In The United States Bankruptcy Court
For The District Of Colorado
Case No. 05-40334-EEB
In re: Robbins, Barbara
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §523, 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)
Plaintiffs Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors, pro se, present this memorandum and attachments in support of their
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §523, 11 U.S.C. §727(a) AND 11 U.S.C. § 707(b):
1. On October 7, 2005, the Debtor, Barbara Robbins (“Debtor”), filed a Voluntary Petition
pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 11of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Colorado. The Petition was assigned case number 05-40334-EEB.
2. The Debtor signed her Bankruptcy Petition, Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedules
declaring under the penalty of perjury that the information provided therein is true and correct.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INCOME
3. On Debtor's “Statement of Financial Affairs”, ¶2, under “Income Other”, received in the two
years prior to the year of filing, Debtor listed “NONE”. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs believe Debtor deliberately omitted:
- A. Two $20,000 checks received from Viking 3 Property Owners, received in 2003. In a filing with The Probate Court in the Pueblo
County District Court on June 23, 2003, in re: the Estate of Donald Skadeland (deceased father of Debtor), Barbara Robbins
included a worksheet that she had compiled which shows two $20,000 checks she received, dated April 21, 2003 and June 23,
attachment #12, page 4). Both checks are described as “Disbursements”.
Her two sisters, Cathy Clamp and Deborah Bamsesberger, also received “disbursement” checks at the same time. A later entry,
dated July 10, 2003, shows a $40,000 check to Internal Revenue for taxes. When questioned about these checks at the “Meeting of
Creditors” held December 16, 2005, Robbins acknowledged receiving the two checks but claimed she received them as money to be paid
to the IRS for taxes. The check register created by her refutes this statement and explanation.
When asked at the Meeting of Creditors on December 16, 2005, if she had received cash, funds, or other compensation from her
father's estate in 2003, Barbara Robbins replied, “No. Everything received after 2003 went to taxes on the estate, including
2004 and 2005”. Later, when directly asked about this by Karen Dudnikov, Barbara Robbins repeated that the two checks she
received for $20,000 each in 2003 (a total of $40,000), were for her to pay estate taxes and that's what she claims she did.
However, her own papers filed with the Probate Court show otherwise (see Attachment #12, page 4 and page 5).
Barbara Robbins submitted to the Court a spreadsheet that Robbins put together using the documents produced by her sisters concerning
Viking 3 Property owners.
The spreadsheet shows that on April 18, 2003, Viking 3 received a $67,892.46 deposit for the “Sale Of property”. The spreadsheet
also shows that on April 18, 2003, Cathy Clamp and Deborah Bamesberger received, by wire, a “disbursement” of
$20,000 each for “Sale of Property”. On April 21, 2003, Barbara Robbins received, by cashiers check, a “disbursement” of $20,000
for “Sale of Property”. Of the $67,892.46 received in April, 2003, the three sisters “paid” themselves $60,000, leaving $7,892.46
in the account (minus fees, etc). (see lines 2 through 8 on the spreadsheet, page 1).
The spreadsheet that Robbins put together then shows that on May 9, 2003, Viking 3 received a $58,598.63 deposit for the
“Sale Of property”. On June 4, 2003, Viking 3 received a $77,278.08 deposit for the “Sale Of property”. The spreadsheet shows
that on June 19, 2003, Deborah Bamesberger received, by check #1156, a “disbursement” of $18,000 for “Sale of Property”.
The spreadsheet shows that on June 24, 2003, Cathy Clamp received, by check #1157, a “disbursement” of $20,000 for “Sale of
Property”. On June 23, 2003, Barbara Robbins received, by check #1182, a “disbursement” of $20,000 for “Sale of Property”.
Of the $133,876.71 received in May and June, 2003, the three sisters “paid” themselves $58,000.
The claim by Barbara Robbins that the two $20,000 checks were for her to pay estate taxes is not supported by her own spreadsheet.
First, why were the two checks labeled as disbursements for “Sale of Property” instead of “For Taxes”? Second, what did the two
sisters do with their “disbursements? Pay taxes? Plaintiffs think not. Third, if the money was for taxes, how does she explain the
spreadsheet entry dated July 1, 2003, for check #1159, to Internal Revenue, for “Taxes” in the sum of $40,000? Not only is it
evident that Viking 3 was paying the taxes directly to the IRS, but the $40,000 amount is being used by Barbara Robbins to
conceal the fact she kept the $40,000 “disbursement” and is trying to use this check as “evidence”. Her bank records will bear this
out. It was HER spreadsheet (see Attachment #12, page 1, ¶2 and page 3, ¶1). No where in
her letter to the Pueblo Court does she attack the validity of the aforementioned “disbursements”. Plaintiffs believe Robbins must
prove she used the money for taxes, not just allude to it. She cannot. As the Personal Representative for the Estate of Donald
Skadeland, she would have had to set up an account from which to pay debts owed by the estate
(see Attachment #8, pg2, #5), not used her personal accounts. The estate account was
at Park State Bank & Trust and “was established to manage the affairs of the Estate”
(see Attachment #8, pg2, #5). The checks for “taxes” from Viking 3 Property Owners
would have been made payable to either the IRS or to the estate account, not to Robbins as a disbursement.
Since the estate is still in probate it is reasonable to conclude the bank account is still open and in the control of the
Debtor as Personal Representative. Debtor also failed to list the estate bank account under Schedule B.
- B. The divorce of Barbara Robbins went into effect on or about May 5, 2003. However, the settlement agreement took much longer.
As part of her divorce settlement decree (02-DR-3915), dated July 15, 2004, Barbara Robbins received a $10,000 spousal
maintenance immediately and $833 a month for twelve months (see Attachment 16g, Page 2, “Article 2A”).
Upon questioning at the December 16, 2005 Meeting of Creditors, when asked by Ms Martinez if she had received alimony or
maintenance from her divorce in 2003, Barbara Robbins replied “No. Just the truck.” The follow-up question was
“Anything else?” Barbara Robbins stated “$800 or so”. At this point the tape recorder tape had to be changed. The last
question was repeated. Barbara Robbins replied she got $800 a month for twelve months starting she believed in late 2003. She
actually received the support payments of $833 a month beginning in August 2004 ($4,165 for five months of 2004) and a lump sum
payment of $10,000 in August 2004. The lump sum payment was not admitted by her and it was not on the bankruptcy filing as income
under ¶2 of the “Statement of Financial Affairs”. She later acknowledged the $10,000 lump sum after direct questioning by Karen
Dudnikov. In a later question, did she receive spousal maintenance from Douglas Robbins after July 2004, she replied, “No”.
Was she awarded something after July 2004? She replied a trailer that she believed to be in Texas. She again lied about not receiving
spousal maintenance which she did receive. How could she not remember the alimony from just a year earlier?
Spousal Maintenance is deductible from the income of the party paying it and has to be declared as income to the party receiving it.
Since the ex-husband of Barbara Robbins was almost certain to claim the spousal support as an income deduction, along with him
listing the social security number of the recipient, it is unlikely she would attempt to deceive the Internal Revenue about the fact
she had received it. However, it seems a reasonable conclusion that if she deliberately omitted listing the spousal support
under ¶2 “Income Other” on the “Statement of Financial Affairs”, she would have provided the Bankruptcy Trustee with a 2004 tax
return that did not show the spousal maintenance received in 2004. In either event, she has lied to someone.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ASSETS
4. On Debtor's “Schedule B”, Debtor shows a personal property total of $20,805, $13,000 of which is her leased Lexus.
Her total assets of “Personal Property” is about $4,600. On Debtor's “Schedule C”, Debtor shows $500 in jewelry and some other
furniture as assets, a “Personal Property” total of about $1,700 more than on Schedule B. Her “Personal Property” totals less
than $6,500. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs believe Debtor deliberately omitted:
- A. A 1980 SeaRay Motorcraff listed by her in 2003 in her divorce as being worth $10,000
(see Attachments 16b, 16c, and
16e). In her original bankruptcy filing, Robbins did not mention the SeaRay Motorcraft
under Schedule B. Upon questioning at the December 16, 2005 Meeting of Creditors, she admitted having owned one. She claimed it
was bought in 2001 and sold in 2003. She wasn't sure if it was before or after the divorce. When asked by Ms Martinez when was
the last time she saw the boat, she said, “Today” because she had sold it to someone who lived in town (Woodland Park)
for $1,500. Asked “Someone in Woodland Park?”, she replied, “Yes”. Asked “Mr Asbury?”, she replied, “Yes”.
She later admitted the boat had a trailer.
In later questioning, she was asked by Ms Martinez if the SeaRay was worth the $10,000 she had listed on the divorce papers and
she replied, “No”. She stated she had listed that amount based upon what she had paid for the boat. According to Barbara
Robbins, the boat had been moored in Pueblo and was in need of many repairs, including a new engine because of a frozen block,
which rendered it almost worthless. And, it would cost $2,000 to move.
If she knew about the “damage” before filing the papers with the Divorce Court, she would not have claimed the $12,500, and
then later $10,000, as value for the boat. She would not claim more for an asset when she was trying to show the court how
little she had in assets and that she deserved more of the marital estate. When she “sold” the boat to George Asbury, her
boyfriend, for $1,500, in 2003, it would have had to be after the divorce filings. As late as July 29, 2003, she was still
claiming the boat to be worth $11,000 (filed July 29, 2003 as “Petitioner's Response”, included a spreadsheet compiled by her,
showing the value of assets in her possession). Now she is claiming that her boyfriend, George Asbury, with whom she is living
at 1440 Main Street, paid her $1,500 for a worthless boat? As far as her claim of $2,000 to move the boat from Pueblo, the
boat came with a trailer and George Asbury, a construction contractor, has vehicles heavy enough to haul large boats, so it didn't
cost to move the boat to George Asabury's yard, where Barbara Robbins has acknowledged it now sits. The fact she had “sold” the
boat to George Asbury literally had to be dragged out of her by Ms Martinez at the Meeting of Creditors.
- B. Under Schedule B, item 23, she lists a 1996 Cargo trailer (located in Texas) as having no value yet at least three times
in 2003 during divorce filings she listed that same trailer as having a value of $5,000
(see Attachments 16b, 16c, and
16e). Eighteen months later the trailer is worthless? According to the separation
agreement filed on July 14, 2004 (see Attachment #16g, pg 3, #B), the trailer was
“in generally good condition”. She also listed 1998 Mazda in 2003 during divorce filings which she also omitted from
Schedule B. When quested about the Mazda at the Meeting of Creditors, December 16, 2005, she claimed she had sold it in 2002.
When shown the vehicle was listed as still being hers in 2003 according to divorce filings by her
(see Attachments 16b, 16c, and
16e), she replied that she “thought” she had sold it before 2003. She also omitted
a Prowler Camper, still in her possession, from Schedule B that during her divorce filings was claimed to have a value
of $1,000, but upon questioning during the Meeting of Creditors suddenly had a negative value as she claimed it could not be
titled. Seems a lot of her possessions have suddenly declined in value drastically since the divorce and before the bankruptcy.
- B. In a proposed divorce Settlement Agreement filed with the District Court on July 29, 2003, drawn up by the Debtor, Debtor
included a spreadsheet that showed a “Personal Property” value of $41, 737
(see Attachments 16b, 16c, and
16e). Fifteen months later, Debtor claims around $6,500 in “Personal Property” assets.
Debtor did not list on the Voluntary Petition under ¶8 any losses due to fire, theft or gambling. As of the December 16,
2005 meeting of creditors, debtor had not explained the difference in personal property. Ms. Martinez instructed Debtor to
supply a spreadsheet with that information.
- C. Debtor's father, Donald Skadeland died in June 2001. Debtor assumed responsibility as the Estate's Personal Representative
with the approval of her two sisters. As part of her duties, Robbins compiled a “Decedent's Inventory Worksheet”
(see Attachment #9, pg1, #2) which listed all of the assets of the estate. The numbers
on the worksheet were drawn from the face value of insurance policies, securities, real estate, and other assets. The total
listed was in excess of 1.5 million dollars, some $650,000 being real estate holdings and carry-backs. Plaintiffs examined this
document but were denied a copy by the Clerk of the Court in Pueblo. The assets, not including the real estate, included some
$300,000 in life insurance and securities for each sister, were “located, identified, quantified, transferred, and distributed”
by Barbara Robbins prior to the filing date of February 9, 2004 (see Attachment #9, pg1, #3).
The three sisters soon began squabbling over the estate. Catherine Clamp filed papers with the Court alleging Barbara Robbins was
not being truthful with estate monies and was in fact taking more than her share (see attachment #8).
Clamp maintains that at the time of the filing, March 24, 2003, “The majority of the assets of the Estate have been divided
among the heirs” showing large amounts of monies had been received by the three sisters in 2001, 2002 and early 2003. Clamp
maintained that certain monies were missing (see attachment #8, page 2).
Among the missing monies were:
- $17,546 in a Goldman-Sachs Growth Fund
- $174,000 in Seller Carry-Back Promissory Notes (real estate deeds held by estate)
- $4,628 in a bank account at Community
- $19,583 in certificates of deposit at Cresco State Bank
- $2,017 in securities at the Pueblo Investment Group
A total of $217,774 yet to be divided, or $72,591 for each sister. It is reasonable to believe that some $72,591 in cash was added to the
income of Barbara Robbins in later 2003 or early 2004, money which she did not declare as required. It certainly was not used for estate
taxes as the taxes due as of March 1, 2004 were $110,000 and the amount outstanding would have satisfied the tax liability.
Clamp also bemoans not receiving her “fair share” of “Wachovia Securities”. Her “share” was to have been $86,000 and she “only”
received $60,000 (see Attachment #8, page 2, #b). This means the Wachovia Securities amount
was originally worth $258,000.
In her response dated February 9, 2004, Barbara Robbins does not refute any of the amounts cited by her sister
(see Attachment #9).
E. In a filing with the Pueblo Court, June 1, 2004 (see attachment #11), Robbins, using a
spreadsheet she had compiled, listed under stock transactions various assets of the Estate that had been liquidated:
- Southwestern Bell Communications
- The Phoenix Companies
- AT&T and AT&T Wireless
- Qwest Communications
- Lucent Technologies
- Minnesota Life
- MetLife (IRA)
- Phoenix Life Insurance
- VA Life Insurance
In 2001, 2002 and 2003, it is reasonable to expect that the debtor, as well as her two sisters, received considerable sums from the
estate of Donald Skadeland. According to Debtor's “Schedule B”, ¶18, a mere $56,000 remains of the estate of over $1.5 million. That
means the 3 sisters have divided 96% of the estate, or about $500,000 each, since 2001. Where is that Money? Debtor lists no assets and
gives no reasons.
CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS
5. On or about December 27, 2000, Douglas Robbins quitclaimed their residence at 156 Panorama Circle, Florissant, Colorado, to his
wife, Barbara Robbins, for zero dollars. This document is on file in Teller County. On February 15, 2001, Barbara Robbins received a
mortgage far in excess of the fair market value for $300,000 on the residence as a “Married Woman”
(see attachment #1). The loan was brokered by Kevin Marks of Grand West, a friend and partner
in the less than ethical business activities of NorthStar Companies. The actual market value of the house at the time was $224,780
(see attachment #1). WHY would Douglas Robbins quit claim the house to her if the funds were
to be shared or used for their business?
On or about February 1, 2002, Barbara Robbins moved out of her house (see attachment #16a).
This came shortly before a court hearing in which she denied having an affair with George Asbury (01CV191, Transcript page 15) and,
later in the year, officially moved in with him at 1440 Main Street, Woodland Park, Colorado. The building at this address is a residence
wholly owned by George Asbury (see attachment #15) with whom she is living.
In a filing dated January 29, 2003, with the Divorce Court in Colorado Springs, Barbara Robbins stated that the house was in jeopardy
of foreclosure and that “I cannot make the payments.” (see Attachment #16b, pg1, #2).
Yet, in the eighteen months before that filing she had received considerable sums from the estate of her father. Where had the money gone?
The house was in her name? Why not protect her credit?
Why would she move out of her house? The house went into default and in early 2003 was repossessed, and was sold
November 20, 2003 by the bank that repossessed, Deutsch Bank National Trust, to Donald & Dawn Hapes for $275,000. The bank lost
$25,000 plus costs of repossessing the property and selling it while she pockets monies in excess of the fair market value and is
relieved of the cost of selling the property.
When questioned by Ms Martinez at the Meeting of Creditors on December 16, 2005, about the sale of the house and the manner in which the
sale was brokered, Debtor's only response was that her husband, Doug, thought it would be a good idea for the quit claim and mortgage in
her name only. Barbara Robbins represents herself as a “Master Of Real Estate”, “Certified Tax Practitioner”, and an “Accredited Business
Accountant” (see Attachment #14) and she has no idea why the house was sold in that manner?
Both she and her husband were experienced real estate brokers and they knew what they were doing.
6. On about July 10, 2001, Rocky Mountain Construction Lending, another partner in the less than ethical business activities of
NorthStar Companies, lent NorthStar Companies a sum of $127,901 for placing a modular home on a piece of property located at Lot 79,
Indian Creek Filing No 16, Florissant, Colorado (see attachment #2). NorthStar placed the modular
home and prepared it for sale. On October 12, 2001, NorthStar Companies quitclaimed this same property, with the house on it, to
Douglas Robbins for the sum of one dollar (see attachment #2). Signing for NorthStar, was
Barbara Robbins. On November 1, 2001, Douglas Robbins sold this property to James & Darlene Corning for the sum of $175,000
(see attachment #2). There is no reasonable explanation, or generally accepted accounting
practice, whereby a company would quit claim a property on which the company owed a sizable amount, thereby giving the recipient a
very large windfall. Douglas Robbins netted $47,099, not NorthStar. Why was this done and where is the money paid to Douglas Robbins?
Want to bet it is was not declared on income taxes but it was shown as a business loss?
MISREPRESENTATION OF COSTS
7. Under “Schedule J-Current Expenditures”, creditor lists expenses that are not valid. While the Debtor does live at, and supposedly
works at, 1440 Main Street, Woodland Park, this address is a residence in a residential neighborhood and the Debtor is living there with
the owner, and boyfriend, George Asbury, not renting as she claims. Specifically:
- A. Rent Or Home Mortgage. Barbara Robbins claims $600 a month for rent while she is living with her boyfriend, George Asbury.
It is his home with no mortgage (see Attachment #15). Regardless of no mortgage, we do not believe
she is paying him rent as defined. If she is giving him money, it is voluntary and not a requirement for living there. Voluntary payments
are not an expenditure.
- B. Home Maintenance. It is not her house and she is under no legal obligation to maintain it. The $291 a month is a ridiculous claim.
Voluntary payments are not an expenditure.
- C. Food. $706 a month for food for one person is ludicrous. That's $23 a day for food for one person eating meals at home? If she's
claiming food for George Asbury and his daughter that's her decision and not an expenditure. Again, a voluntary expense not required by her.
8. Debtor presently has three different recent paper companies under her control. And an admitted interest in a fourth. So many
companies with which to conceal assets. Look at the timing. Her father dies in 2001 and she begins Norskii Investments. She is having
trouble with her sister's claims of mismanagement of the estate funds so she begins Peak Financial. The divorce becomes final and
she is receiving assets so she begins Peak Realty. Coincidences? Plaintiffs think not. Paper companies through which assets can be
moved and concealed. Companies created by Barbara Robbins:
- A. Norskii Investments. On December 27, 2001, Barbara Robbins filed papers with Colorado beginning Norskii Investments
(see attachment #4). She listed herself as agent and as initial member, using the address of
NorthStar Companies in Florissant. Later, she changed the address to her rent-a-mailbox at Mail Box Etc, 6660 Delmonico Dr,
Colorado Springs. Plaintiffs believe she started this company to conceal the monies received from her father's estate.
- B. Viking 3 Property Owners. On June 5, 2002, Barbara Robbins and her two sisters filed papers with Colorado to begin
Viking 3 Property Owners (see attachment #6). Barbara Robbins is not listed as a principle
on the papers however she has stated to the Estate Court in Pueblo that Viking 3 was created to liquidate real estate properties
from her father's estate (see attachment #10, page 1, ¶2) and that she and her sisters were
equal partners in the company.
- C. Peak Financial & Tax Consulting. On March 21, 2003, Barbara Robbins filed the paperwork to begin Peak Financial using
Norskii Investments as registered agent and initial member (see attachment #7). She used the
address to her rent-a-mailbox at Mail Box Etc, 6660 Delmonico Dr, Colorado Springs. Plaintiffs believe she started this company to conceal
the additional monies received from her father's estate being contested by filings of her sister, Cathy Clamp
(see attachment #8).
- D. Peak Realty & Consulting. On August 24, 2004, Barbara Robbins filed papers with Colorado to begin Peak Realty using
Peak Financial as registered agent and initial member (see attachment #13). She used the address
to her rent-a-mailbox at Mail Box Etc, 6660 Delmonico Dr, Colorado Springs. Plaintiffs believe she started this company to conceal
the monies received from her divorce.
9. On a number of occasions, Debtor has been found to be less than truthful concerning her business and affairs by government
entities and the Courts.
- A. In August 2001, a deposition was taken of Barbara Robbins in a civil lawsuit (Woods, et al), wherein her testimony shows her
inconsistency and lack of honesty. The judge in the case found she had breached the good faith covenant in every case (i.e., she
lied to everyone involved).
- B. On November 7, 2001, the Teller County Board of Review suspended the contractor's license of Barbara Robbins for ninety
days for “material misrepresentation of fact”, a.k.a., lying. After several complaints about her business activities, Teller County
held a hearing at which testimony and evidence were introduced. Barbara Robbins was represented by counsel, James Zendejas. A copy
of these minutes are available upon request or through Teller County.
- C. The various lies shown in the bankruptcy filing and during the Meeting of Creditors as stated in this Memorandum.
10. On April 2, 2003, and two other occasions in divorce filings, Debtor lists 3 credit cards as personal marital debt of $28,100
(see Attachment 16c). Yet in Schedule F of the Bankruptcy filing she lists these same credit
cards as business expenses. Why? Because if she lists them as personal debts she would have to account for the merchandise purchased.
Since the companies were L.L.C., can she take a personal write-off for corporate debts?
11. At the Meeting of Creditors, Barbara Robbins was asked by Ms Martinez about a deduction on her 2003 income taxes. Barbara Robbins
had claimed a $1,500 capital loss and was questioned about it. She claimed it was for a loss of home due to structure fire in the late
1980's. She stated it was $1,500 since she was filing separately. She was claiming a total of $150,000 for her portion of the loss.
In 2004 she had claimed it as $3,000. According to IRS, a loss on a personal home is not considered a capital loss for income tax purposes.
As an Accredited Business Accountant and Certified Tax Practitioner (see Attachment #14),
she already knows this. In addition, the loss of a personal home to fire is considered a “Casualty and Theft Loss” and the amount is based
upon the original purchase price, the fair market value of the house, and whatever insurance and other monies were received. The loss is
only deductible in the year the loss occurred. It cannot be carried over. The only reasonable conclusion here is that she is over-deducting
on her income taxes annually.
12. As early as May, 2003, Barbara Robbins obtained a job as a real estate agent working for Caldwell Banker, 8610 Explorer Drive,
Colorado Springs. She remained working there until late in 2004 (see attachment #14).
As part of her “About Me” page, she touted herself as a “Top Producer” and as having received numerous awards for top production. Yet,
in 2004, after a full year at Caldwell Banker, she claims only to have an income of $30,367, hardly what one would expect from a top
producing agent at such a large realty company. Did she lie about what she made? For the years of 2003, 2004 and 2005 she listed herself
as self-employed on the “Statement of Financial Affairs” while during 2003 and 2004 she worked for Caldwell Banker
(see attachment #14). Real estate agents are contract workers who work for brokers; they are not
self-employed as defined by IRS. Plaintiffs believe she listed herself as being self-employed to better confuse and conceal her actual income.
13. During questioning at the Meeting of Creditors, Barbara Robbins stated that Viking 3 was started by her two sisters to get their
father's estate finished. Her sisters considered the company to be a more efficient way to accomplish that and pay the taxes. However,
in filings with the District Court, County Of Pueblo, Case 01-PR-291, re: The Estate of Donald Skadeland, she told the court in a filing,
“Viking III LLC, which she formed together with her two sisters (who are also beneficiaries of this estate), was established to
protect decedent's properties from being divided as part of the Personal representative's divorce action”
(see Attachment #10, page 1). While a minor lie, to one Court or the other, it is part of her
pattern. She routinely changes her story to fit her needs.
14. During questioning at the Meeting of Creditors, Barbara Robbins was asked by Ms Martinez about the existence of $174,000 in
promissory notes from her father's estate. She replied the notes had to do with properties sold by Viking 3 and were now unable to be
collected as persons had reneged on the debts. She rambled on about that while not answering the question. Robbins did say that the
notes were in the name of Viking 3 and that Viking 3 held the “second position” on the notes and therefore were
“out of luck”. The notes are specifically referred to as “Seller Carry-back Promissory Notes on properties sold by the decedent”
(see Attachment #8, page 2, #6c) not notes held by Viking 3 for properties sold. Viking 3
never held these notes as they were in the name of Donald Skadeland for property he had sold.
Donald Skadeland sold these four houses and took back the notes himself:
(see Attachment #17):
- College Hill 13 10, address 1224 Stone Ave, sold November 30, 2000, to I Jacquez, note $45,000. As of February 1, 2006,
still titled to Donald Skadeland.
- Fletcher Hill 41 161, address 1327 E 3rd, sold July 1, 1999, to S Rodriquez, note $47,500. As of February 1, 2006,
still titled to Donald Skadeland
- Mattices 7 22, address 1014 E River, sold May 31, 2001, to B Barger, note $39,500. As of February 1, 2006,
still titled to Donald Skadeland
- Steelton 32 82, address 1525 Spruce St, sold October 31, 2000, to A Ortiz, note $43,500
These four properties total $175,550 in notes. The value of these notes would have been lower at the time of his death but not by much,
making the $174,000 figure accurate. The fourth property listed was refinanced on October 7, 2005 which means the estate has
received the payoff for that property. None of these properties show (as of February 1, 2006) to be in default or repossession
as inferred by Barbara Robbins. None were titled to Viking 3 or ever sold by Viking 3 (see Attachment #17).
Her testimony on this issue was a lie concerning ownership by Viking 3 and the money being lost by the estate.
In 2003, Viking 3 sold nine properties to Casius & Associates for $337,000. This figure does not include carry-back held by Viking 3,
such as the $20,500 on 912 East 6th Street, and others. The spreadsheet by Barbara Robbins details many of these sales showing over
$241,000 received in 2003 and up to May 2004. This was money received. Not promissory notes. Money received and split amongst the
sisters. Her testimony attempted to evade the issue and conceal the facts.
15. Debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). As shown above,
Barbara Robbins has lied under oath about monies received and assets in her possession.
16. Debtor knowingly and fraudulently presented or used a false claim, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(B). As shown above,
Barbara Robbins deliberately omitted monies received and assets from the “Statement of Financial Affairs”.
17. Debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge, any loss of assets or deficiency
of assets to meet the debtor's liabilities, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5). Barbara Robbins has received a large amount of
money since 2001, an estimated $840,000 plus, based upon the attached documents, not including salary, and yet has no assets according
to the “Statement of Financial Affairs.”
18. The granting of relief would be a substantial abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7 as allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b).
The Debtor filed the petition in bad faith, a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A).
Therefore, Plaintiffs Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors respectfully request that this
Court enter a judgment determining that Defendant is not entitled to a discharge in bankruptcy
for her debts under 11 U.S.C. §727(a), or alternately, to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b),
together with an order for costs and expenses.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of February, 2005.
3463 Maskoke Trail P.O. Box 87
Hartsel, CO 80449