Whether a trial court may improperly use judicial notice and unadjudicated attorney correspondence to modify a prior unappealable divorce decree and property settlement agreement

No question identified. : Bernice acknowledges that review of a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion. However, this case presents one of national importance and significance because it conflicts with well-established rules and principles of summary judgement and conflicts with this Court and other Federal Courts. This case also involves Fed. Rules of Evidence, Article I. Judicial Notice, Rule 201. (e) taking in the final order to reach a conclusion of law without giving defendant, Bernice Rutland, the opportunity to be heard. On April 16, 2021, Regions filed a Petition for a Declaratory Judgement against Bernice Rutland, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of William Hunter Rutland, Sr. This case is about an irrevocable trust worth $500,000.00 plus interest, that was divided 50/50 in a Property Settlement Agreement along with the other assets in the divorce of William Rutland and Joann Sparks Rutland. The Property Settlement Agreement was made between William and Joann and their attorneys, carefully going over every detail and even making handwritten adjustments in Joann Sparks Rutland’s attorney’s office, M. Lee Graves. Mr. Rutland’s attorney was not there. The hearing on the divorce was on December 03, 2010, and the Final Decree of Divorce upon irreconcilable Difference was filed on December 06, 2010. The agreement was presented to the Honorable William G. Willard, Jr., who presided over the case. There was no testimony on this case. The Trust Insurance policy was included in the 50/50 split. The chancellor in the order of June 17, 2022, Exhibit “D” line 5 acknowledges the fact that the trust was included in the Property Settlement Agreement. 2 Bernice filed a Motion on July 15, 2021, to do depositions on Gwendolyn Kyzar, Misty Singletary, and others however, the trial court denied motion on November 29, 2021, to do depositions and Bernice was granted only limited Rule 56(f relief only to produce relevant documents. Bernice produced the following. 1. The Property Settlement Agreement. 2. The Final Divorce decree. 3. Acase that Mr. Rutland presented to the judge in his divorce of 2010, from the Supreme Court of Montana, which was similar. 4. A copy of the Trust, where the asset page “A”, is blank. 5. The financial statement of William Rutland, which includes the trust, 6. Four (4) notarized statement one from Joann Sparks Rutland and the three (8) children, William Jr., Melanie and Lady, being together during the time of the divorce in M. Lee Graves office. 7. Two (2) letters of communication between both attorneys, for some reason both letters were filed with the court by M. Lee Graves, on March 03, 2011. These letters were not adjudicated facts, only communication between two attorneys and filed 3 months after the final order of divorce. ' Regions provided. 1. The same trust agreement that Bernice had with the asset section “A” being blank. 2. A sworn affidavit from Misty Singletary; however, Ms. Singletary did not produce the documents she swore under oath that these documents were attached to the affidavit, and she did not have firsthand knowledge of those records that were never provided. Ms. Singletary was one of the witnesses Bernice wanted and needed to take the deposition of but was denied. Regions did not meet the burden of proof on Summary Judgement base on case law, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 333 (1986). In the Chancery Courts Final Order, on Bernices Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgement and Request for Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusion of law, the court took judicial notice and conducted some research of its own in the divorce file between the decedent and the late Joanne 3 Sparks Rutland. Exhibit “D” Gi) page 5. The trial court in this case was not the same Chancellor that presided over the divorce in December 2010. Judicially noticed was a Contempt Order, Line 6, “Exhibit “D” and Consent Order, Exhibit “D’, and