Description
Preston wants Count II thrown out—but her lawyer’s filing could have used one more trip through the proofreading department! While demanding that Hales plead his case correctly, the response leaves “[DOES / DOES NOT] consent” sitting right there on page eight. Apparently, choosing an answer was still on the to-do list!
The motion’s main argument? Hales allegedly used the wrong timeline: Preston says Count II targets conduct before bankruptcy but relies on events afterward. That’s a challenge to how the claim was pleaded—not a financial clean bill of health. Winning an argument about dates would not, by itself, explain where the donation money went.
Then comes the disputed $56,000 donation allegation. Her defense argues that money held by Lisa Lee has not been adequately shown to be Preston’s property or money she could legally demand. Money allegedly raised for the family, but no enforceable right to collect it? That distinction deserves a spotlight—and some very specific questions.
Preston denies wrongdoing and wants Hales denied all relief. But asking the court to dismiss a count is still just a request. The motion has plenty to say about pleading defects. Whether those arguments carry the day is the judge’s decision—and the unfinished brackets certainly aren’t helping the presentation!
#whatthehales, #grudgejudge, #buckleup, #LawsuitUpdate, #CourtDocuments #LegalCommentary #MotionToDismiss
If you would like to help support the channel.
CashApp $MrCoop0
Venmo @MrCoopshow
Ko-Fi Ko-Fi
https://ko-fi.com/mrcoop
Tip Jar;
https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/8RBUNHYA7BDJN
Email; mrcoopshow@gmail.com
MrCoop P.O. Box 597 Auburndale FL. 33823
This livestream contains original commentary, live discussion, and analysis by MrCoop. Any court filings, public records, clips, or screenshots shown are used for commentary, criticism, education, and discussion.