Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:04-cv—00078-FJIVI Document 212-2 Filed 05/12/2008 Page 1 014

1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
p ; FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2
` ``°°`H‘ SHIMKO & PISCITELLI, et al., )
3 )
Plaintiffs, )
- 4 )
v5 )No. CIV·O4-78·PHX·FJM
5 )
DAVID GOLDFARB; RICHARD ROSS, )
6 et al., )
)
7 Defendants. )
8
-
10 The telephonic deposition of TIMOTHY SHIMKO, called
ll for examination, taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
12 Procedure of the United States District Courts pertaining to
{ ·¥ 13 the taking of depositions, taken before PAUL H. LANDSMAN,
2 14 RPR/CR No. 50478 of the State cf Arizona, taken at the law
15 offices of JABURG & WILK, P.C., 3200 North Central Avenue,
16 Suite 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, on the 24th day of March, 2008,
17 at 10:08 a,m.
18
19
20 Prepared by:
PAUL H. LANDSMAN, RPR/CR
21 CR #50478
22
23 Dropkin and Associates
Certified Court Reporters
G 24 7600 North 16th Street,Suite 216
{_ ‘ Phoenix, Arizona 85020
"“ 25 Telephone (602) 997-8066
DROPKIN AND ASSOCIATES
case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM D¤cumér’?tO51)2?§7‘8|9aPeQ1 05/12/2008 Page 2 of 4

86
1 wills in my entire thirty years at the Bar. So I don't do
» 2 that work. No, I wasn't consulted on it. There's a lot of
M 3 things they could ask me to do. That CORF had its own lawyer
4 on staff, all right, for the regulatory issues. I wasn't
5 their lawyer for all purposes. I was there for this
6 litigation.
7 Q. Whose property did you want a mortgage on?
8 A. I don't know. Their property; whatever property
9 they owned.
10 Q. Did they all own property? That's my question. Do
11 you know that they all owned property?
12 A. Yeah, I knew they all owned homes. Yeah, I knew
13 they all bought homes, yeah. Everyone of them had a home.
2 i1q`i V 14 Q. Did you advise them in writing —— I'm sorry?
15 A. I've been to three of their homes.
16 Q. Okay. Do you know how much equity each one had in
17 their homes?
18 A. I have no idea.
19 Q. Do you know anything about the Arizona homestead
2O law?
21 A. Not a wits worth.
22 Q. Do you know that by granting a consensual lien a
23 party waives the homestead?
24 A. I don't know anything about homestead law.
~. 25 Q. Okay. I take it, then, that when you asked for the
DROPKIN AND ASSOCIATES
Case 2:04-cv—00078-FJIVI Documer$tO221)2?27—8IQife% 05/12/2008 Page 3 of 4

87
1 deeds of trust, you didn't advise any of the individuals in
g 2 writing that by giving you a mortgage or a deed of trust that
3 that would constitute a waiver of the homestead?
4 A. The discussion didn‘t go that far. I said I wanted
5 mortgages.
6 Q. Right.
7 A. I received a letter from Paul Woodcock telling me
8 that we don't want you to be our lawyer any more -—
9 Q. Well, he really didn‘t say —-
10 A. Will you let me finish, Roger? And I respond the
11 next day saying: Fine, I‘m not going to be your lawyer any
12 more. And, you know, I basically thought his letter was a
13 bunch of hooey.
lm 14 Q. All right. Well, you'll agree with me that
15 Dr. Woodcock told you that it wasn't his intention to
16 discharge you in all cases, but only as that he wanted you to
17 continue to represent the company in the cases outside of
18 Arizona, didn‘t he?
19 A. Whatever his letter says. I'm not going to
2O interpret his letter. His letter says what it says.
21 Q. Okay. You did receive Exhibit 7, didn‘t you,
22 another letter from Dr. Woodcock?
23 A. That's the one we've gone through, correct?
24 Q. No.
—~a 25 A. It's a new exhibit?
DROPKIN AND ASSOCIATES
casa 2:04-cv-00078-FJM D¤cumér€%Oz21’2?E7‘8»¥%@8 05/12/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 212-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 212-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 212-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 212-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 4 of 4