The Conjuring House Dispute: Why the Public Should Look Beyond the Deed

 

A critical look at the disputed transfer of 1677 Round Top Road, the questions surrounding Jacqueline Nuñez’s state of mind, and why the testimony of Julia DeMay and Barbara Andrews matters.

 The Question is Not Loyalty. It is Evidence.

This article is not written to demand that anyone hate Jason Hawes, abandon the paranormal community, or accept every allegation as proven fact. For clarity, this is not an argument written on behalf of Jason Hawes, nor is it written on behalf of Matt Rife, Elton Castee, Summit & Stone, or any rival interest seeking control of the property. I am not asking readers to trade one public narrative for another. I am asking them to examine the record, the timeline, the contradictions, and the common-sense questions that remain unanswered.

The dispute over the Conjuring House is not merely a paranormal celebrity real estate story. It involves a distressed historic property, a former owner whose public behavior raised serious concerns, a disputed power of attorney, a delayed deed recording, rival ownership claims, and two witnesses whose testimony is needed in order to move forward.

You might be wondering: why would Jacqueline Nuñez, who had publicly treated Hawes as an adversary, voluntarily place control of her most valuable asset in the hands of someone connected to the very person she appeared to distrust? Ultimately, this is something the court will have to determine.

The Common-Sense Problem at the Center of the Case

A deed may be powerful on paper, but paperwork does not erase context. The WPRI reporting states that Burrillville land records list Hawes as the owner and that the deed shows a $1.3 million transfer from Jacqueline Nuñez and Bale Fire LLC, while also noting that the sale remains the subject of ongoing legal disputes. The Providence Journal reporting further identifies Julia DeMay as the woman to whom Nuñez had purportedly given power of attorney and Barbara V. Andrews as the notary connected to the deed.

That distinction matters. A recorded deed can show that a transaction occurred. It does not, by itself, answer whether the person whose rights were transferred fully understood the document, had capacity, acted freely, or was influenced by someone else at a vulnerable moment.

The Timeline Raises Questions That Deserve Answers

1. ·     Jacqueline Nuñez purchased the Round Top Road property through Bale Fire LLC and financed the purchase with a substantial mortgage.
2. ·         She later faced financial distress, litigation, and foreclosure-related pressure.
3. ·         Public reports and court filings described concerns about her mental state and conduct.
4. ·         A power of attorney allegedly allowed Julia DeMay to act for Nuñez in relation to the property.
5. ·         The deed transferring the property to Hawes was connected to that power of attorney and notarized by Barbara V. Andrews.
6. ·         The deed was reportedly recorded months after the underlying sale documents were executed.
7. ·         Hawes later allegedly attempted to block depositions of DeMay and Andrews, but a Massachusetts Superior Court judge denied that request.

The Power of Attorney Is the Heart of the Dispute

The public should focus less on celebrity loyalty and more on the mechanics of the transfer. If Nuñez had personally sat across from Hawes, fully coherent, represented by independent counsel, and calmly sold the house after months of consistent negotiation, the public debate would look very different. But the reported structure of this transaction was not that simple.

Instead, the transaction reportedly depended on the power of attorney granted to Julia DeMay. That means DeMay’s role is not a side issue. It is central. The public deserves to know what Nuñez was told, what she understood, whether anyone assessed her capacity, what relationship DeMay had to the parties, and whether Nuñez’s reported hostility toward Hawes was addressed before her property rights were transferred.

Why the Witnesses Matter

Julia DeMay and Barbara Andrews are not minor names in this dispute. DeMay is tied to the authority used to transfer the property. Andrews is tied to the notarization of the deed. Their testimony could clarify whether the paperwork was routine, irregular, misunderstood, rushed, or executed under circumstances that should concern any reasonable observer.

According to reporting from the Providence Journal and AOL’s republication of that reporting, Hawes argued that allowing the depositions could prejudice him in related Rhode Island litigation. The Massachusetts judge denied the request, finding that Hawes had not provided sufficient grounds to stop the testimony.

However, according to Hawes, the concern was not the depositions themselves, but whether all parties would be present for them. He stated that there appeared to be an attempt to hold the depositions in Massachusetts while excluding him and his legal counsel from the process, which would have prevented them from questioning the deponents.

If the transaction was clean, transparent, and fully supported by the facts, sworn testimony should help establish that.

The Mental-Capacity Question Cannot Be Brushed Aside

The uncomfortable question is not whether Nuñez was eccentric, emotional, difficult, or unpopular. The question is whether she was legally capable of granting another person authority to transfer a major asset. Concerns about capacity should never be mocked, minimized, or weaponized for entertainment. They should be evaluated carefully, with evidence, medical context where available, and sworn testimony from the people involved.

That is why the reported public hostility between Nuñez and Hawes matters. If a person publicly treats someone as an enemy, then later paperwork appears to transfer that person’s most valuable property to that same individual through an intermediary, the burden of explanation should be high. The public does not need to assume guilt to recognize that the situation demands scrutiny.

Ethics, History, and the Bigger Issue

The Conjuring House is not just a brand. It is a real historic property connected to real families, local history, disputed folklore, commercial tourism, and a modern paranormal industry that often turns tragedy and fear into marketable content. That broader ethical context does not decide the legal title, but it does explain why so many people are concerned about who controls the property and how that control was obtained.

Conclusion: The Unanswered Questions Awaiting August

The legal battlefield surrounding the Conjuring House has exposed a systemic flaw in how the law handles predatory property transfers. By forcing the depositions of Julia DeMay and Barbara Andrews, the court has signaled that paperwork alone cannot erase the reality of a public mental health crisis (The Providence Journal). When these two key witnesses sit under oath, they will no longer be able to hide behind their disputed property-transfer documents. They will have to explain exactly how a paranoid and possibly mentally unstable woman was convinced to hand her most valuable asset over to her self-proclaimed enemy.

Supporting someone does not require surrendering your judgment. Admiring a public figure does not mean accepting every explanation without question. If the facts are as clean as his side suggests, then those facts should withstand scrutiny, sworn testimony, and a full review of the timeline. But if the story only works when uncomfortable details are ignored, witnesses are kept quiet, and critics are dismissed as haters, then loyalty has replaced critical thinking.

Before defending or judging anyone, ask common-sense questions. Why would Jacqueline Nuñez voluntarily empower an associate of a man she publicly opposed? Why was the deed recorded months later? Why should the public accept a neat version of events when the underlying facts remain so unresolved? I think these are reasonable questions to ask.

A fair and honest discussion of this case also has to acknowledge that questions do not only exist on Jason Hawes’ side of the dispute. 

Earlier today, my good friend Stevi Etes reminded me of another part of the story that I felt was important to also highlight here. According to reporting by Paul Edward Parker in The Providence Journal on December 18, 2025, court filings included allegations that Jacqueline Nuñez was approached with a $4 million counteroffer intended to stop her from selling the Conjuring House to Hawes and instead steer the property toward the side associated with Elton Castee. Search results and related summaries of the filings have also identified YouTuber Josh Yozura as the person allegedly connected to that approach. If true, that would raise serious questions about the conduct and motives of the rival interested buyer side as well.

What this shows is that this case is bigger than fan loyalty to either camp. The public should be demanding transparency from everyone involved, not simply choosing a side and ignoring anything inconvenient to that side’s narrative.

To recap, this article is not a demand that anyone hates Jason Hawes. On the contrary, it is simply a demand that people think, think about everything from all sides. Read the filings. Follow the timeline. Listen to the sworn testimony when it comes. Compare the public narrative against the documented contradictions from all sides. Then decide what makes sense—not as a fan, not as a follower, and not as a defender of any side, but as a person willing to let facts matter more than fame.

Again, I am not taking any sides, I just want answers to those questions. I also want what is best for the property, whomever ends up with it. The court will have to make that decision. 

--J'aime Rubio (Copyright 2026) 

References

·        WPRI Target 12. “Who Owns ‘The Conjuring’ House? Jason Hawes Records Deed Amid Court Fight.” Published July 14, 2026. Reports that Burrillville land records list Jason Hawes as owner, that the deed reflects a $1.3 million transfer from Jacqueline Nuñez and Bale Fire LLC, and that the sale remains subject to ongoing litigation.

·         WPRI. “‘The Conjuring’ Home Fight Sparks Lawsuit Against ‘Ghost Hunters’ Star Jason Hawes.” Published December 8, 2025; updated December 9, 2025. Reports on Elizabeth Greenhalgh’s lawsuit, the allegation that Nuñez was not mentally competent, and the limited power of attorney allegedly granted to Julia DeMay.

·         WPRI. “‘The Conjuring’ House Owner Has Already Signed Deed Over to ‘Ghost Hunters’ Star Jason Hawes.” Published December 19, 2025. Reports on court documents related to the deed, purchase-and-sale agreement, and the legal dispute over Nuñez’s competency and Greenhalgh’s standing.

·         WPRI. “Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blocking Sale of ‘The Conjuring’ House.” Published April 29, 2026. Reports that the lawsuit was dismissed on standing grounds and that the dismissal did not resolve the underlying mental-capacity dispute on the merits.

·         The Providence Journal. “Conjuring House Ownership Dispute Triggers Another Courtroom Showdown.” Published July 24, 2026. Reports on Hawes’ motions in Massachusetts Superior Court to block the depositions of Julia DeMay and Barbara V. Andrews.

·         USA Today / The Providence Journal. “Judge Denies ‘Ghost Hunters’ Star’s Request in Conjuring House Case.” Published July 26, 2026. Reports that Hawes’ request to block the depositions of DeMay and Andrews was denied.

·         The Providence Journal. “Town Records Show Hawes as Owner of the Conjuring House.” Published July 14, 2026. Reports on Hawes’ recorded ownership claim and the continuing legal challenges surrounding the property.

·         USA Today / The Providence Journal. “Legal Fight Over Conjuring House Intensifies with New Restraining Order.” Published June 2, 2026. Reports on the temporary restraining order, the court’s finding that Hawes had made a prima facie ownership showing, and the judge’s comments that the case was a “huge mess” and that “something’s not right here.”

·         The Providence Journal. “Lawsuit Blocking Conjuring House Sale to ‘Ghost Hunters’ Star Tossed.” Published April 29, 2026. Reports on the dismissal of Greenhalgh’s lawsuit and the broader dispute over Hawes’ effort to acquire the property.