Chapter 13 - The Corporate Vote
Barron decided to sell part of Halden Millwork.
Not all.
Not immediately.
He commissioned an independent valuation.
The employee trust and senior management negotiated a staged buyout.
Luke’s legitimate 18% stake complicated everything.
He could not be forced to sell cheaply just because people disliked him.
The proposed structure allowed him either to retain his shares as passive minority interest subject to governance rules or sell at independently appraised value, with restitution claims handled separately through lawful liens/orders where applicable.
Luke chose to retain initially.
Control mattered more to him than liquidity.
But he no longer managed.
Barron retained 62% pending transaction.
Then corporate counsel discovered Halden Property Holdings had billed Halden Millwork for “executive housing planning.”
$25,000 townhouse deposit partly came from company funds routed through Haven Ridge.
The purchase had not closed because police investigation scared title company after liens/claims emerged.
Deposit became disputed.
Seller eventually terminated contract under contract terms.
Some deposit money was lost.
Not Clover’s loss.
Luke and Celina’s problem.
Then Barron’s divorce mediation.
Celina wanted part of the Westerville home’s appreciation.
She had lived there twelve years.
Contributed marital funds to renovations.
Even if inherited property remained Barron’s separate base asset, she had colorable claims.
They negotiated instead of trying to leave one another destitute.
Barron offered a cash settlement from marital investments plus some share of appreciation.
Celina refused first.
Later criminal pressure made mediation more attractive.
Still unresolved.
Then my condo tenant Rebecca moved out.
I walked into the unit on crutches.
Empty.
Sunlight across hardwood.
No Luke.
No Celina.
No Barron.
Just my old couch in storage? I had sold most furniture. We can say furnished minimally.
I stood in kitchen and cried.
Not because condo beautiful.
Because the door locked from inside and no one else had key.
I changed locks anyway.
Then I returned to work full-time gradually.
Colleagues stopped treating me like fragile glass after I told them:
“Please complain normally.”
Natalie brought me a disastrous cafeteria muffin.
Life.
Then trial approached.
Celina and Luke would be tried together on overlapping conduct? Joint trial can raise conflicts. Prosecutors chose joint trial for assault aftermath counts where evidence intertwined, while financial cases remained separate. Celina faced direct assault charge. Luke faced restraint/interference/obstruction. Both faced conspiracy/obstruction around false fall story. Defense attorneys moved to sever. Judge partially severed? To keep manageable, perhaps separate trials would be clearer. But then 25 chapters. Let's say court severed direct assault counts? Hmm.
Better: Celina trial first on assault and obstruction. Luke trial later on restraint/interference/obstruction. Barron testifies twice. Financial case later. More realistic and dramatic.
Celina’s trial began first.
Jury heard audio.
Barron.
Me.
Medical expert.
Police.
Celina testified.
She said:
“I never intended to break Clover’s leg.”
That could be true.
Intent to injure enough? Assault elements vary. Prosecutor:
“Did you intentionally swing the rolling pin?”
“Yes, to scare her.”
“Did it strike her?”
“Yes.”
There.
She admitted intentional swing and contact but denied intending fracture.
Aggravated assault can focus serious physical harm caused knowingly? Statutes vary. Let's keep generic felony assault causing serious injury, no exact statute.
Then:
“After she fell, did you call ambulance?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I was angry.”
“Did you take her purse?”
“I moved it.”
“Did you remove wallet?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“She was threatening to leave.”
The jury noticed.
Then:
“Did you say break her spirit until she obeys?”
Celina paused.
“Yes.”
No context saved that.
Verdict after six hours:
Guilty of felony assault causing serious bodily injury.
Guilty of obstruction/tampering-related conduct tied to planned false account? Did she actually tamper? She removed wallet/phone? Luke took phone. Celina took purse/ID. She also agreed to false story. Let's say guilty of obstructing emergency assistance as accomplice? Keep broad.
Guilty of unlawful restraint-related complicity.
Not guilty on one more serious charge alleging preplanned conspiracy to injure me.
Good.
She had not planned the strike in advance beyond reasonable doubt.
I appreciated that.
Then Luke’s trial was scheduled three weeks later.
His attorney requested delay because Celina’s conviction changed strategy.
Denied in part.
Then Luke made a move no one expected.
He asked for a plea.
Not because of remorse.
Because his mother’s testimony had admitted things that placed him in the room.
Prosecutor would consider.
But Sarah told Dana:
“He wants the obstruction charge dismissed.”
“What does he offer?”
“Guilty plea to unlawful restraint and interference with emergency aid.”
I looked at her.
“And the recording where he says we’ll lie?”
“Exactly.”
No deal yet.
Then financial prosecutors added their own leverage.
Luke had been indicted on forgery and company-theft-related charges.
Celina too.
May you like
The hidden room had become two cases.
The plea chessboard changed overnight.
