JUDGE: The plaintiff Frederick Shaddock is participating as well as the respondent Sana Shadic and her attorney Joseph Pavich.
We're set for a few things today. Um, Mr. Pavelich, are you there?

PAVELICH: >> I am here, your honor.

JUDGE: >> Do you have any pending motions you want to address?

PAVELICH: >> No, your honor. The only motion that I'm aware of that we're addressed today is the motion for something like an injunction motion uh that was filed in November originally set for December and continue to today.
I know there was a motion to dismiss um I don't think that was actually set for today but we would obviously uh follow through with our written objection to that motion as well and allow the case to be continued on its current trajectory.
J: The file shows that filed on November 14, 2025 a motion for protective order against third party interference and lockouts. Mr. Shaddock, do you want to be heard briefly on that motion?

SHADDOCK: >> Yes.
Okay. Well, in marriage, um, it's marital property which is equally owned by the husband and wife. And although there may or may not be a divorce proceeding going to fruition, the 10th trip to the end of the divorce diving board without taking the plunge and nine have been mutually resolved. I think it's statistically likely that the 10th will also be, you know, when it comes down to the actual divorce both back off and in this nonsense. But what has done is act as if there's a division of property at both the Iowa and Fairfield home. I mean, how sad. How many couples would love to have two homes? one in a luxury condo in Washington DC. Four bedroom room house in Fairfield, two Mercedes Benzes, one in each location. This just ridiculous.
And um you know, we're both getting older. Our marital prospects for another spouse are statist statistically unlikely. Some are going to be ending up, you know, and she hasn't have a job for over a year.
So, I'm the bread winner. and uh managing the the homes with the assistance of rental income in both locations. So, she deactivated the FOB at the Washington DC condo. This is this gets me up the elevator. So, I've gotten by because I have a lot of friends in the building. I've lived in this condo since 2000 condo complex since 2001. But that's against the principle of marital property. She does not have the right to infringe on my access to marital property. Now, of course, in Iowa, she has total rights. I've never locked her out. She can drive the car whenever she wants. Drive the Mercedes, shopping, wherever she wants to go. But she's not giving that in return. I can get into the condo. I can get out of the condo. I just can't get back in again without the assistance of friends. And I want I want an order that end this nonsense. and I should have equal rights to go up the elevator and to the swimming pool for and the gym for court or doctor ordered exercise. I'm 70 years old. I need to exercise every day and this is infringing on my health. You know, I'm getting um you know, starting to get shakes in my hands, um headaches. So, this is a health issue. So, I just want equal rights.

PAVELICH:
Thank you, your honor. Um, I I don't know the nature of this motion. I don't believe it should be granted. Uh, it's something well beyond what the original motion was filed for in November. Um, the establishment of marital property for the time of the divorce made that decision. Uh at this point uh there Mr. Shaddock mentioned there are two homes uh including one in Iowa that apparently no one is living in. Uh we believe this should be reserved divorce uh file resistance in November November believe the reasoning behind that and ask for this motion to be discussed.

SHADDOCK:>> Excuse me. Point of order. There is there is a tenant there and um I also would like to be able to go back and forth and until the divorce the default is that it's marital property.
It's not okay let's find out if it's marital property or not at the time of divorce. It already is now marital property with equal rights and access.
Now maybe in a divorce a divorce judge will decide that there's going to be splitting of the properties but right now equal marital property. I want equal rights. I give equal rights to Oksana.
I'm just asking for that in return.

JUDGE: >> I will take that motion under advisement and review the filings and make a ruling at a later time. With respect to the motion to dismiss, Mr. Shaddock, you filed the case to initiate it and you now filed a motion to dismiss. Do you want to be heard briefly on that motion to dismiss?

SHADDOCK:>> Yeah. Well, at the time it was my belief that Oxana was financially self-sufficient, that she had had a job um and wouldn't tell me where, but I guess her job was finding a job, which is reasonable. So now I've discovered that she hasn't had a job since January of last year and her father passed away. Her mother's having no health issues. She's in Russia right now. I I can't do that to her. I can't ever with no income, but I'm very able to support her.
So, I Yeah. And I love her. So, and absence helps the heart grow fonder. So, I don't want to divorce anymore.

JUDGE:>> Mr. Pavelich, response.

PAVELICH>> Thank you, honor. Um still request for divorce and so we ask that the motion to dismiss the case be divorce >> and we'll ask for mediation it's worked nine times it'll work 10 times >> all right I'm going to take that one under adisement review the filings as well I'll get a written ruling um issue that is it um for record and we will end the Zoom meeting.

SHADDOCK:>> Thank you, your honor.