"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Post Number: 152
|Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
Perhaps. But for now this is just pointless speculation.
The man said <begin> I never engaged in any homosexual activity prior to marriage and during the first four years of my marriage. <end> It seems reasonable to conclude that he did more likely engage in such, in those 2 later years, than not. The fact he neglected to mentioned, the last 2 years of his marriage, raises the question. You see this as pointless, that's fine by me.
(See my response to your prior comments.)
Okay but it doesn't address what I wrote.
There seems some disagreement as to whether he received ALL they had agreed upon. There's some unresolved question of whether he should have received 10% of ALL the monies she's earned from "How Stella...'". He argues he only received a portion of the book earnings, not the movie and soundtrack earnings.
Regarding this and the initial $150,000 she gave him. He says: the $150,000 was for the book but he didn't received of any of the disbursement, as the money was sent to his parents. Then he also says, in 1995 he got $50,000, which was 50% of the $150,000 (actually 50% of $150,000 is $75,000) -- his share of the royalties for the book. Then, he says in 1996, he was given $100,000 which was part of the 10% due him and he was also receiving $800 monthly interest payments from the $150,000 that was sent to Jamaica to be invested.
Her version: she gave him $50,000 in 1995 and $100,000 in 1996 as gifts -- so he''ll have some money on his own. For 3 years, he lived off the interest from those monies, which was invested in Jamaica. In 1998, as part of the prenup agreement, he would receive 10% of the royalties from the book, movie and soundtrack.
Okay, he's saying he never received anything from these royalties, beyond the $150,000, so why in the world, would he wait until 2005 and say she owes him 10% of the royalties? It seems she has the prenup, that references this 10% but don't konw if he has another signed agreement saying something totally different. I don't know if he got it or not, but I can't believe he went all those years, and didn't get what he was due, and never said a word. If the 10% is due upon divorce, well it's hasn't been granted yet.
Since neither have reproduced a binding document that specifically designates what was to be the source of their shared earnings, we can't know who's being truthful.
You don't know what's binding documents that been produced or reproduced. LOL There are 4 documents from him and one from her posted online, and all of those documents reference other documents and attachments, submitted to the court. Interesting you don't see her original petition for divorce, which she filed in January.
Well, I partly address this in my comments above. But I'm not sure I agree that he's seeking half. All I've seen/read suggests he was simply trying to claim his fully agreed upon share of the "How Stella...'" receipts, money for his legal fees and temporary support/maintenance.
He is also asking the court to determine if the prenup is valid and claims he signed under duress. The judge had ordered her to pay him $2000 for three months; the case goes to trial in October. And, she had to pay $25,000 for his attorney fees. But, he also wants the prenup to be nullified, which says upon a divorce, he doesn't get any money, beyond the 10% fo royalities for the book, movie and soundtrack. If he didn't want any of her money beyond royalties from the book, movie and soundtrack, of which he claims he hasn't gotten, why then is he trying to have the entire agreement tossed? Why not just dispute those 3 things, in the agreement, and keep the rest of it?
Short of there being a prenup, I don't really find what he's seeking to be unreasonable. Now. Perhaps she could sue him for monies she alleges he embezzled.
And, to which he admits in his answer, he stole the money from her and agreed to pay back, of which he hasn't. So this goes beyond allegedly.
But then you're talking about thresholds of motive, opportunity, malice and benefit that might be difficult to ascend beyond a divorce court.
Well, the man admitted to taking the money. He explains his motive, opportunity and benefit in an e-mail to her when he admitted to stealing the money, as well in his response. He says she gave him her ATM and PIN to make a withdrawal. Since he said she hasn't been giving him an allowance, he thought it would be okay to make withdrawals of $62,000 over 2 years, without her consent or knowledge. He also said he knew that she didn't know what the balance was in the account, and figured she wouldn't know the money was missing. Then, he said he took the money for living/household expenses, to take her to dinner and to buy her flowers and gifts, as well as her son. He claims she should have known he was taking her money since he wasn't making enough to do what he was doing financially. LOL
Indeed. But if every crime that occurred within the context of a divorce were prosecuted,
You mean in the context of a marriage? He stole the money from her before 2004.
at least half of ALL the people who have ever divorced will have done prison time.
So be it.