Jilted wife wins lawsuit vs mistress and sets precedent

[Darwin333]

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?

I don't understand this either unless it was after the divorce was filed and a judge ordered the assets frozen or something.

What if he went to a casino and lost $100K, can she sue the casino for her "share" of the money? Does this only apply to gifts to ones mistress, what about Christmas and birthday gifts? What about kids from a previous marriage/partner, can you retake their gifts?

What if the mistress sold the gifts to pay rent or whatever, should her wages be garnished? She made absolutely no vows whatsoever so I don't see how she should be held responsible for the guy breaking his. Hell, men are forced to pay child support for a child that isn't theirs in a lot of states, a two decade (at least) financial burden under threat of being jailed no less. Not only can the man not recoup what he has already spent on another mans child he is forced to continue supporting it even in cases where the child is living with its natural father but a wife can get legally given gifts back from her husbands side piece???

Unless there are serious other factors at play, this is an absolute horrible precedent to set. Can you appeal in family court or is this set in stone?

 

[bshole]

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.

WHAT THE FUCKITY-FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT!!?????!!! Sterling is worth 2.9 BILLION dollars (most likely more). This judgement is less than 1 mother fucking percent of his immense estate. How in the HOLY HELL is less than 1 percent of an estate a significant amount? That is god damn noise level in an estate of this magnitude.

It just goes to the utter souless money grabbing nature of these insectile bottom feeders that they would do something like this. This poor woman had to FUCK Donald Sterling and pretend to like it. She will have to live for the rest of her life with the memory of his racist old man shriveled cock inside of her. Jesus a few million is the very least she deserves for the indiginity.

This all goes to prove that the rich have bought and paid for our justice system. The poor person naturally lost the suit and the billionaires will squeeze her out into the street so they can obtain a meaningless amount of money for themselves. Rage mode engaging.....

 

[DrPizza]

WHAT THE FUCKITY-FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT!!?????!!! Sterling is worth 2.9 BILLION dollars (most likely more). This judgement is less than 1 mother fucking percent of his immense estate. How in the HOLY HELL is less than 1 percent of an estate a significant amount? That is god damn noise level in an estate of this magnitude.

It just goes to the utter souless money grabbing nature of these insectile bottom feeders that they would do something like this. This poor woman had to FUCK Donald Sterling and pretend to like it. She will have to live for the rest of her life with the memory of his racist old man shriveled cock inside of her. Jesus a few million is the very least she deserves for the indiginity.

This all goes to prove that the rich have bought and paid for our justice system. The poor person naturally lost the suit and the billionaires will squeeze her out into the street so they can obtain a meaningless amount of money for themselves. Rage mode engaging.....

Gee, before you go off the wall like that, maybe you should think. The rules aren't based on the relative amount of money that it is; the rules are geared more toward the actual amount. If he made a deposit of $10,001 in a bank or a withdrawal from a bank in that amount, the bank can't tell the IRS, in bold red letters, how much the guy is worth, therefore they shouldn't have to report it as being over $10k.

If I broke into his house and stole $200,000 cash that he had sitting on a desk, do you think ANY reasonable person is going to say, "yep, that's not grand larceny - that's only petty larceny, because $200,000 is peanuts compared to 2+ billion dollars."

 

[Rakehellion]

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?

Alienation of affection.

 

[bshole]

Gee, before you go off the wall like that, maybe you should think. The rules aren't based on the relative amount of money that it is; the rules are geared more toward the actual amount. If he made a deposit of $10,001 in a bank or a withdrawal from a bank in that amount, the bank can't tell the IRS, in bold red letters, how much the guy is worth, therefore they shouldn't have to report it as being over $10k.

If I broke into his house and stole $200,000 cash that he had sitting on a desk, do you think ANY reasonable person is going to say, "yep, that's not grand larceny - that's only petty larceny, because $200,000 is peanuts compared to 2+ billion dollars."

Dr. lets get down to brass tacks. A President of the United States once said: you are either with us or you are against us. You have to pick a side. Are you on the side of the oppressed masses Dr. or are you on the side of the monied elite.? It really is simple as that. Are you going to rationalize the despicable behaviour of our "betters" or are you going to condemn it in the strongest possible terms? You may (not sure) be able to defend this judgement on a LEGAL basis, but from a MORAL basis the judgement is BANKRUPT (if this judgement is indeed legal, IT should not be).

You do realize that this man and his wife are racist pigs don't you? They are quite awful human beings with utterly no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Am I alone here?! C'mon people you should be just as infuriated about this travesty of justice as I am.

 

[JEDI]

WHAT THE FUCKITY-FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT!!?????!!! Sterling is worth 2.9 BILLION dollars (most likely more). This judgement is less than 1 mother fucking percent of his immense estate. How in the HOLY HELL is less than 1 percent of an estate a significant amount? That is god damn noise level in an estate of this magnitude.

It just goes to the utter souless money grabbing nature of these insectile bottom feeders that they would do something like this.
This poor woman had to FUCK Donald Sterling and pretend to like it.
She will have to live for the rest of her life with the memory of his racist old man shriveled cock inside of her.
Jesus a few million is the very least she deserves for the indiginity.

This all goes to prove that the rich have bought and paid for our justice system. The poor person naturally lost the suit and the billionaires will squeeze her out into the street so they can obtain a meaningless amount of money for themselves. Rage mode engaging.....

taps sarcasm meter

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't understand at all. Someone will have to explain this...

 

[mrjminer]

Just because you don't like that he was basically paying a prostitute legally doesn't mean she should get taken to the cleaners. He obviously wasn't hiding assets.

Ruling is bullshit.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just spoke with a guy I know who has practiced law for around 45 years. He felt that this will get appealed and Donald will ultimately pay for the gifts out of his half of the assets.

 

[inachu]

True loyalty would show in the mistress if she took interest in his ethnicity and history of his people. The lack of a man or woman interests when they say they love you means they do not really love you.

If you marry your German wife and she just hangs out with Japanese men then you know something is up.

In this case it was the love of money.

 

[theeedude]

The Judge appears to disagree with you.

Elected judge on a celebrity trial.

 

[shira]

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.

But Sterling is worth $2.9 billion, according to Forbes. So $2.6 million is chicken feed and cannot possibly have an effect on his wife's share in a divorce (at worst, she would get $1.3 million more than half of the community property at the time of the divorce).

Edit: See Fanatical Meat's post (#34). This is precisely my opinion as well.

 

[shira]

Gee, before you go off the wall like that, maybe you should think. The rules aren't based on the relative amount of money that it is; the rules are geared more toward the actual amount. If he made a deposit of $10,001 in a bank or a withdrawal from a bank in that amount, the bank can't tell the IRS, in bold red letters, how much the guy is worth, therefore they shouldn't have to report it as being over $10k.

If I broke into his house and stole $200,000 cash that he had sitting on a desk, do you think ANY reasonable person is going to say, "yep, that's not grand larceny - that's only petty larceny, because $200,000 is peanuts compared to 2+ billion dollars."

I think you're missing the point. By all means, keep track of Sterling's spending in preparation for the division of community property. That means that when that property is split, the wife will get x/2 + $1.3 million and Sterling will get x/2 - $1.3 million. But that's an entirely different approach than forcing the girlfriend to pay back the $2.6 million.

 

[SMOGZINN]

California family code section 1100(b)

A spouse may not make a gift of community personal property,
or dispose of community personal property for less than fair and
reasonable value, without the written consent of the other spouse.

That is why he she lost. (It was Stiviano not Donald Sterling that was sued)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

California family code section 1100(b)


That is why he she lost. (It was Stiviano not Donald Sterling that was sued)

My Lawyer friend mentioned something to this effect in many states but its usually subtracted from the spouse who gifted the assets share of the home/marriage.

 

[SMOGZINN]

My Lawyer friend mentioned something to this effect in many states but its usually subtracted from the spouse who gifted the assets share of the home/marriage.

Yes, and if she had sued Donald Sterling that is probably would would have happened. But she did not sue her husband, but his mistress. The law is clear on the point that one person is not allowed to give her gifts from their community property without the other's permission, so the court ruled that those gifts had to be returned.

 

[shortylickens]

I would not spend 2.6 million on that.

You can get much better from Russia for like, 50 grand tops.

 

[shira]

Yes, and if she had sued Donald Sterling that is probably would would have happened. But she did not sue her husband, but his mistress. The law is clear on the point that one person is not allowed to give her gifts from their community property without the other's permission, so the court ruled that those gifts had to be returned.

Something doesn't make sense here. Except for a spouse's assets that were held prior to the marriage, pretty much everything else is community property. So this "law" means that a married person cannot give a gift to anyone without the written permission of the spouse? Remember, MONEY is community property, too. So this law is saying that I cannot buy a gift for my sister or a friend without getting my wife's consent? That's absurd.

Again, unless a gift of community property by one spouse represents enough of a proportion of the total shared estate that the other spouse's share is likely to be compromised, a situation such as Donald Sterling's could easily be handled via simple bookkeeping. Forcing the girlfriend to return the gifts is absurd in this case, and the judge should have recognized that fact.

 

[shira]

I would not spend 2.6 million on that.

You can get much better from Russia for like, 50 grand tops.

It IS possible to find a sligthly more flattering photograph of the girl:

 

[bshole]

Something doesn't make sense here. Except for a spouse's assets that were held prior to the marriage, pretty much everything else is community property. So this "law" means that a married person cannot give a gift to anyone without the written permission of the spouse? Remember, MONEY is community property, too. So this law is saying that I cannot buy a gift for my sister or a friend without getting my wife's consent? That's absurd.

Again, unless a gift of community property by one spouse represents enough of a proportion of the total shared estate that the other spouse's share is likely to be compromised, a situation such as Donald Sterling's could easily be handled via simple bookkeeping. Forcing the girlfriend to return the gifts is absurd in this case, and the judge should have recognized that fact.

Not just consent, WRITTEN consent. So every xmas present, every birthday present, every card, every little thing needs express written consent from the spouse (BOTH ways!). The lunatics are running the asylum. This must be a heyday for the lawyers and absolute hell for everybody else. God I would love Don Vito Corleones take on this one.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So this law is saying that I cannot buy a gift for my sister or a friend without getting my wife's consent?

This is exactly what the law means.

Again, unless a gift of community property by one spouse represents enough of a proportion of the total shared estate that the other spouse's share is likely to be compromised, a situation such as Donald Sterling's could easily be handled via simple bookkeeping. Forcing the girlfriend to return the gifts is absurd in this case, and the judge should have recognized that fact.

Again the problem is that she sued the mistress not Donald Sterling. The court could not make a ruling against Donald Sterling, only against the mistress.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I find this ruling strange. I have not been following the case and don't practice family law, but I did go to law school in California, hold a license in California, and took a class (17 years ago!) in community property.

As I understand it, this case nominally has nothing to do with alienation of affection. It was not brought in tort. Rather, as DrPizza says, the legal theory is that since the property of Donald Sterling was community property to which Shelley Sterling had an equal right, he was not legally entitled to give it away without her permission. Honestly I find this ruling surprising. While I could see a basis for an action against Donald Sterling for giving away community property without his wife's permission, I find it surprising that Shelley could have a cause of action against the recipients of gifts from Donald. That being said, I am not adequately familiar with the law to offer an opinion on whether this verdict "should" have happened consistent with precedent.

 

[Exophase]

If anyone should be culpable for the money spent it should be Donald Sterling, not his mistress. Unless it can be proven that she coerced him into providing gifts somehow, and no, agreeing to date him or begging for things doesn't qualify as coercion. He's the one who made the decisions to spend the money and give the gifts, it should be entirely his responsibility. And he should only really be on the hook for restoring half of the money when it comes to divorce proceedings.

It seems clear to me that Rochelle Sterling is a petty person who is suing Stiviano not because she's concerned about recovering lost wealth but to destroy her as revenge for her husband's infidelity. It's going to be all but impossible to recover anything close to a significant portion of the money spent on those gifts by selling them, so unless Stiviano was otherwise very well off on her own (which I doubt) this could drive her to bankruptcy.

 

[shira]

This is exactly what the law means.



Again the problem is that she sued the mistress not Donald Sterling. The court could not make a ruling against Donald Sterling, only against the mistress.

Stiviano must have had incompetent counsel. Because any decent defense would lead to a common-sense application of the law by a competent judge, who would recognize WHY the law says what it does, would also recognize that the wife's interests are not remotely being threatened by the gifts to Stiviano, and would throw out the lawsuit in favor of adjudicating this and other gifts as part of a marital settlement.

 

[shira]

If anyone should be culpable for the money spent it should be Donald Sterling, not his mistress. Unless it can be proven that she coerced him into providing gifts somehow, and no, agreeing to date him or begging for things doesn't qualify as coercion. He's the one who made the decisions to spend the money and give the gifts, it should be entirely his responsibility. And he should only really be on the hook for restoring half of the money when it comes to divorce proceedings.

It seems clear to me that Rochelle Sterling is a petty person who is suing Stiviano not because she's concerned about recovering lost wealth but to destroy her as revenge for her husband's infidelity. It's going to be all but impossible to recover anything close to a significant portion of the money spent on those gifts by selling them, so unless Stiviano was otherwise very well off on her own (which I doubt) this could drive her to bankruptcy.

There are clearly cases where a lawsuit against a mistress would be completely reasonable. For example, if a husband gave 80% of the community property to his mistress, the wife would obviously be well within her rights to sue the mistress for the return of at least 30%.

But the above type of situation clearly doesn't apply to Stiviano.