SAN JOSE — Wylmina Hettinga, an appellant, said the public would be outraged if what happened to her happen to them.
Supplying half a dozen digital documents, the other half of a divorced couple described her situation as appalling.
“The American public would be livid in fear that it could happen to them,” she told the Northern California Record, referring to a 12-year lawsuit with her former husband, Timothy Loumena, which ended May 12 with a ruling from Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing of the California Sixth District Court of Appeal.
The judge and associate judges called Hettinga’s behavior convoluted in the ruling. According to Hettinga, the court is allegedly part of the reason why she has been named a vexatious litigant, or someone who is considered cumbersome to the courts by repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits.
“I bought this property in shambles as a single woman because of its unique location, and there is no place like it on earth,” Hettinga said. “I had money before I married from my mom’s death in a plane accident in 1993."
Hettinga said she was hoping to give the property to her children.
“A person employed by the superior court could ‘steal’ a property for $0 in violation of court orders” and “now the Sixth District is further covering it up by claiming that a second sale of the property was the actual sale, essentially covering up that the first ‘transfer/theft’ never happened,” she said.
She said that with her case a “Superior Court judge purposefully found 'facts' off the record prior to a court reporter being present. My ex immediately refinanced the $1 million property in his own name for $940.75 and made at least one payment before he got caught,” Hettinga said, noting her ex-husband allegedly used a fictitious name.
Hettinga said there is reason for her excessive suing.
“I am a vexatious litigant to try and make sure that this doesn’t become a standard procedure of the Superior Court to seize people’s property through acts of their employees without due process, so we are going to stretch this out even years further,” she said.
But it doesn’t have to go this way, according to Hettinga.
“If you want to help stop what will most likely amount to 13 years of litigation, give people the right to a civil jury trial and summarily end the fraud in family courts right away,” she said.