Chapter 13 - Diane’s Deposition
Diane’s deposition lasted four hours.
I attended remotely? As party maybe counsel. I read transcript.
Question:
“Did Elena ever tell you she wished to transfer $169,840 to Blue Harbor?”
“No.”
“Did Brandon?”
“He said they both agreed.”
“Did you ask Elena?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I received emails I believed from her.”
Then fake.
Question:
“Did you know email address incorrect?”
“No.”
“Would you have signed if knew?”
“No.”
Then family trust.
“Did you understand Brandon would control?”
“I thought he would help administer.”
“Did you understand Elena excluded?”
“I did not read beneficiary schedule.”
Hard truth.
Then:
“Did you benefit?”
“Yes.”
Medical, utilities.
“Did you ever suspect funds might be Elena’s?”
Diane paused.
“After a while.”
My chest tightened.
“When?”
“About nine months before separation.”
“What happened?”
Lucas mentioned Elena had not visited duplex.
Diane asked Brandon.
“He said Elena hates rental properties and trusts us.”
Then:
“Did you contact Elena?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I was afraid of insulting Brandon.”
There it was again.
Family protecting comfort.
Then:
“Did you believe maybe she didn’t know?”
“I wondered.”
That hurt.
Not innocent ignorance forever.
She had a moment to ask.
Chose not.
Then she cried.
“I’m sorry.”
Deposition not apology venue.
The lawyer continued.
Then Brandon’s mother had her own culpability civilly maybe. But she had no intent proven.
She agreed to disclaim any claim to marital contribution beyond her actual personal contributions. What personal? none maybe. She agreed properties could be sold or re-titled by court.
Then Lucas deposition.
He admitted suspicion.
Not enough to make fraud.
Then Liam.
Less.
Then my deposition.
Brandon’s lawyer asked every gift.
“Did you give Lucas $35,000?”
“Yes.”
“So you were comfortable large family gifts.”
“Yes, when I chose.”
“Did you ever tell Brandon he could help family without asking every time?”
“For small routine amounts.”
“How small?”
“We agreed under $2,000.”
“Written?”
“No.”
“So memory.”
“Yes.”
Then:
“Could he reasonably interpret broad?”
“No.”
“Your opinion.”
“Yes.
Then:
“Did you tell Diane ‘family investment matters’?”
“Yes.”
“Could that support Blue Harbor?”
“Not without telling me it existed.”
Then:
“Did you ever authorize stored signature?”
“Yes, on documents I reviewed.”
“Could Brandon believe permission continued?”
“I told him send final documents.”
Then text.
Good.
Then Mom.
“Did your mother dislike Brandon?”
“Before assault, no.”
“Did she snoop?”
“She cleaned.”
“Open drawer?”
“Yes.”
“Read confidential paperwork?”
“She saw name.”
Then:
“Could Brandon reasonably be angry?”
“Angry does not justify hitting.”
Then:
“Did you leave keys voluntarily?”
“Yes.”
“Did he lock you out?”
No.
“Did he threaten harm?”
No.
Precise.
Then divorce abandonment? Not relevant.
Then:
“Did you plan divorce before?”
“No.
Then fake email domain.
“Did you create?”
“No.
Then lawyer showed one email from real me to Brandon years ago:
If your mom needs something, handle it. I trust you.
I had written after knee surgery.
He used as moral license.
“What did handle it mean?”
“Take her to appointments and pay agreed bills.”
“Could include investment?”
“No.”
Then one more:
Family money is family money.
I wrote in argument? Context after Lucas wedding.
I explained:
“Meaning I wasn’t keeping score on gifts we discussed.”
Not hidden companies.
Then lawyer:
“Isn’t it possible you’re redefining after marriage ended?”
I looked.
“No. That is why there are forged letters.”
Then deposition ended.
I sat car and cried.
Not because questions unfair.
Because marriage contains so many informal statements that can be weaponized once trust collapses.
“Handle it.”
“Family money.”
“I trust you.”
All true then.
None equal:
Impersonate me.
Then Claire said:
“Contracts exist because human language is messy. Marriage relies on good faith. He is trying to turn ambiguity into authorization.”
Yes.
Then criminal prosecutor called.
They offered Brandon plea.
He would plead guilty to two felony counts involving fraudulent use of electronic identity/forged authorization documents and one misdemeanor battery against Margaret, plus restitution and probation after custody.
Recommended active incarceration around three years.
Other counts dismissed.
No charge for every joint transfer.
No “stealing $276k” headline.
The provable crimes were forged authorizations and impersonation.
Brandon asked for less.
Negotiations.
Then Margaret asked me:
“Do you want him jailed?”
“Yes.”
She looked surprised.
“Why hesitate?”
“Because I loved him.”
Both can.
Then:
“Do you want him ruined?”
“No.”
May you like
“I want him unable to tell himself this was accounting mistake.”
That became my line.
