SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Frederick J. Shaddock
Petitioner
V. Case No. 2025 CAB 000953
Oksana S. Shaddock
Respondent

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (PETITION)

Respondent (Defendant), Oksana Shaddock, by her attorney, Robert Case
Liotta, moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint. The Complaint is
incorrectly titled as a Petition and the parties are incorrectly identified as Petitioner
and Respondent. In order to avoid confusion, the incorrect usage utilized by the
Petitioner shall be utilized herein.. As grounds for this Motion Respondent states as
follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
Respondent was never served with a summons or the Petition. She learned of
the existence of the Petition indirectly and chooses to respond.
SECOND DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to add a spouse to the title of
separately and solely titled property.
THIRD DEFENSE
1. The Petition, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Petitioner seeks to have this Court enter an order that he "be added to the title of
the Property located at 520 N Street, SW, Suite S-316, Washington, DC 20004'.
(Hereinafter referred to as The Property). This request for relief appears at the end
of the Petition but at the beginning he requests "a finding of fact establishing
marital property". He grounds these requests in the claims that (1) the parties were
married when the Respondent purchased the Property in her sole name, (2) the
parties bought another property in Iowa that they titled in joint names and (3) that 
he has made financial contributions to The Property. 

 2. The parties were married when each property was purchased. That fact 
establishes that the properties were marital when purchased. However, The 
Property lost that status when Petitioner 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) 

 3. In 2024, Petitioner filed for a divorce in Iowa. On March 11, 2025 the parties 
entered into a Post-Nuptial Agreement (See attached Post Nuptial Agreement) 
wherein they agreed to resume the marriage and to dismiss the divorce case. 
Petitioner has dismissed the divorce case. 

 4. The Post-Nuptial Agreement buttresses the provisions of the Quit Claim 
Deed. It provides in Section 2 that, “Rick quitclaims and waives any right title or 
interest he may have in the Washington Condo”. In Section 2.a. it states: “In the 
event of a dissolution of marriage, ownership of the condominium in Washington, 
DC shall be awarded to Oksana as her sole and separate property.” 

 5. Petitioner cannot maintain this action in light of having waived all interest in 
The Property both before he brought this suit and after he brought it. 

 6. There was no basis in law for a suit to add a name to a title for the reasons 
stated. Petitioner sites no authority for his suit for the simple reason that there is 
none. Even if authority existed, Petitioner has waived all rights he might have to 
The Property; not once but twice. And those waivers specifically included “title”. 
The “Petition” is groundless and must be dismissed. 

 7. With regard to the request that the Court enter Findings of Fact that The 
Property is marital, there is likewise no basis for this Court to take such action. 
This suit is filed in the Civil Division. If Petitioner were to file an action for 
divorce in the Family Court, that Court would make a determination as to whether 


Signature-Final
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. 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant/Respondent 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/Respondent. 

 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 12(b)(1) and (6). Petitioner/Plaintiff 
has not established subject matter jurisdiction in this matter under Rule 12(b)(1) 
and he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 
12(b)(6). 

 D. C. Code Section 16-910 would govern the determination of marital versus 
non-marital property in a Family Court case. 

 


 

 Robert Case Liotta 


Signature-Final
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this 18 day of March 2025 a copy of the foregoing Reply 
to Opposition to Motion to Continue Trial was sent via email and CaseFileExpress to 
Frederick J. Shaddock, 520 N Street, SW, S-316, Washington, DC 20024 
Robert Case Liotta