SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION Frederick J. Shaddock Petitioner v. Case No. 2025 CAB 004804 Oksana S. Shaddock Respondent MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND RELATED MOTIONS (SCR-Civil Procedure l2j b jj Respondent (Defendant), Oksana Shaddock, by her attorney, Robert Case Liotta, moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint and the related Motions. As grounds for this Motion Defendant states as follows: FIRST DEFENSE gLack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction) The Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment or make any other ruling which could effectively void a Quit Claim Deed or to declare property to be marital. Furthermore, the Civil Division does not have jurisdiction over actions involving marital property rights. Actions for adjudication of marital property rights are specifically required to be brought as part of an action brought in the Family Court. DC Code Section ll—l l0llists sixteen actions that must be brought in the Family Court . Number 8 states "determinations and adjudications of property rights ...in any action referred to in this section". The other actions in the section that could include an adjudication of marital property rights involve a divorce. No divorce has been filed in the District of Columbia but Plaintiff has filed for divorce in Iowa, claiming residency in Iowa, and that case is pending . (In Re The marriage of Fredrick J. Shaddock and Oksana Shemet Shaddock , in the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Case No. 0851 l CDCV4020l5) . The Civil Division of this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the Plaintiff. He can proceed with his Iowa divorce case or file for divorce in the District of Columbia if he believes there is jurisdiction to do so. SECOND DEFENSE gLack of Personal Jurisdiction) Neither party currently resides in the District of Columbia and Defendant has not consented to be sued in the District of Columbia. In the Iowa Divorce Case, Plaintiff claims that he is a resident of Iowa. THIRD DEFENSE glnsufficient Process) Defendant has not been properly served. FOURTH DEFENSE )Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted) Defendant has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This court could not declare the Quit Claim Deed void and declare property to be "marital’ by a declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is utilized almost exclusively to clarify a Constitutional issue and is of no use to grant the remedies requested by Plaintiff. If the Court ignores the incorrect heading of the Complaint and assumes that it is a request to void the Quit Claim Deed and to "confinn" that property is marital, then it must be denied for the reasons stated above and below. FACTUAL AND LEGAL ARGUMENT l. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff seeks to have this Court enter a declaratory judgment that the Quit Claim Deed is "void, null, and of no legal effect". The Quit Claim Deed in question related to the property located at 520 N Street, SW, Suite S-316, Washington, DC 20004". (Hereinafter referred to as The Property). The Property is titled in Defendant’s sole name and has been so titled since the purchase by Defendant. 2. The parties were married when the Property was purchased. Ordinarily property purchased during a marriage is considered marital property unless the property but it lost that status when Plaintiff executed a Quit Claim Deed on December 7, 2013, for consideration, which not only quit—claimed in favor of Respondent but quit claimed "all the right, title, interest, claim or demand which the GRANTOR may have had in ..." The Property. It further states: that "neither Grantor nor any other person claiming under him shall at any time claim or demand any right, title, or interest to the said tract of land or appurtenances." (See attached Quit Claim Deed). This Quit Claim Deed constitutes a postnuptial agreement which specifically removes The Property from equitable distribution and will require that any divorce Court award the Property solely to Defendant pursuant to DC Code l6-9l0 (a) as her separate property 3. In 2025 Plaintiff filed for divorce in Iowa and that case is pending in Iowa where Plaintiff claims residency. The issue of property distribution is properly before that Court. It will determine if The Property is marital or not and it will deal with the Quit Claim Deed if it is presented in that case. There is simply no basis and no jurisdiction for this court to be deciding on the legitimacy of a document that is not being offered in any pending case in this Court. Defendant did raise the existence of the Quit Claim Deed in another case Plaintiff filed in this Court (Shaddock v. Shaddock 2025 CAB 000953) wherein he asked the Court to add his name to the title claiming he had that right because the Property was marital pursuant to DC Code l6-9l0. That case was dismissed on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 4. There is no divorce or any other case pending in this Court that relates to the Property. Petitioner cites no authority for his request for a declaratory judgment for the simple reason that there is none. He is basically asking this Court to make a ruling on an issue that is not pending in any District of Columbia matter to the effect that the Property is marital and that the Quit Claim Deed is void, There is simply no grounds for such relief. Even if authority existed, Petitioner has waived all rights he might have to The Property; not once but twice. (Plaintiff executed a Post Nuptial Agreement on March ll, 2025 wherein he again waived any rights he may have had to ownership of The Property). The Complaint is groundless and must be dismissed. 5. With regard to the request that this Court confirm that The Property is marital, there is likewise no basis for this Court to take such action. This is basically the same relief Plaintiff requested in his dismissed case. This suit is filed in the Civil Division. If Petitioner were to file an action for divorce in the Family Court and if that Court had jurisdiction, that Court would make a detennination as to whether or not the Property was or was not marital. Given the two waivers of all rights and the clear statement in the Post Nuptial Agreement that The Property "shall be awarded to Oksana as her sole and separate property", there is no way the court would declare it to be marital property. There is certainly no basis and no jurisdiction to make some sort of an advance ruling on subject matter that is under the purview of the Family Court if it is under the jurisdiction of any Court in the District of Columbia. Given the residency of the parties and the pendency of a divorce case in Iowa it is unlikely that a DC Court would even have jurisdiction.
THE MOTIONS Subsequent to the filing of his Complaint, Plaintiff, filed four motions and a pleading captioned "Notice of Supplemental Authority and Evidence of Defendant’s Bad Faith" . These Motions are filed in this same case number and are captioned as follows: • Emergency Ex parte Motion for Notice of Lis Pendens and TRO. • Emergency motion for Use of marital Automobile • Emergency Motion for restoration of Access, declaratory Judgment, Add Plaintiff to Title • Motion for Protective order and DeclaratoryJudgment on Constituional Grounds
Most of the relief requested is relief that might be provided in a divorce case that is filed in a proper jurisdiction but no divorce case has been filed in the District of Columbia. A divorce case is pending in Iowa. (In Re The marriage of Fredrick J. Shaddock and Oksana Shemet Shaddock , in the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Case No. 085 ll CDCV4020l5) and that Court may be the appropriate jurisdiction for the adjudication of the Complaint and these Motions. Defendant will not address the merits or the lack thereof of these Motions because if the Complaint is dismissed the Motions will become moot.
WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court dismiss the case or treat this Motion as one for summary judgment under SCR 56 and enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Respectfully Submitted, Robert Case Liotta 3726 Harrison Street, NW Washington, DC 20015 202 531 8088 Email: rcl@ldelaw.com
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure l2(b)(l) through (6). Jurisdiction is dictated by DC Code Sections 11-1101 et seq. D. C. Code Section 16-910 governs the determination of marital versus non—marital property in a Family Court case.