Jilted wife wins lawsuit vs mistress and sets precedent

[JEDI]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/us/v-stiviano-shelly-sterling-lawsuit/index.html

- V. Stiviano must pay back $2.6 million in gifts from Donald Sterling.
- Sterling's wife claimed the ex-Clippers used the couple's money for the gifts.

"It also sets a precedent that the injured spouse can recover damages from the recipient of these ill-begotten gifts."


so less gold diggers a generation from now?

 

[highland145]

"It also sets a precedent that the injured spouse can recover damages from the recipient of these ill-begotten gifts."

I think that's BS unless the man can be shown to have dementia or the like. Surely there was more to the decision.

 

[realibrad]

I thought marriage meant that what one did, they did. So even if the assets were joint, both have individual rights to spend it as they please. The point of marriage is to accept that the other can do what ever they want with the joint assets. This is crazy.

I'm sure most will write it off because the guy was a racist D-bag but this is still wrong.

the list also includes a $391 Easter bunny costume, a $299 two-speed blender and a $12 lace thong.

Jesus.

 

[shira]

Wouldn't the gifts have come from Sterling's half of the estate? In which case why would the wife have a claim on those gifts?

 

[inachu]

Yeah all from the 80's and up I was so tired of seeing ex wives getting short changed.

If the new Gf really loved him then her world would be all about him and Israel and even her political views would change as well as her friends.

This proves the GF was in it just for the money.

 

[realibrad]

Wouldn't the gifts have come from Sterling's half of the estate? In which case why would the wife have a claim on those gifts?

In marriage, there is not a half until divorce. One spouse has the ability to spend more than half the wealth, because both are executors of the estate. The ruling on this has to be crazy.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am happy to hear that V. Stiviano will lose $2.6 million dollars.

 

[realibrad]

I am happy to hear that V. Stiviano will lose $2.6 million dollars.

Maybe, but it does not make it legal. It sets up a very bad precedent. She is a gold digger no doubt, but that does not mean he did not have the right to spend that money on her.

 

[bshole]

Maybe, but it does not make it legal. It sets up a very bad precedent. She is a gold digger no doubt, but that does not mean he did not have the right to spend that money on her.

Donald Sterling and his wife are two of the biggest pieces of shit in the world. Jesus this woman had to fuck the man, that has to be worth an enormous sum of money. Now it turns out that Donald got to fuck her for free.... WTF is that?!?!?!?! Rich people just plain suck.

 

[Thump553]

I wonder if that will stand up on appeal as the ruling is definitely against the overwhelming trend for at least the past century. From the brief CNN article this sounds like an alienation of affections lawsuit and they went out with Queen Victoria.

OTOH it's California.

 

[theeedude]

Bad precedent IMO. Now a spouse will be able to undo financial decisions of their spouse they don't like after the fact.

 

[realibrad]

Bad precedent IMO. Now a spouse will be able to undo financial decisions of their spouse they don't like after the fact.

Imagine what will happen when assets lose value. Buy a car, and you spent X for a car that is now worth Y. Is the value of the car what needs to be paid back, or the amount spent?

 

[theeedude]

Just in general, it makes decisions of one spouse non-binding, it's a terrible precedent.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I would suspect the fact that California is a community property state plays a big part in the ruling.

 

[SMOGZINN]

While I have not read the decision, I bet that the decision was that he was using giving his mistress gifts as a method to intentionally hide marital assets in preparation for a divorce, something which is illegal in most places. Otherwise I can't see how a court could say that he can't do whatever he likes with his money.

 

[polarmystery]

+1 reason to never get married.

 

[theeedude]

I would suspect the fact that California is a community property state plays a big part in the ruling.

Financial decisions of a spouse are still binding on the family in a community property state. As they should be.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

I have no problem with this. If my wife spent hundreds or thousands of our money for some D on the side without my knowledge, you can be damn sure I want my share of that back when we split.

I get the huge gray area. What if she spent that instead on some shady investment scheme or gambling? I wouldn't get back.

 

[realibrad]

I have no problem with this. If my wife spent hundreds or thousands of our money for some D on the side without my knowledge, you can be damn sure I want my share of that back when we split.

I get the huge gray area. What if she spent that instead on some shady investment scheme or gambling? I wouldn't get back.

That is marriage. If you did not want risk and benefit, then stay dating.

 

[IronWing]

The GF should should at least mail the wife the thong, with a note. Oh, and Israel.















Not sure why Israel is in the thread but I just wanted to go with the flow.

 

[Subyman]

Would like to see more on the decision. I doubt it is as broad sweeping as some here think.

 

[DrPizza]

I thought marriage meant that what one did, they did. So even if the assets were joint, both have individual rights to spend it as they please. The point of marriage is to accept that the other can do what ever they want with the joint assets. This is crazy.

I'm sure most will write it off because the guy was a racist D-bag but this is still wrong.
Jesus.

No, that is not the point of marriage at all. And no one should accept that their partner can do "whatever they want" with the joint assets. At least, not significant amounts of the joint assets.

Maybe, but it does not make it legal. It sets up a very bad precedent. She is a gold digger no doubt, but that does not mean he did not have the right to spend that money on her.

I don't think it sets as much of a precedent as you think. There are already plenty of legal controls in place for married couples such that one cannot (generally) spend significant amounts of the marital assets without the other's permission. E.g., retirement savings (I assume the same is true for a 401k, but I have a 403b) - if I wanted to take a loan out against my 403b, I absolutely must have my wife's signature. There aren't many rules in place to deal with insignificant sums of money - but I'd say a couple million dollars is not an insignificant amount. For most people, their largest assets, e.g., house and retirement savings, are quite controlled such that one spouse cannot do something major without the other spouse's consent. For the vast, vast majority of Americans, these rules are in place. For the upper 1% who can carry a few hundred thousand in pocket change, there's nothing specific in place; but this case affirms that such major financial exchanges do require the consent of the spouse.



Question: did the gold digger pay gift tax on her gifts? If not, send the IRS after her too.

 

[Viper GTS]

Question: did the gold digger pay gift tax on her gifts? If not, send the IRS after her too.

That would have been paid by him, not her:

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small...oyed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes

Viper GTS

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Financial decisions of a spouse are still binding on the family in a community property state. As they should be.

The Judge appears to disagree with you.

Judge Richard Fruin Jr. awarded Shelly Sterling money that was community property from six decades of marriage that was secretly spent buying V. Stiviano a house, a Ferrari and other luxury gifts.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

That is marriage. If you did not want risk and benefit, then stay dating.

No, that is not marriage. I have no problem with protecting the person that got screwed over.

DrPizza said it better than I could have. There are controls in place that require approval from both parties when making major financial decisions, like mortgages and retirement distributions. This is merely an extension of that.