The two-page Exhibit B contains a one-page Order/Amount table dated as of 9 June 2025. It has no identified author, judicial signature, calc
The two-page Exhibit B contains a one-page Order/Amount table dated as of 9 June 2025. It has no identified author, judicial signature, calculation period, payment ledger or underlying orders attached. The heading Order does not make the schedule a signed order.
Read the anchor · page 1
District Clerk
Exhibit B
Unofficial Cor
claimallegation
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at 12.00 per cent, prejudgment $0 at 0.00 per cent, postjudgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,8
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at 12.00 per cent, prejudgment $0 at 0.00 per cent, postjudgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69 and RO attorney fees $1,750. The interest start/end dates and the meaning of RO are not explained.
It also lists receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady attorney fees $21,677.50, Vargo attorney fees $21,880 and Caudle attorney
It also lists receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady attorney fees $21,677.50, Vargo attorney fees $21,880 and Caudle attorney fees $9,392.50. These labels do not identify an approving order or prove that each category is owed, unpaid or non-overlapping.
All listed amounts sum exactly to the printed $3,083,639.75. Arithmetic consistency does not establish the correct principal after credits,
All listed amounts sum exactly to the printed $3,083,639.75. Arithmetic consistency does not establish the correct principal after credits, the interest period/rate, fee authority or actual payment. The total is a dated schedule rather than a verified current payoff.
The schedule can reconcile the components of the displayed total, while leaving legal allowance and net debt unresolved. A mathematically ex
The schedule can reconcile the components of the displayed total, while leaving legal allowance and net debt unresolved. A mathematically exact table is not a substitute for supporting orders and credits.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 2-page source reviewed at SHA-256 fc4752006167dc9fcbd82cd75bc5d0a8a45f3a4144524a702e74e8e89f32a3df. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 2-page source reviewed at SHA-256 fc4752006167dc9fcbd82cd75bc5d0a8a45f3a4144524a702e74e8e89f32a3df. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. No unexamined later court outcome is inferred.
Read the anchor · page 1
District Clerk
Exhibit B
Unofficial Cor
questionquestion
Which orders, interest dates, invoices and credit/payment ledger support each component and exclude overlap?
distillateattribution
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Exhibit A contains a Southside Bank online-activity image, identified by the visible bank logo, for a domestic wire of $3,083,639.75 to Berleth & Associates. Tracking ID 13691243 is displayed. The source has an Unofficial Copy watermark and redactions; the three pages are a cover and two banking-record pages.referencesAll listed amounts sum exactly to the printed $3,083,639.75. Arithmetic consistency does not establish the correct principal after credits, the interest period/rate, fee authority or actual payment. The total is a dated schedule rather than a verified current payoff.
The wire amount exactly matches the schedule total; this reconciles amount, not settlement or legal allowance.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at 12.00 per cent, prejudgment $0 at 0.00 per cent, postjudgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69 and RO attorney fees $1,750. The interest start/end dates and the meaning of RO are not explained.supportsWhich orders, interest dates, invoices and credit/payment ledger support each component and exclude overlap?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at 12.00 per cent, prejudgment $0 at 0.00 per cent, postjudgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69 and RO attorney fees $1,750. The interest start/end dates and the meaning of RO are not explained.supportsThe schedule can reconcile the components of the displayed total, while leaving legal allowance and net debt unresolved. A mathematically exact table is not a substitute for supporting orders and credits.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The two-page Exhibit B contains a one-page Order/Amount table dated as of 9 June 2025. It has no identified author, judicial signature, calculation period, payment ledger or underlying orders attached. The heading Order does not make the schedule a signed order.supportsThe schedule can reconcile the components of the displayed total, while leaving legal allowance and net debt unresolved. A mathematically exact table is not a substitute for supporting orders and credits.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The two-page Exhibit B contains a one-page Order/Amount table dated as of 9 June 2025. It has no identified author, judicial signature, calculation period, payment ledger or underlying orders attached. The heading Order does not make the schedule a signed order.supportsWhich orders, interest dates, invoices and credit/payment ledger support each component and exclude overlap?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
All listed amounts sum exactly to the printed $3,083,639.75. Arithmetic consistency does not establish the correct principal after credits, the interest period/rate, fee authority or actual payment. The total is a dated schedule rather than a verified current payoff.supportsWhich orders, interest dates, invoices and credit/payment ledger support each component and exclude overlap?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
All listed amounts sum exactly to the printed $3,083,639.75. Arithmetic consistency does not establish the correct principal after credits, the interest period/rate, fee authority or actual payment. The total is a dated schedule rather than a verified current payoff.supportsThe schedule can reconcile the components of the displayed total, while leaving legal allowance and net debt unresolved. A mathematically exact table is not a substitute for supporting orders and credits.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at 12.00 per cent, prejudgment $0 at 0.00 per cent, postjudgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69 and RO attorney fees $1,750. The interest start/end dates and the meaning of RO are not explained.supportsDo the listed components equal the printed total?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It also lists receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady attorney fees $21,677.50, Vargo attorney fees $21,880 and Caudle attorney fees $9,392.50. These labels do not identify an approving order or prove that each category is owed, unpaid or non-overlapping.supportsThe schedule can reconcile the components of the displayed total, while leaving legal allowance and net debt unresolved. A mathematically exact table is not a substitute for supporting orders and credits.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It also lists receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady attorney fees $21,677.50, Vargo attorney fees $21,880 and Caudle attorney fees $9,392.50. These labels do not identify an approving order or prove that each category is owed, unpaid or non-overlapping.supportsWhich orders, interest dates, invoices and credit/payment ledger support each component and exclude overlap?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
All listed amounts sum exactly to the printed $3,083,639.75. Arithmetic consistency does not establish the correct principal after credits, the interest period/rate, fee authority or actual payment. The total is a dated schedule rather than a verified current payoff.supportsDo the listed components equal the printed total?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It also lists receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady attorney fees $21,677.50, Vargo attorney fees $21,880 and Caudle attorney fees $9,392.50. These labels do not identify an approving order or prove that each category is owed, unpaid or non-overlapping.supportsDo the listed components equal the printed total?
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.