Bishop Accountability
 
 

Final Judgment in Catholic Diocese of Dallas
as issued by Judge Anne Ashby
NO. 93-5258-G

[Name of Kos survivor redacted at the survivor's request.]

JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, MR. & MRS. JOHN DOE, Individually and as Next Friends of JOHN DOE III, a Minor, JOHN DOE IV, JOHN DOE V, JOHN DOE VI, JOHN DOE VII, JOHN DOLE VIII, JOHN DOE IX, MR. & MRS. JOHN DOE, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of JOHN DOE X, and JOHN DOE XI,Plaintiffs,V.REVEREND RUDOLPH KOS; ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS, by and through CHARLES V. GRAHMANN, BISHOP, His Predecessors and Successors,Defendants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FINAL JUDGMENT
On the 25th day of April, 1997 came on to be heard the above-styled and numbered cause and Plaintiffs Michael Pawlik (John Doe I), Shawn Johnson (John Doe II), Nathan Nichols (John Doe III), Tracy Lemoine (John Doe IV), [Redacted] (John Doe V), Steve Pawlik (John Doe VI), Lee Hart (John Doe VII), Jim Sibert (John Doe VIII), Wade Schlossstein (John Doe IX), Pat and Nancy Lemberger (Mr. and Mrs. John Doe X), Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Jay Lemberger, Deceased (Estate of John Doe X), and Robert Hultz (John Doe XI) appeared by their attorneys of record and announced ready for trial. Defendant Father Rudolph Kos, although duly served, failed to appear. Defendants Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas (referred to herein as the "Diocese of Dallas") and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas (also referred to herein as the "Diocese of Dallas") appeared through their respective attorneys of record and announced ready for trial. Bishop Charles V. Grahmann has been sued solely in his representative capacity and this Judgment has been entered against him solely in his representative capacity. Defendant Diocese of Dallas filed a Motion for Continuance on May 1, 1997 which was denied on May 5, 1997. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed by Defendant Diocese of Dallas with the Fifth Court of Appeals on May 9, 1997 and denied on May 12, 1997. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed by Defendant Diocese of Dallas with the Texas Supreme Court on May 12, 1997 and denied on May 13, 1997. A jury had been previously demanded, and a jury consisting of twelve (12) qualified jurors and four (4) alternates was duly empaneled and the case proceeded to trial.

Prior to trial, the Court entered an Order granting Partial Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs Michael Pawlik, Shawn Johnson, Nathan Nichols, and Tracy Lemoine against Defendant Father Rudolph Kos as to all liability claims of Negligence, Assault, Negligence per se and Gross Negligence as contained in Plaintiffs' Seventh Amended Petition. This Order, dated September 21, 1995, is incorporated in this Judgment by reference for all purposes.

Also prior to trial, the Court entered an Order of Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Steve Pawlik, Jim Sibert, Wade Schlossstein, Pat and Nancy Lemberger, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Jay Lemberger, Deceased, as to all allegations against Defendant Father Rudolph Kos as plead in their Eleventh Amended Original Petition. This Order, dated February 11, 1997, is incorporated in this Judgment by reference for all purposes.

Also prior to trial, the Court entered two Orders Deeming Certain Requests for Admissions filed by Plaintiffs [Redacted], Lee Hart and Robert Hultz to Have Been Admitted as to Defendant Father Rudolph Kos only. These Orders Deeming Requests for Admissions to Have Been Admitted by Defendant Father Rudolph Kos only are dated April 29, 1997 with regard to Requests for Admissions filed by [Redacted], Lee Hart and Robert Hultz. These Orders of the Court dated April 29, 1997 Deeming Requests for Admissions to Have Been Admitted as to Defendant Father Rudolph Kos only and the Requests for Admissions as filed of record and deemed admitted by Orders dated April 29, 1997 are hereby incorporated into this Judgment by reference for all purposes.

Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the Court entered a Directed Verdict dated July 18, 1997 against Defendant Father Rudolph Kos based upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Directed Verdict. This Directed Verdict dated July 18, 1997 against Defendant Father Rudolph Kos is hereby incorporated into this Judgment by reference for all purposes.

Prior to submission of the case to the Jury, the Court entered a Directed Verdict dated July 21, 1997 against Defendant Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas and Defendant Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his Predecessors and Successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, regarding the meaning of the term "Diocese of Dallas" as used in the Charge of the Court. In the Directed Verdict dated July 21, 1997 the Court found that the term "Diocese of Dallas" as used in the Charge of the Court, Part 1 and Part 2, includes and/or means Bishop Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas. This Directed Verdict dated July 21, 1997 against Defendant Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas is hereby incorporated into this Judgment by reference for all purposes.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court submitted the questions of fact in this case to a jury. The Charge of the Court, and the Charge of the Court, part 2, and the Verdict of the Jury are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. Because the verdict of the Jury was for Plaintiffs Michael Pawlik, Shawn Johnson, Nathan Nichols, Tracy Lemoine, [Redacted], Steve Pawlik, Lee Hart, Jim Sibert, Wade Schlossstein, Jay Lemberger, Pat and Nancy Lemberger, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jay Lemberger, Deceased, and Robert Hultz and against Defendants Father Rudolph Kos, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, Judgment should be rendered on the verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Michael Pawlik, Shawn Johnson, Nathan Nichols, Tracy Lemoine, [Redacted], Steve Pawlik, Lee Hart, Jim Sibert, Wade Schlossstein, Jay Lemberger, Pat and Nancy Lemberger, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jay Lemberger, Deceased, and Robert Hultz and against Defendants Father Rudolph Kos, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, jointly and severally.

As part of its verdict, the jury found in answer to Question No. 1 of the Charge of the Court, part 1, that the negligence of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas and the Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs Michael Pawlik, Shawn Johnson, Nathan Nichols, Tracy Lemoine, [Redacted], Steve Pawlik, Lee Hart, Jim Sibert, Wade Schlossstein, and Robert Hultz and in answers to Question Nos. 5 and 6 of the Charge of the Court, Part 1, that the negligence of the Diocese of Dallas was a proximate cause of injury to and the suicide of Jay Lemberger and in answer to Question No. 24 of the Charge of the Court, Part 1, the jury attributed responsibility for damages to the Plaintiffs between the Defendants Diocese of Dallas, the Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas and Defendant Father Rudolph Kos as follows:

MICHAEL PAWLIK
a. Diocese of Dallas 85 %b.
Father Rudolph Kos 15 %
Total 100 %

SHAWN JOHNSON
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

NATHAN NICHOLS
a. Diocese of Dallas 85 %b.
Father Rudolph Kos 15 %
Total 100 %

TRACY LEMOINE
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

[REDACTED]
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

STEVE PAWLIK
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

LEE HART
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

JIM SIBERT
a. Diocese of Dallas 50 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 50 %
Total 100 %

WADE SCHLOSSSTEIN
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

JAY LEMBERGER
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

PAT AND NANCY LEMBERGER
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

ROBERT HULTZ
a. Diocese of Dallas 80 %
b. Father Rudolph Kos 20 %
Total 100 %

In answers to Question Nos. 25 and 26, the jury found Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos liable to each Plaintiff for total actual damages as shown below:

Michael Pawlik, $ 8,900,000
Shawn Johnson, $ 8,700,000
Nathan Nichols, $ 6,700,000
Tracy Lemoine, $ 7,950,000
[Redacted], $ 6,944,000
Steve Pawlik, $ 8,275,000
Lee Hart, $ 7,113,500
Jim Sibert, $ 9,485,000
Wade Schlossstein, $ 8,700,000
Pat Lemberger, $ 7,000,000
Nancy Lemberger, $ 7,000,000
Estate of Jay Lemberger, $ 3,216,000
Robert Hultz, $11,677,000


In answer to Question No. 1 of the Charge of the Court, Part 2, the jury further found Defendants Diocese of Dallas, and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, liable to each Plaintiff for punitive damages for the conduct of the Diocese of Dallas in the amount shown below for each Plaintiff:

Michael Pawlik, $ 1,500,000
Shawn Johnson, $ 1,500,000
Nathan Nichols, $ 1,500,000
Tracy Lemoine, $ 1,500,000
[Redacted], $ 1,500,000
Steve Pawlik, $ 1,500,000
Lee Hart, $ 1,500,000
Jim Sibert, $ 1,500,000
Wade Schlossstein, $ 1,500,000
Pat and Nancy Lemberger, $ 1,500,000
Estate of Jay Lemberger, $ 1,500,000
Robert Hultz $ 1,500,000


As part of the post-trial proceedings in this case, the Court set aside the award of punitive damages to Pat and Nancy Lemberger in the amount of $1,500,000. This award of punitive damages to Pat and Nancy Lemberger is not included in the decretal paragraph set out herein for those Plaintiffs.It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Michael Pawlik have and recover from Defendants Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas (referred to in these decretal paragraphs as the "Diocese of Dallas"), Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $8,900,000 (minus a credit for payments made to Michael Pawlik by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $16,900.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $4,179,573.37 prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $14,562,673.37. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Shawn Johnson have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $8,700,000 (minus a credit for payments made to Shawn Johnson by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $8,000.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $4,088,440.55 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $14,280,440.55 It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Nathan Nichols have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $6,700,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Nathan Nichols by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $8,000.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $3,034,358.36 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $11,226,358.36.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Tracy Lemoine have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $7,950,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Tracy Lemoine by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $9,870.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $3,598,524.50 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $13,038,654.50.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff [Redacted] have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $6,944,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to [Redacted] by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $9,077.50, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $3,055,457.92 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $11,490,380.42.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Steve Pawlik have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $8,275,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Steve Pawlik by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $8,000.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $3,097,406.30 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $12,864,406.30.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Lee Hart have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $7,113,500.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Lee Hart by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $8,455.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $2,748,131.21 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $11,353,176.21.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Jim Sibert have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $9,485,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Jim Sibert by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $8,000.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $3,550,576.17 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $14,527,576.17.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Wade Schlossstein have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $8,700,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Wade Schlossstein by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $25,132.84, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre- verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post- verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $2,243,084.67 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $12,417,951.83.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Estate of Jay Lemberger have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $3,216,000.00 as actual damages, together with the sum of $831,754.51 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $5,547,754.51.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Pat Lemberger have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $7,000,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Pat Lemberger by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $250.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $1,808,480.28 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, and that Plaintiff Nancy Lemberger have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $7,000,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Nancy Lemberger by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $250.00, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $1,808,480.28 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, for a total sum to Pat Lemberger of $8,808,230.28 and a total sum to Nancy Lemberger of $8,808,230.28.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff Robert Hultz have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, the sum of $11,677,000.00 (minus a credit for payments made to Robert Hultz by the Diocese of Dallas in the amount of $53,273.62, with no prejudgment interest accruing from the date of payment, if the payment was pre-verdict, and from the date of verdict, if the payment was post-verdict) as actual damages, together with the sum of $2,248,383.44 as prejudgment interest on the amount of actual damages, together with the sum of $1,500,000.00 as exemplary damages against Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, for a total sum of $15,372,109.82.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all Plaintiffs have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, their pro rata share of all their costs of court.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all Plaintiffs have and recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, and Father Rudolph Kos, jointly and severally, post-judgment interest on all actual damages, prejudgment interest and court costs awarded in this Judgment at the rate of 10% compounded annually from the date of Judgment until paid, and that all Plaintiffs recover from Defendants Diocese of Dallas and Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, post-judgment interest on all exemplary damages awarded in this Judgment at the rate of 10% compounded annually from the date of Judgment until paid.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that in the event Defendants Diocese of Dallas and/or Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, make payment to any Plaintiff of sums greater than their percentage share as found by the jury for that Plaintiff, then Defendant Diocese of Dallas and/or Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, his predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas shall be entitled to contribution from Defendant Rudolph Kos to the extent that Defendant Kos has not paid the amount of damages for which he is liable in accordance with his percentage share as found by the jury for that Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs are allowed such writs and processes that may be necessary in the enforcement and collection of this Judgment, for all of which let execution issue. All relief not expressly granted herein is denied.

SIGNED this 29th day of January, 1998.
signed_____________________ANNE ASHBY, PRESIDING JUDGE



 






 
 

Bishop Accountability © 2003
     
guide of business management sytem guide of job opinions guide of capital goods guide of make fast money guide of Debt restructuring guide of home business guide of income
guide of business management sytem guide of job opinions guide of capital goods guide of make fast money guide of Debt restructuring guide of home business guide of income money guide of hospital products guide of international market guide of repair roof before winter guide of website income guide of secure your business guide of face makeup tools guide of jewellery arts guide of tv shows guide of best places on earth guide of job plans guide of cheap cars guide of creating products guide of women tools guide of eat less guide of car insurance process guide of sport stuff guide of garden home guide of cheap insurances guide of electronic tech guide of healthy feeding guide of what is next in fashion guide of improve company guide of tactical insurance guide of make money at home guide of development in business guide of dept loan guide of cooking secrets guide of correct companies guide of jobs with more income guide of reviews o general products guide of improving technology guide of ideal job guide of business sectors guide of dept problem guide of unlimited business guide of suitable insurance company guide of money cars guide of how to market guide of heatlhy diet tips guide of decoration tipse guide of security problems
money guide of hospital products guide of international market guide of repair roof before winter guide of website income guide of secure your business guide of face makeup tools guide of jewellery arts guide of tv shows guide of best places on earth guide of job plans guide of cheap cars guide of creating products guide of women tools guide of eat less guide of car insurance process guide of sport stuff guide of garden home guide of cheap insurances guide of electronic tech guide of healthy feeding guide of what is next in fashion guide of improve company guide of tactical insurance guide of make money at home guide of development in business guide of dept
guide of business management sytem guide of job opinions guide of capital goods guide of make fast money guide of Debt restructuring guide of home business guide of income money guide of hospital products guide of international market guide of repair roof before winter guide of website income guide of secure your business guide of face makeup tools guide of jewellery arts guide of tv shows guide of best places on earth guide of job plans guide of cheap cars guide of creating products guide of women tools guide of eat less guide of car insurance process guide of sport stuff guide of garden home guide of cheap insurances guide of electronic tech guide of healthy feeding guide of what is next in fashion guide of improve company guide of tactical insurance guide of make money at home guide of development in business guide of dept loan guide of cooking secrets guide of correct companies guide of jobs with more income guide of reviews o general products guide of improving technology guide of ideal job guide of business sectors guide of dept problem guide of unlimited business guide of suitable insurance company guide of money cars guide of how to market guide of heatlhy diet tips guide of decoration tipse guide of security problems
loan guide of cooking secrets guide of correct companies guide of jobs with more income guide of reviews o general products guide of improving technology guide of ideal job guide of business
guide of business management sytem guide of job opinions guide of capital goods guide of make fast money guide of Debt restructuring guide of home business guide of income money guide of hospital products guide of international market guide of repair roof before winter guide of website income guide of secure your business guide of face makeup tools guide of jewellery arts guide of tv shows guide of best places on earth guide of job plans guide of cheap cars guide of creating products guide of women tools guide of eat less guide of car insurance process guide of sport stuff guide of garden home guide of cheap insurances guide of electronic tech guide of healthy feeding guide of what is next in fashion guide of improve company guide of tactical insurance guide of make money at home guide of development in business guide of dept loan guide of cooking secrets guide of correct companies guide of jobs with more income guide of reviews o general products guide of improving technology guide of ideal job guide of business sectors guide of dept problem guide of unlimited business guide of suitable insurance company guide of money cars guide of how to market guide of heatlhy diet tips guide of decoration tipse guide of security problems
sectors guide of dept problem guide of unlimited business guide of suitable insurance company guide of money
guide of business management sytem guide of job opinions guide of capital goods guide of make fast money guide of Debt restructuring guide of home business guide of income money guide of hospital products guide of international market guide of repair roof before winter guide of website income guide of secure your business guide of face makeup tools guide of jewellery arts guide of tv shows guide of best places on earth guide of job plans guide of cheap cars guide of creating products guide of women tools guide of eat less guide of car insurance process guide of sport stuff guide of garden home guide of cheap insurances guide of electronic tech guide of healthy feeding guide of what is next in fashion guide of improve company guide of tactical insurance guide of make money at home guide of development in business guide of dept loan guide of cooking secrets guide of correct companies guide of jobs with more income guide of reviews o general products guide of improving technology guide of ideal job guide of business sectors guide of dept problem guide of unlimited business guide of suitable insurance company guide of money cars guide of how to market guide of heatlhy diet tips guide of decoration tipse guide of security problems
cars guide of how to market guide of heatlhy diet tips guide of decoration tipse guide of security problems
guide of business management sytem guide of job opinions guide of capital goods guide of make fast money guide of Debt restructuring guide of home business guide of income money guide of hospital products guide of international market guide of repair roof before winter guide of website income guide of secure your business guide of face makeup tools guide of jewellery arts guide of tv shows guide of best places on earth guide of job plans guide of cheap cars guide of creating products guide of women tools guide of eat less guide of car insurance process guide of sport stuff guide of garden home guide of cheap insurances guide of electronic tech guide of healthy feeding guide of what is next in fashion guide of improve company guide of tactical insurance guide of make money at home guide of development in business guide of dept loan guide of cooking secrets guide of correct companies guide of jobs with more income guide of reviews o general products guide of improving technology guide of ideal job guide of business sectors guide of dept problem guide of unlimited business guide of suitable insurance company guide of money cars guide of how to market guide of heatlhy diet tips guide of decoration tipse guide of security problems