Jilted wife wins lawsuit vs mistress and sets precedent

[Fanatical Meat]

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?

While this whole thing sounds weird I'd bet that if the spouse knew there was going to be a birthday celebration or a Christmas celebration (involving presents) that would essentially mean the gift was approved. The Casino isn't a gift its a bet.

 

[Exophase]

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.

Guess which side now has the money to pay for good counsel.. not Stiviano >_>

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.

At the very least, I would argue that the spouse should have to bring a second suit against whoever he or she gave the gifts (if even desired) to return what was given to the best of their ability.

 

[norseamd]

The only way this is constitutional is if Stiviano was shown to have taken advantage of any major disability of Sterling to manipulate him into a relationship where he gave her all these expensive presents, attention, socialite benefits, and that type of shit. Otherwise the money was able to get spent by both Mr. and Mrs. Sterling. You can not just go some shit and give it as a present to one of your friends or neighbors and then come back 2 years later and sue to get all that shit back for yourself.

 

[bshole]

The only way this is constitutional is if Stiviano was shown to have taken advantage of any major disability of Sterling to manipulate him into a relationship where he gave her all these expensive presents, attention, socialite benefits, and that type of shit. Otherwise the money was able to get spent by both Mr. and Mrs. Sterling. You can not just go some shit and give it as a present to one of your friends or neighbors and then come back 2 years later and sue to get all that shit back for yourself.

This is the mentality of the ultra-welathy. The hubris is staggering. That they can actually get away it is mind blowing.

 

[PricklyPete]

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

Agreed.