Robert S. Menders

Mr. Menders did not do a complete discovery after multiple times he was asked to. Mr. Menders insured me this is right and I was naïve to believe him. When they say mom knows best they are right because my mom told me to fire him because I was doing all his work for him and he was not listening to ...me. I wished I would have listened because this divorce cost me over $40,000 plus the assets that would have been uncovered. Be careful as to Mr. Menders does not carry malpractice insurance. This below is what the judge had to say during court after Mr. Menders referred me to another attorney after he took more of my money. The other attorney did the discoveries of the hidden assets that Mr. Menders assured me did not exist. THE COURT:Once a g a i n , t h e. The Defendant's Motion for Relief from J u d g m e n t a p p e a r s t o h a v e come a b o u t when t h e D e f e n d a n t - -and I b e l i e ve sometime in 2024, s h e found a r e c e i p t to t h e P l a i n t i f f in the amount o f - - in the amount o f $500 d o l l a r s dated December 21, 2021 from Leaders RPM, which is a recreational vehicle dealer. T h a t ' s what prompted Ms. Magoon's retention of an attorney to investigate. About two and half - - almost t h r e e y e a r s l a t e r , the Defendant f i l e d t h i s m o t i o n b e f o r e t h e - - w h i c h i s n o w b e f o r e t h e C o u r t t o r e l i e f -- s e e k i n g r e l i e f from t h e Judgment of Divorce e n t e r e d on May17, 2022. T h a t m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f from Judgment was f i l e d inJanuary - - on January 30th of 2025. Again, almost three yearsfrom the date of entry of the Judgment. The i n i t i a l motionalleged two primary issues that the Plaintiff's 401(k), which was entered via - by v i r t u e of a QDRO on April 21, 2023, shorted the Defendant inasmuch as there was an alleged outstanding loan a g a i n s t the 401(k) which was not disclosed. And so the - - t h e net b a l a n c e d i v i d e d between the p a r t i es s h o r t e d Ms. Magoon. That i s no longer an i s s u e . S o t h e - - n o need for the Court to a d d r e s s t h a t . T h e o t h e r i s s u e t h a t w a s r a i s e d was t h e f a i l u r e to d i s c l o s e the a l l e g e d p u r c h a s e o f the snowmobile by t h e P l a i n t i f f in December of 2021 pursuant to t h i s r e c e i p t t h a t was found. In addition, we have another issue added today which is - - t h e y ' r e in the pleadings s u b s e q u e n t t o d i s c o v e r y - - t h a t t h e F i r s t Merchants bank account in the name of the P l a i n t i f f , there was s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h d r a w a l s . There was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c l o s u r e s to t h e Defendant or to D e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y o f t h e funds i n t h o s e First Merchants accounts and where it was going. In any event, the Court having reviewed a l l of these matters, the Court is of t h e o p i n i o n that if t h