPONENT: I don't -- I don't know. 5 required. I think that it would be better practice
6 I think it's based on other circumstances, and I 6 to put any monies that are supposed to be disbursed
7 don't know the full circumstances of what you're 7 on the HUD.
8 talking about. 8 BY MR. PLAYER:
9 BY MR. PLAYER: 9 Q Okay.
10 Q Okay. Well, what circumstances would 10 A If -- especially if it's coming out of
11 require it to be listed on a commercial HUD? 11 the net sale proceeds but...

12 A If the parties required it or agreed 12 Q Right. Is there ever a situation where
13 to it. I'm not sure I follow your question 13 money is being exchanged between the buyer and the
14 because... 14 seller for any type of renovations or investment
15 Q Okay. In this situation, there -- there 15 that is related to the sales transaction that is not
16 is testimony that the real estate agent was holding 16 required to be on the HUD?
17 the partial release from West Town essentially 17 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
18 hostage. I have it. I'm not giving it to you until 18 THE DEPONENT: Depends on the
19 you pay my brother for the work he did on the hotel 19 transaction and the circumstances.
20 that you're selling. And my question is, if -- if 20 BY MR. PLAYER:
21 he was supposed to be paid for work at that hotel 21 Q What type of circumstances?
22 and that money was being paid as part of this global 22 A I don't have the full facts of what
23 transaction to sell the hotel and the brick house, 23 you're asking me. It all depends. It's fact
24 in your practice it's kind of two fold. Is it 24 based.

25 required to be on the HUD, and if it isn't required, 25 Q Okay. The -- if the buyer is going to

Page 41 Page 42
1 pay -- he's signed the contract. I'm paying 400,000 1 the HUD?
2 dollars to purchase this house, and then they say, 2 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
3 well, you're going to have to pay another 100 for, 3 THE DEPONENT: If it's not related to
4 you know, an investment fee. And does that 4 the buy and sale of the real estate transaction, it
5 100,000 dollars have to be on a HUD? 5 does not have to be on the HUD.
6 A If it's not related to the real estate 6 BY MR. PLAYER:
7 transaction. 7 Q Okay. So I guess what I'm asking is,
8 Q Would there -- if the 100,000 dollars 8 what -- what factors or variables do you look at to
9 was a fee that they had to pay to be able to 9 determine if it's related to the sales transaction?
10 purchase the property, does that have to be on the 10 A If it's the purchase price for the
11 HUD? It is a condition of purchase. 11 property, if it's --

12 MR. WATSON: I'm going to go ahead and 12 Q Can you just -- can you --
13 object to the form of that as well. 13 MR. WATSON: You need to let her finish
14 THE DEPONENT: I still don't think I 14 her answer.

15 understand the full facts. Because there could be 15 BY MR. PLAYER:
16 circumstances outside of what you're saying. I -- 16 Q Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
17 I'm not sure I understand -- 17 A Go ahead.
18 BY MR. PLAYER: 18 Q If it was required, I'm not going to
19 Q Okay. I'll make it easier. In this 19 sell it to you unless you pay me an additional
20 case, our contentions are that we'll just take -- 20 100,000 dollars under the table.
21 there were two contracts. It was 397,000 dollars 21 MR. BRITTAIN: I object to this -- let
22 for the hotel, 145,000 for the brick house. And 22 me -- let me state an objection here. You've asked
23 then an additional 235,000 dollars was paid that 23 this question four or five different ways and she's
24 wasn't listed on the HUD. Can you think of any 24 answered it. And you're not giving her the
25 situation where that could legally not be placed on 25 predicate that's proper in this case for the claims
Page 43 Page 44
1 of all the parties. And -- and I'm -- I'm -- I like 1 Q That it does have to be on the HUD?
2 to let things go, but your five or six questions and 2 A It depends on other facts of the case.
3 have -- as you move down the line, you're 3 Again, I -- I'm -- and you said something about
4 eliminating contentions of the parties that are 4 under the table and we didn't finish, but I
5 facts. So the answer to the question is going to be 5 don't -- I don't agree with anything under the
6 meaningless at this point. I think that she's 6 table. So I'm not sure what you were trying to
7 expressed her view that she doesn't have enough 7 ask me earlier.
8 information to answer any better than she has. So I 8 Q And I guess it just comes down to this
9 object to any further inquiry on this point. 9 question. They're -- I mean, they're saying I'm
10 MR. PLAYER: Okay. 10 getting too specific with the facts. In this case
11 MR. WATSON: You've still got to answer 11 397,145 dollars, 145 were paid on the HUD. An
12 and I'll object -- I object to the form and I'll 12 additional 235 was paid to different -- different
13 continue to object to the form. 13 parties.
14 THE DEPONENT: Can you repeat the 14 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
15 question. 15 BY MR. PLAYER:

16 BY MR. PLAYER: 16 Q And I, you know, what they call it, you
17 Q If -- it the seller received additional 17 know, varies. Obviously Mr. Brittain and his client
18 monies from the buyer that were related to the hotel 18 have a different nomenclature for the transaction,
19 and brick house that he was purchasing, did that 19 but if the payments that weren't on the HUD were
20 need to be listed on the HUD? 20 related to the sales transaction, is that proper?
21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. And 21 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
22 incorporate the objections -- 22 THE DEPONENT: Can you repeat that last
23 THE DEPONENT: If it were related to -- 23 question?

24 If it's related to the real estate transaction. 24 BY MR. PLAYER:
25 BY MR. PLAYER: 25 Q If -- if 235,000 dollars were paid to

Page 45 Page 46
1 the seller and -- on the seller and it wasn't listed 1 parties agree for it not to be on the HUD, then if
2 on the HUD, and that 235 was related to the sale of 2 it's not related to the dirt -- the real estate
3 the property, did it have to be on the HUD? 3 transaction -- that's up to them.
4 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 4 BY MR. PLAYER:
5 THE DEPONENT: I cannot answer that 5 Q Okay. And -- and again, it is. I'm
6 question. I -- I don't have enough information. 6 just asking you to take that -- that presumption
7 You're saying it's related to the transaction. I'm 7 that it is related to the real estate.
8 saying it has to be related to the real estate 8 A Did the parties want it to be on the
9 transaction. 9 settlement statement?

10 BY MR. PLAYER: 10 Q No, they didn't want anybody to know
11 Q Well, that's what I'm saying. It's 11 about especially the banks that were giving a
12 related to the real estate -- it's related to the 12 deficiency judgment.
13 sale of the real estate. 13 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
14 MR. BRITTAIN: Well, that's not a fair 14 BY MR. PLAYER:

15 proposition so I object to the form. 15 Q That were giving up a deficiency
16 MR. WATSON: I object to the form, too. 16 judgment and taking a short sale.
17 THE DEPONENT: I cannot answer that 17 A And I'm not a --
18 question. I do not have enough information. 18 MR. WATSON: Object to the form.
19 BY MR. PLAYER: 19 THE DEPONENT: I'm not aware of any of
20 Q And can you give me hypothetical 20 those facts so I cannot answer that question.
21 situation where it would be proper it doesn't have 21 BY MR. PLAYER:
22 to be on the HUD? 22 Q Okay. So we can go back to the emails.
23 A If the parties agree -- 23 You don't remember that BB&T was taking a short sale
24 MR. WATSON: Object to the form. 24 on a hotel?
25 THE DEPONENT: I apologize. If the 25 A I do not recall if it was a short sale
Page 47 Page 48
1 or if they were agreeing on a price, because I 1 BY MR. BRITTAIN:
2 have not seen those settlement statements -- 2 Q Listen in all these questions that Mr.
3 Q Okay. 3 Player, who is a great guy and a very fine lawyer
4 A -- in a while. 4 who is a friend of mine, has been asking you, let me

5 Q Okay. Well, what about with Dan Stacy 5 propose a -- a situation to you and see what your
6 and West Town? 6 opinion is. If -- if Biderman and my crowd bought
7 A They wanted a partial release. It 7 the hotel and somebody told them, hey, you're going
8 looks like there was a number on one of those 8 to need to spend some money after you buy it to fix
9 emails, but I don't recall the amount. 9 it up and, you know, we're happy to do that for you.
10 Q Okay. 10 And it's going to cost X. Then it would be
11 A On how much they were going to be 11 perfectly appropriate with the transaction to buy
12 taking for the partial release. 12 the property to be expressed in the closing
13 Q Okay. 13 documents, and that subsequent payment for
14 MR. PLAYER: No further questions. 14 renovations be made outside of closing. There is no
15 E X A M I N A T I O N 15 question about that, is there?

16 BY MR. BRITTAIN: 16 A The -- I think both of you have asked
17 Q Ms. Patel, this is Tommy. How you doing 17 me questions of things that I'm not personally
18 this morning? 18 aware of. So I don't feel comfortable answering
19 A Good, how are you? 19 those questions one way or the other.
20 Q I'm doing good. I hadn't seen you in a 20 Q But you certainly would -- you're not
21 while. You -- you working hard? 21 prepared to say that somebody who pays for
22 A Trying, David's here so I have to say 22 renovations after purchasing a hotel has an
23 yes. 23 obligation to put it on a HUD form?
24 Q Good. 24 A I generally go by what's on the
25 MR. MILLS: You're under oath. 25 contract and that's how I do --

Page 49 Page 50
1 Q Okay. 1 Q You don't remember meeting this young or
2 A -- my transactions. 2 maybe a little older Jewish lady who signed these

3 Q And if those renovations aren't on the 3 forms?
4 contract, they wouldn't show up on the HUD form, 4 A I do not recall.
5 would they? 5 Q So you don't have any knowledge of her
6 A If I was not aware of them and the 6 sophistication with respect to how to handle these
7 parties did not want it to be on the settlement 7 matters?
8 statement, I would have no way of knowing. 8 A Do not recall.
9 Q What do you know about Jacob Biderman? 9 Q You trusted Ms. Emery to represent them
10 You ever met him? 10 in connection with this matter, didn't you?
11 A Not that I can recall. 11 A I understand the Emery Law Firm was
12 Q And Jacob Biderman is one of the 12 involved in representing the purchaser. I do not
13 significant religious leaders of southern Europe. 13 recall who the purchasers were -- or purchaser
14 Have you looked into that? 14 was.
15 A No. 15 Q You work with Ms. Emery on a relatively
16 Q Are you prepared to render any testimony 16 consistent basis in real estate transactions, don't
17 other than the fact that he is a man of high 17 you?
18 character in this area. 18 A I'm not sure what consistent means. I
19 A I don't know him. 19 probably dealt with her in a couple of matters.

20 Q Are you accusing him of any misconduct, 20 Q You got any problems with Ms. Emery, Ms.
21 Ms. Patel? 21 Patel?
22 A I do not know him. 22 A No, sir.
23 Q Did you meet Ms. Sarah Ginsburg who is 23 Q You don't have any knowledge as you sit
24 part of this -- present there for the closing? 24 there today that any single person involved in this
25 A No, not that I can recall. 25 transaction committed any kind of fraud on the bank,
Page 51
1 the seller or anybody else, do you?
2 A Not that I'm aware of.
3 Q Thank you.
4 MR. BRITTAIN: I have no further
5 questions.
6 MR. WATSON: I have none either.
7 (Deponent Excused.)
8 (Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m.,
9 the taking of the foregoing
10 deposition was concluded.)
11 (**Certificate accompanies sealed original
12 only.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DD
EE
r
t
Patel, Bhumi
From: laurie@emeryiawgroup.com
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:08 AM
To: Patel, Bhumi
Subject: RE: Rabon & Rabon
Good Morning,
I am working on the 2 HUDs right now for the Rabon & Rabon deal. I have a question regarding the lis pendens
release. I have never done one and I was curious, is there a fee when you clock these in? I am trying to collect
all ofthe release fees on the HUD. Also, w/ attorney fees, pro-ration of tax credit and government recording
fees, I assume the seller is wiring the balance to our trust account since we need $397,000 to send to BB&T and
$7500 to West Town. Correct?
Laurie Beimler
Real Estate Paralegal
Emery Law Group
1705 N. Oak Street, Suite 2
Myrtle Beach,SC 29577
Phone: 843-712-1375
Direct Dial: 843-353-2305
Fax: 843-375-6628
EmeryRealEstateLaw.com
NOTE: We require closing does by NOON the day before settlement or closing WILL be delayed/rescheduled.
All Closing Funds will need to be Wired to our office. Wiring instructions will be provided prior to your
settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client privileged, attorney work product, or
strictly confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error., please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
Original Message
From: "Patel, Bhumi" <BPatel@mcnair.net>
Date: Thu, August 27, 2015 3:36 pm
To: "laurie@emerylawgroup.com" <laurie@emerylawgroup.com>, "Jefferies,
Lane" <Uefferles@mcnair.net>, Melanie Emery <info@emerylaw.pro>
Laurie, please charge $6,000 per closing for McNair's fees.
Thanks,
1
GG
McNAIR_007002
Bhumi A. Patel
Associate
MCNAIR bpatel@mcnair.net
A TTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 I Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main 1 843 444 4729 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 i Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
VCard I Bio URL I Web site
requested.
From: laurie@emerylawRroup.com [mailto:laurie(@emerylawgroup.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:49 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>; Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>; Melanie Emery
<info@emerylaw.pro>
Lane,
Michelle emailed me this morning. Buyer is ready to sign and money is in a US

account. At this point I can put the $7500 payoff to West Town on the 1st HUD
and wait for the letter but what I do need are your firm's fees. I know we have 2
separate HUDs in this deal but I want to knock it all out and have both ready to
present to everyone ASAP. Is there any way to have those numbers in my hands
by today or tomorrow at the latest? I don't think we have any other fees
outstanding.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
M yrtle Beach, SC 29577
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
N OTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day before settlement or closing
WILL be delayed/rescheduled. All Closing Funds wil l need to be Wired to our
office. Wiring instructions will be provided prior to your settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client

privileged, attorney work product, or strictly confidential information. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone at the number above.
2
McNAI R_007003
Original Message
From: "Jefferies, Lane" <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
To: "laurie6lemerylawgroup.com" <laurie@emerylawgroup.com>, "Patel,
Bhumi" <BPatel@mcnair.net>, Melanie Emery <infoPemerylaw.pro>
Cc: "KSpong@robinsonlaw.com" <KSpongProbinsonlaw.com>
Laurie -- Excellent! Thank you. Will you touch base with Michelle Cohen to make sure her buyer is
aware of the timing? I understand his funds may be coming from overseas, so I'd much prefer he wire
them now to your trust account rather than waiting, considering how unpredictable international
wires can be. Thanks again, Lane
From: laurie(a@emerylawgroup.com imailto:laurie(@emerylawgroup.com)

To: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>; Patel, Bhumi <BPatel(a@mcnair.net>; Melanie Emery
<info(cDemerylaw.pro>
Cc: KSpong@robinsonlaw.com
This is why I feel we need to just close on 9/2 or 9/3 given all the
documents are ready and then wire funds out that same day after the
deed is recorded rather than wait until the 4th. We can make that
happen.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
EmeryReaIEstate Law.com
NOTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day before settlement or

closing WILL be delayed/rescheduled. All Closing Funds will need to be
Wired to our office. Wiring instructions will be provided prior to your
settlement.

privileged, attorney work product, or strictly confidential information. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
McNAI R_007004
communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the
n umber above.
Original Message
From: "Jefferies, Lane" <Uefferies(a@mcnair.net>
To: "Patel, Bhumi" <BPatel(abmcnair.net>, "laurie(obemerylawgroup.com"
<IauriePemerylawgroup.com>, Melanie Emery <info Cr. emerylaw.pro>
Cc: "KSpong(cbrobinsonlaw.com" <KSpong(drobinsonlaw.com>
Laurie, Melanie, Bhumi, and Kerk:
I defer to y'all to work out the details of the wire/check. Hcwever, please keep at the forefront
of your minds that the entire deal rests upon 88&T getting its money before midnight on
September 7, 2095. As a practical matter (given Labor Day), this means end-of-day on the
4"'.
BB&T has been very clear that if we miss the deadline for any reason, our deal is 100%
dead.
Therefore, considering the unpredictability of life, please do whatever you can in order to
close this as early next week as possible, and certainly not later than the morning of the 41'
Thanks,
Lane
i Lane D. Jefferies
Associate
ImtC— NAI R liefferies(a)mcnair.net 1 843 443 3059 Direct
A TTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 1 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main 1 843 444 3964 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 1 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
VCard J Bio URL J Web site
requested.
From: Patel, Bhumi

To: laurie@emerviawgroup.com; Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies(a@mcnair.net>
If you expect there to be any delay in wiring, just let Lane know and he will arrange for a
check to be delivered to his BB&T contact so it reaches of time.
Thanks,
McNAI R_007005
Bhumi A. Patel
Associate
bpatel(o)mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1 843 444 4729 Fax
VCard I Bio URL J Web site
requested.
From: laurie@emerylawgroup.com [mailto:laurie@emerylawgroup.com]

To: Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>; Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
If we close before 9/4 and sign, the money can be deposited into
our trust account. That gives us time to record and then by 9/4 the
funds will be "live" with our bank and we can turn around and wire
the money out first thing that morning. Will that work? Of course if
we close 9/2 I can wire out money on 9/3. It just depends when
everything comes together.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
'Direct Dial: 843-353-2305
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day before settlement

or closing WILL be delayed/rescheduled. All Closing Funds wil l need
to be Wired to our office. Wiring instructions wil l be provided prior
to your settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-

client privileged, attorney work product, or strictly confidential
i nformation. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please
i mmediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
McNAI R_007006
Original Message
From: "Patel, Bhumi" <BPateKi)mcnair.net>
Date: Thu, August 27, 2015 11:56 am
To: "Jefferies, Lane" <LJefferiesPmcnair.net>
Cc: "KSpong(d)robinsonlaw.com" <KSpong(&robinsonlaw.com>,
"lauriePemerylawgroup.com" <Iaurie(aIemerylawgroup.com>
May we please get the wiring instructions? Laurie from

E mery Law firm would like to go ahead and have those ready
please. Laurie, if we close on or before the 4th, how soon
can the wire be sent to BB&T?
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
Associate
M C NA1 br)atel{cDmcnair.net
A TTORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1 843 444 4729 Fax
VCard 1 Bio URL I Web site
requested.
From: Jefferies, Lane

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 4:19 PM
To: Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>
Subject: FW: Rabon & Rabon
See attached.
From:I Kershaw Spong [mailto:KSpong@robinsonlaw.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 4:08 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Cc: Williams, Sue <SAWilliams@BBandT.com>; Angela L.
Williams <AWilliamsProbinsonlaw.com>
Lane,
Here is executed Short Sale letter. Pls note Sept 7th is Labor Day, the day before
the f/c sale date. Probably easier on everybody if this close at least by Friday the
5th . best Kerk Spong
McNAI R_007007
ROBINSON MCFADDEN
ATTOAAE.Yû A00 COUMSVLOKGU AT LAW
J.Kershaw Spong Post Office Boa 944

P: 803-227-1101 Columbia, South Carolina 29202
F:803-744-1543
KSpong@robinsonlaw.com P:(803)779-8900
v-card
TiltMtRITAS"LlfW' rlRiFS WORlrIja'lDf
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments)is being sent
by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender
does not intend to waive any privilege, including the aftorney-client privilege, that may attach to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain,
copy,forward or disseminate this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies.
McNAIR_007008
i'
Patel, Bhumi
From: laurie@emerylawgroup.com
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 1:58 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane; Patel, Bhumi
Subject: RE: FW: RABON - Short Sale Approval Ltr
Yes, that is how we would like to handle this as well. We have already asked the buyer to initiate the wire
transfer and pro-rations are based on 9/2 as the settlement date. Thanks and keep me posted.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We .require closing dots by NOON the day before settlement or closing WILT. be delayed/rescheduled.
settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client privileged, attorney work. product, or
strictly confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended .recipient, you are hereby
received this communication. in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
Original Message
Subject: RE: FW: RABON - Short Sale Approval Ur
From: "Jefferies, Lane" < Llefferies(a)mcnair.net>
Date: Mon, August 31, 2015 1:53 pm
To: "laurie@emerylawgroup.com" <laurieCd)emerylawgroup.com>, "Patel,
Bhumi" <BPatel(&mcnair.net>
Suggestion — let's continue to aim for 9/2 at 10am as currently planned.

From: laurie@emerylawgroup.com f mailto:laurie(cDemervlawgroup.comj
Sent: Monday, August 31, 20151:51 PM
Cc: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Subject: RE: FW: RABON - Short Sale Approval ltr
The deeds look good. I circulated both HUDs last week and I was just waiting to
hear back from your office. I was all set to close on 9/2 at 10am but for the letter
from West Town Mortgage and your approval of the Settlement Statements.
Please advise.
1
McNAIR-007044
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
EmervReaI Estate Law.corn
N OTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day before settlement or closing
WILL be delayed/rescheduled. All Closing Funds wil l need to be Wired to our
office. Wiring instructions will be provided prior to your settlement.

privileged, attorney work product, or strictly confidential information. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone at the number above.
Original Message
Subject: FW: RABON - Short Sale Approval Ltr
From: "Patel, Bhumi" <BPatel@mcnair.net>
Date: Mon, August 31, 2015 1:48 pm
To: "laurie(cemerylawgroup.com" <laurie(a)emerylawgroup.com>
Cc: "Jefferies, Lane" <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Laurie,
See attached short sale approval letter for BB&T. We believe we should
have the West Town Letter today or tomorrow.
Anything else you need from us? Did you receive/view the draft deeds?
Again, it is very important we close on or before the 4th to verify the wire
reaches BB&T on time.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
Associate
M c- N A I R br)atel cDmcnair.net
A TTORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1 843 444 4729 Fax
2
McNAI R_007045
VCard J Bio URL J Web site
requested.
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer
or law firm and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the
attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept,
read, print, retain, copy, forward or disseminate this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies.
McNAI R_007046
Patel, Bhumi
From: laurie@emerylawgroup.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:44 AM
To: lefferies, Lane; Patel, Bhumi; Melanie Emery
Subject: RE: FW: rabon
Sounds good. The buyer is transferring money now. We are all set on our end. Thank you for the update.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day before settlement or closing WILL be delayed/rescheduled.
All Closing Funds will need to be Wired to our office. Wiring instructions will be provided prior to your.
settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client privileged, attorney work product, or
strictly confidential information. If the .reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are'hereby
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
Original Message
Subject: FW: rabon
From: "lefferies, Lane" < Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Date: Tue, September 01, 2015 11:39 am
To: "Patel, Bhumi" <BPatel@mcnair.net>, "laurie@emerylawgroup.com"
<laurie@emerylawgroup.com>, Melanie Emery <info@emerylaw.pro>
To All:
See the below response to my call this morning to Dan Stacy in follow up to our conversation yesterday.
West Town knows that this deal closing on time is the only way they will receive any money at ag for their second
mortgage, since it will be extinguished on Tuesday if the deal doesn't.go through.
I suggest we continue to plan on closing tomorrow morning at ten. I'll keep after Dan,and we will get the letter when we get
it.
Best,
Lane
From: Dan Stacy [mailto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com]

McNAIR_007158
Subject: rabon
I am getting USDA approval and should have that today per my client. We will
do the deal.
Daniel W. Stacy, Jr.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
90 Wall Street, Unit B
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication (including attachments) is being sent

by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential or legally
privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privliege,
i ncluding the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this
commnunication. If you are not the intended recepient, you are not authorized to
i ntercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this
communication. if you have received this communication in error, please notify
sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies.
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance with requirments imposed by the

IRS, we inform you that any US Federal Tax advice contained in this
communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties uner the internal
revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein. This advice may not be forwarded (other
than to the taxpayer to whom it has been sent) without our express written
consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED AND IS NOW

DSTACY@OXN ERAN DSTACY.COM
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm
and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the attomey-client privilege,
that may attach to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward or
disseminate this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this
communication and all copies.
McNAI R_007159
Patel, Bhumi

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:25 AM
To: laurie@emerylawgroup.com; Patel, Bhumi
Cc: Brady, Donna
Subject: RE: rabon closing
Categories: DM,#9213433:062992:00002: UEFFERI
Thanks. Let's tentatively schedule for that time. I'll contact the sellers to coordinate with their schedules(they are in and out of town
over the next few days, but I'm not sure of their exact schedule). I'll check and let you know. Lane
From: laurie@emerylawgroup.com [mailto:laurie@emerylawgroup.comj
Sent: Wednesday,September 02,2015 9:22 AM
To:Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>; Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>
Subject: RE: rabon closing
We can close the buyer side at l Oam tomorrow morning. A revised HUD for each of the properties will follow
shortly.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We require closing does by NOON the day before settlement or closing WILL be delayed/rescheduled.
settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client privileged; attorney work product, or
strictly confidential .information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthe communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
Original Message
Subject: RE: ration closing
Date: Wed, September 02, 2015 9:17 am
To: "Patel, Bhumi" <BPatelCcbmcnair.net>
Cc: "iaurie0emerylawgroup.com" <Iaurie(cbemerylawgroup.com>
Bhumi —
McNAIR-007174
No letter yet. Therefore, I called Laurie and have rescheduled the closing for
tomorrow. She will advise as to time. Let's talk when you return.
Best,
Lane
From: Patel, Bhumi

To: Jefferies, Lane < LJefferies@mcnair.net>
Subject: Re: rabon
Lane I have an out of the office meeting this morning but plan to be back by 10
a m when Nicole and jack plan to come in. Please follow up on west town bank
release letter please.
Thanks,
Bhumi
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Jefferies, Lane < LJefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:

Thanks Melanie. 1 know it's frustrating. Lane
From: Melanie Emery [mailto:info@emerylaw.pro]

To: Jefferies, Lane < LJefferies@mcnair.net>
Cc: Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>; laurie@emerylawgroup.com
Subject: Re: rabon
.That's fine with me. Proceed forward Laurie.
-Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typos or brevity.
Melanie Anne Emery, Esquire

EMERY LAW GROUP
M yrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577
Office - 843.712.1375
Direct - 843.997.0010
Melanie@ Emery Law.Pro
www.EmeryRealEstateLaw.com
McNAI R_007175
The information contained in this e-mail message may be
attorney-client privileged, attorney work product, or strictly
confidential information. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the
number above.
On Sep 1, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Jefferies, Lane

< Uefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:
To All:
See the below response to my call this morning to Dan Stacy in follow up to our
conversation yesterday.
West Town knows that this deal closing on time is the only way they will receive any
money at all for their second mortgage, since it will be extinguished on Tuesday if the
deal doesn't go through.
I suggest we continue to plan on closing tomorrow morning at ten. I'll keep after Dan,
and we will get the letter when we get it.
Best,
Lane

To: Jefferies, Lane <Llefferies@mcnair.net>
Subject: rabon
I am getting USDA approval and should have that today

per my client. We will do the deal.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication (including

attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or
law firm and may contain confidential or legally privileged
i nformation. The sender does not intend to waive any
privliege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may
attach to this commnunication. If you are not the
i ntended recepient, you are not authorized to intercept,
read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this
communication. if you have received this communication
in error, please notify sender immediately by email and
delete this communication and al l copies.
McNAI R_007176
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance with
requirments imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any
US Federal Tax advice contained in this communication
(including attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
penalties uner the internal revenue code or (ii)promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein. This advice may
not be forwarded (other than to the taxpayer to whom it
has been sent) without our express written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED AND IS

NOW DSTACYPDXNERANDSTACY.COM
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being
sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential or legally privileged information.
The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach
to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print,
retain, copy, forward or disseminate this communication. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies.
McNAI R_007177
Patel, Bhumi

To: Dan Stacy
Cc: Patel, Bhumi
Subject: RE: rabon
D.a. n -.Any paperwork from West Town? The buyers, sellers, agents, and closing attorneys are giving me no peace! Best, Lane
. ····- . .. ·----- -----·--·~- ·--·---#~-·--·- ---···--. ---·--· ·-· --•···~- ---
Subject: rabon
I am getting USDA approval and should have that today per my client. We will do the deal.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication (including attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm
and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privliege,
including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this commnunication. If you are not the intended recepient,
you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this communication. if you have
received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all
copies.
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance with requirments imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any US Federal
Tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments} is not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties uner the internal revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This advice may not be forwarded (other
than to the taxpayer to whom it has been sent) without our express written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED AND IS NOW DSTACY@OXNERANDSTACY.COM
HH
I\ArNAIR nn1rnn
..
-~.
Patel, Bhumi
From: Patel, Bhumi

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 2:29 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane
Cc: laurie@emerylawgroup.com; Dan Stacy
Subject: RE: west town
Attachments: MYRTLEBEACH-#213156-vl-Mortgage_Satisfaction_-_West_Town_Savings_Bank.DOCX;
MYRTLEBEACH -#213158-vl-AOR_Satisfaction_ -_West_Town_Savings_Bank.DOCX
Tracking: Recipient Read
Jefferies, Lane Read: 2/29/2016 6:37 AM
laurie@emerylawgroup.com
Dan Stacy
Dan,
See attached Mortgage and AOR Satisfaction. Please confirm this will be a "satisfaction" rather than a partial release as
the property being sold/released is ALL of the property subject to the indebtedness in favor of West Town Bank.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre. 24 11 Oak Street I Suite 2061 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 I Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
VCard 1Bio URL I Web site
requested.
- --·-··- -- - - - - - - - -- - - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·-- -· - --··-

Cc: laurie@emerylawgroup.com; Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Subject: FW: west town
Importance: High
_Bhumi and _Laurie - can y~get this do Dan asap? Thanks, Lane
-- - - -·- ·· - -- - - - - - - - - - - --
From: Dan Stacy [ma itto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com]
Subject: west town
Please send over the partial release for the lender to sign.
Mr.NAIR 007Hl1
·~

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
copies.
Tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot
I\Arl\lAIR 0071Q?
Patel, Bhumi

To: Dan Stacy; Patel, Bhumi
Cc: laurie@emerylawgroup.com
I agree with Dan's statement -West Town is releasing its second on Building 3 and the Middle Lot.
The other property that West Town has mortgage's on belongs to entities other than Rabon & Rabon, Inc., and so is not
implicated here.

We are not satisfying our mortgage on all of the property we have our lien on. This is only supposed to be a release for
the property we have a second mortgage on, behind BB&T. what we are expecting is a partial release. The balance of
the property I am foreclosing on.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
copies.
From: Patel, Bhumi [mailto:BPatel@mcnair.net]

Dan,
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.

Importance: High
Bhumi and L_aurie - ca_n_y_o_u get this_ ~-o _Da_n ~sap_?_T~!i.ri~s, La_l'!e. ._
Subject: west town

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
copies.
Mr.NAIR 007Hl4
~ -
be used, for the purpose of {i) avoiding penalties uner the internal revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law finn and may
contain confidential or legally privileged infonnation. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to
this communication. If you are not the intended recipient. you are not authorized to intercept. read, print, retain , copy, forward or disseminate this communication. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies.
Mc AIR 007195
•'
Patel, Bhumi
From: Patel, Bhumi

To: Jefferies, Lane; Dan Stacy
Dan, you are correct. My apologies, I was looking at the BB&T mortgage and inadvertent ly stated what I did below.
I will prepare the partial release and send to you shortly.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
1
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATT O R NEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 2061 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main I 843 444 4729 Fax
requested.
- ·•· -- --- ------ -- ·- - - •- · --· ·- - - - - -- ------ - - - -

To: Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>; Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>
I agree with Dan' s statement - West Town is releasing its second on Building 3 and the Midd le Lot.
The other property that West Town has mortgage's on belongs to entities other than Rabon & Rabon, Inc., and so is not
implicated here.
Lane
From: Dan Stacy (mailto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com]
We are not satisfying our mortgage on all of the property we have our lien on. This is on ly supposed to be a release for
the property we have a second mortgage on, beh ind BB&T. what we are expecting is a partial release. The balance of
the property I am foreclosing on .
Danie l W. Stacy, Jr.
McNAIR 007196
Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
90 Wal l Street, Unit B
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
includ ing the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this commnunication. If you are not the intended recepient,
you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this communication . if you have
copies.
- - - - - - ~ - - -----·- --- - - ----·· --------· --- - ~---

From: Patel, Bhumi [mailto:BPatel@mcna ir.net]
Dan,
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 I Myrtle Beach , SC 29578
requested.

Cc: laurie@emerylawgroup.com: Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Mr.NAIR nn71!=!7
~..J.

Importance: High
B~um_i .c1_,:id _l,!1~ri_e _-:-_~a11 yo_lJ g~_t_t~i~_~o ('.<;tn ~t:ia_p? Tha_nks, L,~n_~-- _________ ____ __ .•.•-- .• ----- ----· - ------ " - -----,- ----- --·- __ ,, ___.......
From: Dan Stacy [mai1to:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com1
Subject: west town

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
includ ing the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this commnunication. If you are not the intended recepient,
copies.
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law finn and may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to
this communication. If you are not the intended recipient. you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward or disseminate this communication . If
I\ArNAIR nn71QR
.•
Patel, Bhumi
From: Patel, Bhumi

To: Dan Stacy; Jefferies, Lane
Attachments: MYRTLEBEACH-#213156-v2- Mortgage_Satisfaction_ -_West_Town_Savings_Bank.DOCX;
MYRTLEBEAC H-#213158-v2-AOR_Satisfaction_-_West_Town_Savi ngs_Bank. DOCX
Dan, see attached. Again, apologize for the confusion.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Offic~ Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 j Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.
From: DanStacy[mailto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.comJ
We are not satisfying our mortgage on all of the property we have our lien on. This is only supposed to be a release for
the property we have a second mortgage on, behind BB&T. what we are expecting is a partial release. The balance of
the property I am foreclosing on.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication {including attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm
and may contain confidential or lega lly privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privliege,
copies.
r.ArNAIR <1<171QQ
~,r
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compl iance with requ irments imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any US Federal
be used, for the purpose of (i) avoid ing penalties uner the internal revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or
- - - - - - - -- - · ·--·
From: Patel, Bhumi [mailto:BPatel@mcnair.net]
Dan,
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAl !R Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
Please be advised that yo·u will not receive a hard copy of the contents of this email unless
requested.
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ·· -- -
To: Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnai r.net>
Importance: High
Bhumi and Laurie - can you _get this do Dan asap? Thanks, L_a_n_e_ _ ______ ___ .. --- -- - - - -- - - - - - · _ __ _____ _
Subject: west town
Please send over the partial release for the lender to sign .
Dan iel W. Stacy, Jr.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
~Ar-1\IAIQ nn7?nn
;r..
843 -235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
and may contain confidential or legally privileged informat ion . The sender does not intend to wa ive any privliege,
including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this commnunication . If you are not the intended recepient,
received this communication in error, please notify sender immed iately by email and delete this communication and all
copies.
Tax advice contained in this communication (includ ing attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding pena lt ies uner the internal revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or
recommending to another pa rty any transaction or matter addressed herein . This advice may not be forwarded (other
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law fim, and may
conta in confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege. including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to
this communication. If you are not the intended recipient. you are not authorized to intercept, read . print. retain , copy, forward or d isseminate this communication. If
I\Arl\lAIR 007?01
..
Patel, Bhumi
From: Patel, Bhumi

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:36 AM
To: KSpong@ robinsonlaw.com
Cc: Jefferies, Lane
Subject: Satisfactions for Lot 2, Lots 17-18 Block 19 closing and short sale approval
Attachments: MYRTLE BEACH -#213157-vl-ALR_Satisfaction_-_BB&T.DOCX; MYRTLE BEACH-#213155-
C vl -Mortgage_Satisfaction_-_BB&T.DOCX

KSpong@robinsonlaw.com
Jefferies, Lane Read: 9/ 3/2015 10:38 AM
Mr. Spong,
I do not recall if I had already sent these satisfactions to you in regards to t he short sale approval letter. If not, please
have these executed and send back to Lane or myself to be held until the transaction is completed and BB&T receives its
funds so the closing attorney can record same to clear up the record.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATT'ORNEYS
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.
McNA IR 007202
..
Patel, Bhumi
From: Patel, Bhumi

Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:20 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane
Subject: Rabon and Rabon, Inc.
Jefferies, Lane Read: 9/10/2015 2:23 PM
Lane,
Have we received signed copies of the closing documents and our check yet from Emery Law Firm? Wanted to get the
file off my desk ©
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
1
M~NAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
A TT ORN E YS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 1Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843 444 1107 Main J 843 444 4729 Fax
VCard I Bio URL 1Web site
requested.
Mr.NAIR 007?0~
..:
Patel, Bhumi

To: Dan Stacy
Cc: Patel, Bhumi; laurie@emeryfawgroup.com; Melanie Emery
Subject: RABON RE: west town
Dan --
Following up: Melan ie's office will close with a COPY of the partial release today, as long as it's accompanied by a letter
from you stating that the original will be Fedexed for delivery tomorrow (Friday). Of course, if the original is here in town
l am glad to go pick it up.
Just wanted to give you the heads up so that the origina l doesn't get slow-mailed here.
Do you remain certain that we can have the copy by the end of the day today?
Best,
Lane
- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -··--··
Subject: Re: west town
I wi let you know
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing or grammar. This may have been sent using Siri so please
excuse misspelled words.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Jefferies, Lane <LJefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:
Dan -- I'll come by your office myself to pick up the original when it's signed. Just let me know.
Thanks. Lane
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net> wrote:
Just sent it.
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 1Myrtle Beach, SC 2~
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
1
McNAIR 007204
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy of the contents of this email
requested.
- -- · - - . -- _ -
_. _ . ~ ~ - .,. _ - - - - -·- ·- ·- - - ··· ·- ·- -·
To: laurie@emerylawgroup.com
Cc: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>; Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>
1 have asked lane and Bhumi for a copy of the contract and the closing statement
and then I can get you your partial release
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing or grammar. This may have
been sent using Siri so please excuse misspelled words.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:46 AM, "laurie@emerylawgroup.com"

<laurie@emerylawgroup.com> wrote:
Do we have a letter so we can close this morning? I was going to

amend the sel1er docs to today's date if so. Please advise.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day before

settlement or closing WILL be delayed/rescheduled. All Closing
Funds v.-ill need to be Wired to our office. Wiring instrnctions will
be provided prior to your settleme11t.
The infonnation contained in this e-mail message may be attomey-

client privileged , attorney work product, or strictly confidential
info1mation. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone at tl1e number above.
-------- Origina l Message --------

2
t.Arl\lli.lR nn7?n.r::;
Date: Wed, September 02, 2015 3:51 pm
To: "Patel, Bhumi " <BPatel@mcnair.net>, Dan Stacy
<DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Cc: "laurie@emerylawgroup.com"
<laurie@emerylawgroup.com>
Dan - If you will let me know when you have

the documents signed, I wi ll send someone by
to pick up the originals. Thanks, Lane
Lane D. Jefferies
M · CNAIR Associate
liefferies@mcnair.net I 843 443 3059 Direct
A TT O R N E YS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 1Myrtle Be
843 444 1107 Main I 843 444 3964 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 1Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy of the contents of
requested.
- ----- ____
., _ --- - - - - - -- - - --
From: Patel, Bhum i
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 3:23
PM
To: Dan Stacy
<DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>; Jefferies,
Lane < Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Subject: RE : west town
Dan, see attached. Again, apologize fo r the

confusion.
Tha nks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 24 11 Oak Street I Suite 206 I Myrtle Be
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.
t.Arl\lli. l R nn7?n~
From: Dan Stacy
[mailto: DStacy@"OxnerandStacy.com]
PM
To: Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>;
Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Cc: lau rie@emerylawg rou p. com
We are not satisfying our mortgage on all of

the property we have our lien on. This is only
supposed to be a release for the property we
have a second mortgage on, behind
BB&T. what we are expecting is a partial
re lease. The balance of the property I am
foreclosing on.
Daniel W. Stacy, Jr;

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication

(including attachments) is being sent by or on
behalf of a lawyer or law f irm and may
contain confidential or legally privileged
information. The sender does not intend to
waive any privliege, including the attorney-
client privilege, that may attach to .this
commnunication. If you are not the intended
recepient, you are not authorized to intercept,
read, print, retain, copy, forward, or
disseminate this communication. if you have
received this communication in error, please
notify sender immediately by email and delete
this communication and all copies.
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance

with requirments imposed by the IRS, we
inform you that any US Federal Tax advice
contained in this communication (including
attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(i) avoiding penalties uner the internal
revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or .
recommending to another party any
4
Mr.NAIR 007?07
transaction or matter addressed herein. This
advice may not be forwarded ( other than to
the taxpayer to whom it has been sent)
without our express written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS

CHANGED AND IS NOW
DSTACY@OXN ERAN DSTACY .COM
From: Patel, Bhumi

[mailto: BPatel@mcnair.net]
PM
< DStacy@Oxnera ndStacy. com>
Dan,
See attached Mortgage and AOR

Satisfaction. Please confirm this will be a
"satisfaction" rather than a partial release as
the property being sold/released is ALL of the
property subject to the indebtedness in favor
of West Town Bank.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATT ORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 I Myrtle Be
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 2: 12
PM
< DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com >
Mr.NAIR 007?0R
Importance: High
Bhumi and Laurie - can you get this do Dan asap? Thank~_, Lan_e _
From: Dan Stacy

[mailto: DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 2: 10
PM
Subject: west town
Please send over the partial release for the

lender to sign.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication

(including attachments) is being sent by or on
behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may
information. The sender does not intend to
waive any privliege, including the attorney-
client privilege, that may attach to this
commnunication. If you are not the intended
recepient, you are not authorized to intercept,
read, print, retain, copy, forward, or
disseminate this communication. if you have
received this communication in error, please
notify sender immediately by email and delete
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance

with requirments imposed by the IRS, we
inform you that any US Federal Tax advice
contained in this communication (including
attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
( i) avoiding penalties uner the internal
revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein. This
advice may not be forwarded ( other than to
MrNAIR nn7?C1Q
..
the taxpayer to whom it has been sent)
without our express written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS

CHANGED AND IS NOW
DSTACY@OXN ERANDSTACY .COM
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication {including any

attachments) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain
confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend lo waive
any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward or disseminate this communication. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by
email and delete this communication and all copies.
r.ArNAIR nn7?1n
Patel, Bhumi
From: Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>

To: Jefferies, Lane
Cc: Patel, Bhumi; laurie@emerylawgroup.com; Melanie Emery
Subject: Re: RABON RE: west town
I am told I will and as soon as I know something I promise you all will know that same something
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing or grammar. This may have been sent using Siri so please
excuse misspelled words.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Jefferies, Lane <LJefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:
Dan --
Following up: Melanie's office will close w ith a COPY of the partia l release today, as long as it's
accompanied by a letter from you stating that the original will be Fedexed for delivery tomorrow
(Friday). Of course, if the origina l is here in town I am glad to go pick it up.
Just wanted to give you the heads up so that the original doesn't get slow-mai led here.
Do you remain certain that we can have the copy by the end of the day today?
Best,
lane
- - · - - ·-·- · · - - -- - -- -
From: Dan Stacy (ma ilto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com]
To: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcna ir.net>
Subject: Re: west town ·
I wi let you know
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing ·o r grammar. This may have been sent using
Siri so please excuse misspelled words.
Dan -- I'll come by your office myself to pick up the original when it's signed. Just
let me know. Thanks. Lane
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net> wrote:
Just sent it.
r.ArNA IR <1<17?11
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 2061 Myrtle Bea
643 444 1107 Main 1643 444 4729 Fax
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy of the contents of ti
requested.

Cc: Jefferies, Lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>; Patel, Bhumi
<BPatel@mcnair.net>
I have asked lane and Bhumi for a copy of the contract and the
closing statement and then I can get you your partial release
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing or

grammar. This may have been sent using Siri so please excuse
misspelled words.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:46 AM, "laurie@emeryJawgroup.com"

Do we have a letter so we can close this morning? I

was going to amend the seller docs to today's date if
so. Please advise.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone: 843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We require closing docs by NOON the day

before settlement or closing WILL be
delayed/rescheduled. All Closing Funds will need to
be Wired to our office. Wiring instrnctions will be
provided prior to your settlement.
The information contained in this e-mail message

2
I\ArNAIR ()()7?1?
may be attorney-client privileged, attorney work
product, or strictly confidential information. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of the communication is
strictly prohibited. lf you have rec~ived this
communication in e1rnr, please immediately notify
us by telephone at the number above.
-------- Original Message --------

From: "Jefferies, Lane"
<Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Date: Wed, September 02, 2015 3:51
pm
To: "Patel, Bhumi"
<BPatel@mcnair.net>, Dan Stacy
< DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com >
Cc: "laurie@emerylawgroup.com"
<laurie@emerylawgroup.com>
Dan - If you will let me know

when you have the documents
signed, I will send someone by to
pick up the originals. Thanks,
Lane
Lane 0. Jefferies
MCNAIR Associate
ljefferies@mcnair.net 1843 443 3059 Direct
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 2061
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 3964 Fax
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy of the co
requested.
From: Patel, Bhumi

Sent: Wednesday, September 02,
2015 3:23 PM
To: Dan Stacy
<DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>;
Jefferies, Lane
< Uefferies@mcnair.net>
Cc: laurie@emerylawqroup.com
Mr.NAIR 007?11
Dan, see attached. Again,
apologize for the confusion.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
A T TORNE YS
McNa i r Law Firm, P.A.
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 241 1 Oak Street I Suite 206 I
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.
- - - - -··- · - ··
From: Dan Stacy
[mailto : DStacy@OxnerandStacy.c
om]
2015 2:52 PM
To: Patel, Bhumi
<BPatel@mcnair.net>; Jefferies,
Lane < LJefferies@mcnair.net>
We are not satisfying our

mortgage on all of the property
we have our lien on. This is on ly
supposed to be a release for the
property we have a second
mortgage on, behind BB&T. what
we are expecting is a partial
release. The balance of the
property I am foreclosing on .

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
90 Wal l Street, Unit B
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This

communication (including
attachments) is being sent by or
4
Mr.NA IR 007?14
on behalf of a lawyer or law firm
and may contain confidential or
legally privileged ·
information. The sender does not
intend to waive any privliege,
including the attorney-client
privilege, that may attach to this
commnunication. If you are not
the intended recepient, you are
not authorized to intercept, read,
print, retain, copy, forward, or
disseminate this
communication. if you have
received this communication in
error, please notify sender
immediately by email and delete
Circular 230 Disclosure: to

ensure compliance with
requirments imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that any US
Federal Tax advice contained in
this communication (including
attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties uner the
internal revenue code or
(ii)promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party
any transaction or matter
addressed herein. This advice
may not be forwarded (other than
to the taxpayer to whom it has
been sent) without our express
written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS

HAS CHANGED AND IS NOW
DSTACY@OXNERANDSTACY.COM
From: Patel, Bhumi

[mailto: BPatel@mcnair.net]
2015 2:29 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane
s
I\ArNAIR ()()7?1Ci
Cc: laurie@emerylawqroup.com;
Dan Stacy
< DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Dan,
See attached Mortgage and AOR

Satisfaction. Please confirm this
will be a "satisfaction" rather than
a partial release as the property
being sold/released is ALL of the
property subject to the
indebtedness in favor of West
Town Bank.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 I
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 3361 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
requested.

2015 2:12 PM
To: Patel, Bhumi
< BPatel@mcnair.net>
Cc: laurie@emerylawgroup.com;
Dan Stacy
<DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Importance: High
Bhumi and Laurie - can you get this do Dan asap?
T_ha!_lk,S,__L<!!.1~ ____ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _..... ..
From: Dan Stacy
[mailto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.c
om]
2015 2: 10 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane
6
Mr.NA IR nn7?1R
Subject: west town
Please send over the partial

release for the lender to sign.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This

communication (including
attachments) is being sent by or
on behalf of a lawyer or law firm
and may contain confidential or
legally privileged
information. The sender does not
intend to wa ive any privliege,
including the attorney-client
privilege, that may attach to this
commnunication . If you are not
the intended recepient, you are
not authorized to intercept, read,
print, retain, copy, forward, or
disseminate this
communication. if you have
received this communication in
error, please notify sender
immediately by email and delete
Circular 230 Disclosure: to

ensure compliance with
requirments imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that any US
Federal Tax advice contained in
this communication (including
attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i)
avo_ iding penalties uner the
internal revenue code or
(ii)promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party
any transaction or matter
7
t.Art-.lA IR ()()7?17
addressed herein. This advice
may not be forwarded (other than
to the taxpayer to whom it has
been sent) without our express
written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS

HAS CHANGED AND IS NOW
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This

communication (including any attachments} is being sent by or
on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential
or legally privileged informalion. The sender does not intend to
waive any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that
may attach lo this communication. If you are not the Intended
recipient. you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain,
copy, forward or disseminate this communication. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by email and delete this communication and all
copies.
r.ArNAIR nn7?1R
Patel, Bhumi
From: Melanie Emery <info@emerylaw.pro>

To: Dan Stacy
Cc: Jefferies, lane; Patel, Bhumi; laurie@emerylawgroup.com
Subject: Re: RABON RE: west town
Dan - Just following up. I'm out of the office and didn't know if I wasn't copied on an email. Do we have a
status on the partial release? Thanks; Melanie

EMERY LAW GROUP
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.29577
Office - 843.712.1375
Direct - 843.997.0010
Melanie@EmeryLaw.Pro
www .EmeryRealEstateLaw.com
The i11formation contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client privileged, attorney work product,
or strictly confidential information. If the reader of th is message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemi11ation, distribution, or copying of tlie communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com> wrote:
I am told I will and as soon as I know something I promise you all will know that same
something
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing or grammar. This may have been sent using
Siri so please excuse misspelled words.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Jefferies, Lane <LJefferies@mcnair.net> wrote:
Dan --
Following up: Melanie's office will close with a COPY of the partial release today, as long
as it's accompanied by a letter from you stating that the original will be Fedexed for
delivery tomorrow (Friday). Of course, if the original is here in town I am glad to go pick
it up.
Just wanted to give you the heads up so that the original doesn't get slow-mailed here.
Do you rema in_certain that we can have the copy by the end of the day today?
Best,
1
Mr.NAIR 007?1!=1
lane
From: Dan Stacy (mailto:DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com)
To: Jefferies, lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>
I wi let you know
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing or grammar. This may have
been sent using Siri so please excuse misspelled words.
Dan -- I'll come by your office myself to pick up the original when
it's signed. Just let me know. Thanks. Lane
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Patel, Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>

wrote:
Just sent it.
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I Suite 206 I "'
843 444 1107 Main I 843 444 4729 Fax
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy of the con1
requested.

Cc: Jefferies, lane <Uefferies@mcnair.net>; Patel,
Bhumi <BPatel@mcnair.net>
I have asked lane and Bhumi for a copy of the

contract and the closing statement and then I can get
you your partial release
Sent from my iPhone please excuse errors in typing

or grammar. This may have been sent using Siri so
please excuse misspelled words.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:46 AM,

2
Mr.NAIR 007??0
"laurie@emerylawgroup.com"
Do we have a letter so we can close

this morning? I was going to amend
the seller docs to today's date if so.
Please advise.
Laurie Beimler
Emery Law Group
Phone:843-712-1375
Fax: 843-375-6628
NOTE: We require closing docs by

NOON the day before settlement or
closing WILL be .
delayed/rescheduled. All Closing
Funds will need to be Wired to our
office. Wiring instmctions will be
provided prior to your settlement.
The information contained in this e-

mail message may be attorney-client
privileged, attorney work product, or
st1ictly confidential infom1ation. Jf
the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of the
communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this
communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone
at the nun1ber above.
-------- Origina l Message --

From: "Jefferies, Lane"
<Ueffer1es@mcnair.net>
Date: Wed, September 02,
2015 3:51 pm
To: "Patel, Bhumi"
< BPatel@mcnair.net>,
Mr-NAIR nn7??1
Dan Stacy
< DStacy@OxnerandStacy".
com>
Cc:
"lau rie@emerylawgroup.co
m"
< laurie@emerylawqrou p.c
Dan - If you will let

me know when you
have the documents
signed, I will send
someone by to pick up
the originals. Thanks,
Lane
Lane D. Jefferies
MCN .A IR Associate
ljefferies@mcnair.net I 843 443 3059 Direct
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street I S
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 3964 Fax
~ I Bio URL I Web site
Please be advised that you will not receive a hard copy
requested.
- -- •·- -·- -- · ------

From: Patel, Bhumi
Sent: Wednesday,
September 02, 2015
3:23 PM
To: Dan Stacy
< DStacy@OxnerandSt
acy.com>; Jefferies,
Lane
< LJefferies@mcnair. n
et>
Cc:
laurie@emerylawgrou
p.com
Subject: RE: west
town
Dan, see attached.

Again, apologize for
the confusion.
Thanks,
4
MrNAIR '1'17???
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR
- .
Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street IS
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
Mailing Post Office Box 336 1Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
requested.
From: Dan Stacy

[ ma iIto: DStacy@Oxne
randStacy.com]
Sent: Wednesday,
September 02, 2015
2:52 PM
To: Patel, Bhumi
< BPatel@mcnair.net>
; Jefferies, Lane
< Uefferies@mcnair.n
et>
Cc:
laurie@emerylawgrou
p.com
Subject: RE: west
town
We are not satisfying

our mortgage on all of
the property we ·have
our lien on. · This is
only supposed to be a
release for the
property we have a
second mortgage on,
behind BB&T. what
we are expecting is a
partial release. The
balance of the
property I am
foreclosing on.
Dan iel W. Stacy, Jr.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
5
I\ArNAIR ()()7??~
Pawleys Island, SC
29585
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication
(including
attachments) is being
sent by or on behalf of
a lawyer or law firm
and may contain
confidential or legally
privileged .
information. The
sender does not
intend to waive any
privliege, including the
attorney-client
privilege, that may
attach to this
commnunication. If
you are not the
intended recepient,
you are not authorized
to intercept, read,
print, retain, copy,
forward, or
disseminate this
communication. if
you have received this
communication in
error, please notify
sender immediately by
email and delete this
communication and all
copies.
Circular 230
Disclosure: to ensure
compliance with
requirments imposed
by the IRS, we inform
you that any US
Federal Tax advice
contained in this
communication
(including
6
!\Ar.NA IR ()()7??A.
attachments) is not
intended or written to
be used, and cannot
be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding
penalties uner the
internal revenue code
or (ii)promoting,
marketing or
recommending to
another party any
transaction or matter
addressed
herein. This advice
may not be forwarded
( other than to the
taxpayer to whom it
has been sent)
without our express
written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY
EMAIL ADDRESS HAS
CHANGED AND IS
NOW
DSTACY@OXNERAND
STACY.COM
- -·- ------ --
From: Patel, Bhumi
[ ma i Ito: BPatel@mcnai
r.net]
Sent: Wednesday,
September 02, 2015
2:29 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane
<LJefferies@mcnair.n
et>
Cc:
la urie@emerylawg rou
p.com; Dan Stacy
< DStacy@OxnerandSt
acy.com>
Subject: RE: west
town
Dan,
Mr.NA IR nn7??,c;
See attached
Mortgage and AOR
Satisfaction. Please
confirm this will be a
"satisfaction" rather
than a partial release
as the property being
sold/released is ALL of
the property subject
to the indebtedn~ss in
favor of West Town
Bank.
Thanks,
Bhumi A. Patel
MCNAIR Associate
bpatel@mcnair.net
ATTORNEYS
Myrtle Beach Office Founders Centre, 2411 Oak Street IS
843 444 1107 Main 1843 444 4729 Fax
requested.
--·---·--··------ -- - - -
Sent: Wednesday,
September 02, 2015
2:12 PM
To: Patel, Bhumi
<BPatel@mcnair.net>
Cc:
la u rie@emerylawgrou
p.com; Dan Stacy
< DStacy@OxnerandSt
acy.com>
Subject: FW: west
town
Importance: High
Bhuml and Laurie - can you get
this do Dan asap? Thanks, Lane
From: Dan Stacy

[mailto:DStacy@Oxne
randStacy.com]
Sent: Wednesday,
September 02, 2015
8
I\ArNAIR ()()7??R
2:10 PM
To: Jefferies, Lane
< Uefferies@mcnair.n
et>
Subject: west town
Please send over the

partial release for the
lender to sign.

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
Pawleys Island, SC
29585
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication
(including
attachments) is being
sent by or on behalf of
a lawyer or law firm
and may contain
confidential or legally
privileged
information. The
sender does not
intend to waive any
privliege, including the
attorney-cl ient
privilege, that may
attach to th is
commnunication. If
you are not the
intended recepie_ n t,
you are not authorized
to intercept, read,
print, retain, copy,
forward, or
disseminate this
communication. if
you have received this
communication in
error, please notify
sender immediately by
email and delete this
9.
Mr.NA IR nn7??7
communication and all
copies.
Circular 230
Disclosure: to ensure
compliance with
requirments imposed
by the IRS, we inform
you that any US
Federal Tax advice
contained in this
communication
(including
attachments} is not
intended or written to
be used, and cannot
be used, for the
purpose of (i} avoiding
penalties uner the
internal revenue code
or (ii)promoting,
marketing or
recommending to
another party any
transaction or matter
addressed
herein. This advice
may not be forwarded
( other than to the
taxpayer to whom it
has been sent)
without our express
written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY
EMAIL ADDRESS HAS
CHANGED AND IS
NOW
DSTACY@OXNERAND
STACY.COM
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY

NOTICE: This communication (including
any attachments) is being sent by or on
behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may
information. The sender does not intend
to waive any privilege, including the
attorney-client privilege, that may attach
10
Mr.NA IR nn7??R
. .
to this communication. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are not
authorized to intercept, read, print, retain,
copy, forward or disseminate this
communication. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by email and delete
11
MrNAIR nn7??Q
Patel. Bhumi
From: Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>

To: Jefferies, Lane; Patel, Bhumi
Cc: Melanie Emery

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-23~-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
copies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Martin [mailto:lmartin@westtownbank.com]
To: Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Cc: Lynne Martin <lmartin@westtownbank.com>
Subject: Rabon & Rabon
Dan
Riddick just received a verbal to proceed with the release. As soon as I receive a scam of the signed docs I will forward
them to you
Thanks
Lynne
Sent from my iPhone
MrNAIR nn7?1n
This message is intended only for specified recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that
disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
This communication represents the originator's personal views, which may not reflect those of West Town Bank & Trust.
Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to form, execute,
document, agree to, enter into, accept or authenticate a contract or other legal document. Under no circumstances shall
this transmission and its content constitute a binding agreement. This notice should not be removed. Security Warning:
Secure sensitive or confidential information before replying to this message. If you received this email in error, please
immediately notify postmaster@westtownbank.com
Mr.NAIR On7n1
'-
·•
Patel, Bhumi
From: Melanie Emery <info@emerylaw.pro>

To: Dan Stacy
Cc: Jefferies, Lane; Patel, Bhumi
Subject: Re: Rabon & Rabon
The sun IS shining down on us today! Thanks Dan.

EMERY LAW GROUP
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577
Office - 843.712.1375
Direct - 843.997.0010
Melanie@EmeryLaw.Pro
www.EmeryRealEstateLaw.com
The information contained in this e-mail message may be attorney-client privileged, attorney work product,
or strictly confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com> wrote:

Oxner & Stacy, P.A.
843-235-6747 phone
843-235-6650 fax
Confidentiality Notice: This communication (including attachments) is being sent by or on

behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential or legally privileged
information. The sender does not intend to waive any privliege, including the attorney-client
privilege, that may attach to this comrnnunication. If you are not the intended recepient, you are
not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this
communication. if you have received this communication in error, please notify sender
immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies. ·
Circular 230 Disclosure: to ensure compliance with requirments imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any US Federal Tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
1
Mr.NAIR 007n?
:i
urier the internal revenue code or (ii)promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein. This advice may not be forwarded (other than to the
taxpayer to whom it has been sent) without our express written consent
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED AND IS NOW

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Martin fmailto:lmartin@westtownbank.com]
To: Dan Stacy <DStacy@OxnerandStacy.com>
Cc: Lynne Martin <lmartin@westtownbank.com>
Subject: Rabon & Rabon
Dan
Riddick just received a verbal to proceed with the release. As soon as I receive a scam of the
signed docs I will forward them to you
Thanks
Lynne
Sent from my iPhone
This message is intended only for specified recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you
are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
of this information is strictly prohibited. This communication represents the originator's personal
views, which may not reflect those of West Town Bank & Trust. Nothing in this message should
be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to form, execute, document,
agree to, enter into, accept or authenticate a contract or other legal document. Under no
circumstances shall this transmission and its content constitute a binding agreement. This notice
should not be removed. Security Warning: Secure sensitive or confidential information before
replying to this message. If you received this email in error, please immediately notify
postmaster@westtownbank.com
Mr.NAIR 007?::n

Final Filed Motion With Exhibits

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final Filed Motion With Exhibits

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Oct 29 10:27 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2017CP2605757

IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Karon Mitchell, Kyle Mitchell, and Rabon &)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

These properties are described as follows:

TMS # 181-11-03-005/ PIN # 444-01-04-0044 [hereinafter the “Brick

All those certain pieces, parcels or lots of land, with improvements

TMS # 181-11-03-002 / PIN # 444-01-04-0051

TMS # 181-11-03-004 / PIN # 444-01-04-0043[collectively hereinafter

subsequently appointed as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon.

being filed in circuit court and probate court.

The West Town and BB&T Foreclosures

personal guarantors, including the Corporation.

entire email chain.

The September Conspiracy

Jacob Biderman is a citizen of Austria who operates a jewish educational institution in

outside of the closing. Exhibit J, Answer of Biderman Defendants, Paragraphs 44-57.

that the additional funds were improper or illegal.

Mitchells and the Probate Court.

Order on August 25, 2015.

Q, Emails from Michelle Cohen to Emery Law Firm.

Rabon, Paragraph 5; Exhibit I, Affidavit of Michelle Cohen, Paragraph 11.

handed to Lane Jefferies. Exhibit DD – Affidavit of Melanie Emery.

involvement reads as follows:

Affidavit of Jack Rabon, Paragraph 4; Exhibit I, Affidavit of Michelle Cohen, Paragraphs 5-

Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Page 158-162.

Lane’s Story for the Smoking Gun Text

22, Line 1 – Page 22, Line 10.]

Stamped McNair_007190 through McNair_007206) are conclusive of Jefferies

documents create a timeline that makes Lane’s story impossible.

3. September 2, 2015 – 10:35am – McNair_007190 – Lane emails Dan Stacy: “Dan —

hostage as he stated in his deposition. He lied in his deposition.

Lane’s Story for the Signed Receipt

closing attorney’s trust account.” This is undeniably false.

Lane’s attorneys, (Exhibit GG, McNair_007003 through McNair_007005, McNair_007044,

been wired on September 3, 2015.

September 3, 2015. Exhibit BB, Deposition of Lane Jefferies, Exhibit 5, “T-7”]. It is

the Cohen attempted extortion, or the three checks provided by Biderman.

Line 20 – Page 34, Line 9.]

The Insurance Fraud Text

too was false. Jefferies’ full response reads:

Summary Judgment Standard

Perjured Testimony Must be Excluded From Any Consideration

introduction of perjured testimony constituted a constitutional offense under a habeus corpus

testimony is used in any way.

must be excluded as perjured testimony. “[W]hen documentary evidence ‘blatantly

judgment as a matter of law.

October 29, 2019 s/Tucker S. Player

Jack & Nicole <sourmug2love@yahoo.com>

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jefferies, Lane" <LJefferies@mcnair.net>

Please let me know what response you get from Michelle.

From: Jack & Nicole [mailto:sourmug2love@yahoo.com]

To: Jeﬀeries, Lane

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Jeﬀeries, Lane <LJeﬀeries@mcnair.net> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Jeﬀeries, Lane <LJeﬀeries@mcnair.net> wrote:

Regarding the a� ached oﬀers, you could either:

McNair Law Firm, P.A.

From: MYRcopier@mcnair.net [mailto:MYRcopier@mcnair.net]

RefIC k Trans. Payee Name Cleared

PTW9 Page 1 of 2 Date of Report: 9/8/16

W¸B{¨«¸ !.¸ !)¸ g«¸ 7!,¸BR¸f¯pApp¥f²{¢¯l¸ ²¤«o8¸

/*¸V ¸Wf¸ ^ªppª¸ ^¯ªp¸ "¸

`~p¸yfª¸lªfpm¸¸ª|©¸pf¸p©©f{p¸f¶¸hp¸fªªp¶lpª¸¡ep{pm¸fªªp¶¸²¸m¯lª¸¸©ªlª¶¸lwmpªf¸rfª¸ Lr¸ª|p¸pfmp¸r¸ª|©¸p©©f{p¸©¸ª¸

.040!#"6 +#11%#6

W¸B{¨«¸ !.¸ !)¸ g«¸ 7!,¸BR¸f¯pApp¥f²{¢¯l¸ ²¤«o8¸

/*¸V ¸Wf¸ ^ªppª¸ ^¯ªp¸ "¸

`~p¸yfª¸lªfpm¸¸ª|©¸pf¸p©©f{p¸f¶¸hp¸fªªp¶lpª¸¡ep{pm¸fªªp¶¸²¸m¯lª¸¸©ªlª¶¸lwmpªf¸rfª¸ Lr¸ª|p¸pfmp¸r¸ª|©¸p©©f{p¸©¸ª¸

.040!#"6 +#11%#6