observationobservation
Printed total$2,975,774.98 as of5June2025; not a current payoff or satisfaction record.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 1 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Context source · CXF-S-093499FD4997
Exhibit1 judgment calculation as of 5 June 2025: amounts and unresolved interest arithmetic
SHA-256
093499fd4997922719a9…6 pages · 191 KBDISTILLATES
What the source contains
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Exhibit1 bears Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark and calculation as of 6/5/2025; no case number, debtor, cr
Exhibit1 bears Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark and calculation as of 6/5/2025; no case number, debtor, creditor, preparer or signature identifies whose obligation is calculated.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 1 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12%, pre-judgment $0 at0%, post-judgment $412,648.54, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1
Table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12%, pre-judgment $0 at0%, post-judgment $412,648.54, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $717,671.54, expenses $83,341.22 and court cost $0. Printed total $2,975,774.98.
Read the anchor · page 2
Order Amount Judgment $1,572,500.00 12.00% Pre-Judgment $0.00 0.00% Post-Judgment $412,648.54 Attys Fees (Trial) $187,863.69 Attys Fees (RO) $1,750.00 Receiver's Fee $717,671.54 Expenses $83,341.22 Court Cost $0.00 Total $2,975,774.98 As of: 6/5/2025 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Continuation lists 6/23/2023 with713days and$578.75per diem;5/11/2021 with773days and$0;10/11/2023 Day of Ripeness. Next page shows$412,648.
Continuation lists 6/23/2023 with713days and$578.75per diem;5/11/2021 with773days and$0;10/11/2023 Day of Ripeness. Next page shows$412,648.54/$0 and separate attorneys fees/sanctions/sanctions labels. Split layout does not prove all row relationships.
Read the anchor · page 3
Date Signed Day Count Per Diem 6/23/2023 713 $578.75 5/11/2021 773 $0.00 10/11/2023 Day of Ripeness UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Due to Defendant $2,173,012.23 is shown; separate amounts$177,126.19,$3,895,$6,842.50 total$187,863.69. Final page repeats Receivers Fees$71
Due to Defendant $2,173,012.23 is shown; separate amounts$177,126.19,$3,895,$6,842.50 total$187,863.69. Final page repeats Receivers Fees$717,671.54. These are components, not additional independent debts.
Read the anchor · page 5
Due to Defendant $2,173,012.23 $177,126.19 $3,895.00 $6,842.50 $187,863.69 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Calculation states this as-of date, not filing/payment date.
Read the anchor · page 2
Order Amount Judgment $1,572,500.00 12.00% Pre-Judgment $0.00 0.00% Post-Judgment $412,648.54 Attys Fees (Trial) $187,863.69 Attys Fees (RO) $1,750.00 Receiver's Fee $717,671.54 Expenses $83,341.22 Court Cost $0.00 Total $2,975,774.98 As of: 6/5/2025 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference
Listed p2 components sum exactly$2,975,774.99, one cent above printed total. Trial fee breakdown equals$187,863.69; judgment+post-judgment+t
Listed p2 components sum exactly$2,975,774.99, one cent above printed total. Trial fee breakdown equals$187,863.69; judgment+post-judgment+trial fees equals stated$2,173,012.23. Preserve original totals and rounding gap.
inferenceinference
713×displayed$578.75=$412,648.75,21c above printed post-judgment amount. Also12%of$1,572,500 divided by365 gives approximately$516.99/day, n
713×displayed$578.75=$412,648.75,21c above printed post-judgment amount. Also12%of$1,572,500 divided by365 gives approximately$516.99/day, not$578.75. A different interest-bearing base or rounding convention may explain this; supplied sheet does not disclose it.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 093499fd4997922719a94cdf4278e1063f0841bcc48ced2a807fc45ac0d75bf7. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 093499fd4997922719a94cdf4278e1063f0841bcc48ced2a807fc45ac0d75bf7. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own exact SHA256 093499fd4997922719a94cdf4278e1063f0841bcc48ced2a807fc45ac0d75bf7 verified; complete own-source text and all rendered pages read. Page-level corrections explicitly attributed; no absent document or performed act inferred.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 1 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
questionquestion
Which judgment, fee orders, interest-bearing base and rounding convention establish the obligation and per-diem calculation?
distillateallegation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Awards costs including$177,126.19 attorney fees plus sanctions$3,895 and$6,842.50, and12%annual post-judgment interest from entry on damages incurred, per agreement. Fees+sanctions=$187,863.69 arithmetically.supportsDue to Defendant $2,173,012.23 is shown; separate amounts$177,126.19,$3,895,$6,842.50 total$187,863.69. Final page repeats Receivers Fees$717,671.54. These are components, not additional independent debts.
Same fee and sanction values total187863.69; numerical correspondence only, not proof of calculation identity or correct interest base.
713×displayed$578.75=$412,648.75,21c above printed post-judgment amount. Also12%of$1,572,500 divided by365 gives approximately$516.99/day, not$578.75. A different interest-bearing base or rounding convention may explain this; supplied sheet does not disclose it.supportsCan this exhibit alone establish the amount legally due?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12%, pre-judgment $0 at0%, post-judgment $412,648.54, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $717,671.54, expenses $83,341.22 and court cost $0. Printed total $2,975,774.98.supportsCan this exhibit alone establish the amount legally due?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Listed p2 components sum exactly$2,975,774.99, one cent above printed total. Trial fee breakdown equals$187,863.69; judgment+post-judgment+trial fees equals stated$2,173,012.23. Preserve original totals and rounding gap.supportsCan this exhibit alone establish the amount legally due?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Continuation lists 6/23/2023 with713days and$578.75per diem;5/11/2021 with773days and$0;10/11/2023 Day of Ripeness. Next page shows$412,648.54/$0 and separate attorneys fees/sanctions/sanctions labels. Split layout does not prove all row relationships.supports713×displayed$578.75=$412,648.75,21c above printed post-judgment amount. Also12%of$1,572,500 divided by365 gives approximately$516.99/day, not$578.75. A different interest-bearing base or rounding convention may explain this; supplied sheet does not disclose it.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Continuation lists 6/23/2023 with713days and$578.75per diem;5/11/2021 with773days and$0;10/11/2023 Day of Ripeness. Next page shows$412,648.54/$0 and separate attorneys fees/sanctions/sanctions labels. Split layout does not prove all row relationships.supportsWhich judgment, fee orders, interest-bearing base and rounding convention establish the obligation and per-diem calculation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit1 bears Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark and calculation as of 6/5/2025; no case number, debtor, creditor, preparer or signature identifies whose obligation is calculated.supportsWhich judgment, fee orders, interest-bearing base and rounding convention establish the obligation and per-diem calculation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12%, pre-judgment $0 at0%, post-judgment $412,648.54, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $717,671.54, expenses $83,341.22 and court cost $0. Printed total $2,975,774.98.supports713×displayed$578.75=$412,648.75,21c above printed post-judgment amount. Also12%of$1,572,500 divided by365 gives approximately$516.99/day, not$578.75. A different interest-bearing base or rounding convention may explain this; supplied sheet does not disclose it.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit1 bears Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark and calculation as of 6/5/2025; no case number, debtor, creditor, preparer or signature identifies whose obligation is calculated.supportsCan this exhibit alone establish the amount legally due?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12%, pre-judgment $0 at0%, post-judgment $412,648.54, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $717,671.54, expenses $83,341.22 and court cost $0. Printed total $2,975,774.98.supportsListed p2 components sum exactly$2,975,774.99, one cent above printed total. Trial fee breakdown equals$187,863.69; judgment+post-judgment+trial fees equals stated$2,173,012.23. Preserve original totals and rounding gap.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12%, pre-judgment $0 at0%, post-judgment $412,648.54, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $717,671.54, expenses $83,341.22 and court cost $0. Printed total $2,975,774.98.supportsWhich judgment, fee orders, interest-bearing base and rounding convention establish the obligation and per-diem calculation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
713×displayed$578.75=$412,648.75,21c above printed post-judgment amount. Also12%of$1,572,500 divided by365 gives approximately$516.99/day, not$578.75. A different interest-bearing base or rounding convention may explain this; supplied sheet does not disclose it.supportsWhich judgment, fee orders, interest-bearing base and rounding convention establish the obligation and per-diem calculation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Due to Defendant $2,173,012.23 is shown; separate amounts$177,126.19,$3,895,$6,842.50 total$187,863.69. Final page repeats Receivers Fees$717,671.54. These are components, not additional independent debts.supportsListed p2 components sum exactly$2,975,774.99, one cent above printed total. Trial fee breakdown equals$187,863.69; judgment+post-judgment+trial fees equals stated$2,173,012.23. Preserve original totals and rounding gap.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
Explained weighting
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
No published WEIGH run
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.