2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[Mylou]

I was responding to your post where you disagreed with me that it "seems quite clear that TH told MC that she paid $350k to Houze." I am sure that TH told MC that, and I don't doubt for one minute that TH lied to MC about it. So we are both correct -- TH told MC that she paid $350k to Houze and, in fact, that statement was (unbeknownst to anyone reading the text, like KH and his attorney) that is was a "gross overstatement."

So I guess one would wonder why KH and his attorney took it as truth ?
Just using her lies against her ? I believe that honesty would have been the best policy and that they should probably have checked further into what the truth was. KH has only been in the media repeatedly saying what a liar TH is.

 

[Jaxson]

I was responding to your post where you disagreed with me that it "seems quite clear that TH told MC that she paid $350k to Houze." I am sure that TH told MC that, and I don't doubt for one minute that TH lied to MC about it. So we are both correct -- TH told MC that she paid $350k to Houze and, in fact, that statement was (unbeknownst to anyone reading the text, like KH and his attorney) that is was a "gross overstatement."

And if you can figure out TH lied about it why couldn't Kaine and his attorney? Why did they believe it coming from here in a sext to MC?

 

[gitana1]

I only read a bit through the thread so far but I have some (unsolicited) comments:

This is not by TH's request. Is is a legal action, by her attorney. KH's attorney has been flying high, now TH's has to respond.

Not comical, just more stressful for all.

The attorney is simply the mouthpiece for the client. We cannot do anything without the approval of the client. When we draft motions, the motion is brought by the client, not the attorney. So, this is definitely by TH's request.

Well, soon enough we will not only know about any payments to TH's attorneys, but all of KH's payments and income too. Guess we will see if he really cannot afford to support himself and Baby K as his attorney stated in her Motion (about the phenomenal fee of $350K) that brought this about.

Kaine never said he could not support himself and the baby.

Wow we have a headline with a legal action taken by TH. This is a first..

Whether i agree or disagree with the proceedings i can at least say i agree in that I could not think of a worse time to be dealing with a divorce.

I wonder if she will file a motion for custody/visitation rights?

Th cannot file a motion for custody or visitation rights in the event her motion is granted.

WhyaDuck;

TH's attorney is just doing his job. KH's attorney filed paperwork, TH's has to respond in the same way. Nothing more, nothing less. Just legal matters being handled they way they always are.

I may not be understanding the context here but this is definitely not legal matters being handled the way they always are. I have never seen an abatement request.

Is this some kind of legal strategy? If so could someone please explain in layman's terms what the heck it is. I mean is there some kind of spousal privilege or something if Kyron is found, if Terri is indeed found to be responsible for his disappearance, or worse. For the life of me, I can't figure this one out on my own. TIA

No spousal privilege would apply. TH is trying to make sure she does not have to answer, in any way, any questions that, in the civil action, could incriminate her in a potential criminal action.

:waitasec: Kaine indicated in the divorce papers that each party would be liable for their own attorney fees. I am not sure why Kaine/Attorney is stating "In Addition To being liable for Terri's attorney fees."

What Kaine requested is not a court order. He may wish that each party pay his or her own fees but to my knowledge, no such order has been made yet. I think he was saying that he could not afford to pay his own fees, pay her fees and support the family adequately, due to the complexity of the civil case.

Read her attorney's filing. She hasn't given up any custody rights.

She did not contest the RO request which called for no visitation/custodial rights to her child. So, she has given up custody rights. At least for now. Because there is no criminal case happening yet, and because getting any kind of custodial or visitation rights would necessitate that TH answer the allegations against her in KH's RO request, it could be a long, long time before she ever files a motion for custody/visitation rights. The only way I could see that happening is if Kyron is found and TH cleared of any wrongdoing in connection with his disappearance. I do not think she will ever be cleared.

 

[Jaxson]

Why would they believe anything she wrote/typed? She's a liar...BUT they chose to believe this?

Now, thinking about it a while...maybe they have other proof about the costs, and just haven't shared yet (jmoo).

Moo moo moo

But if they have other proof then Bunch lied to the court.

 

[wondering1]

Valid question, and I did state that I'm trying to explain and understand her behavior. Guilty or not, considering Terri is at the center of this investigation, these are important, relevant details about Terri's life and choices. I don't necessarily believe it's proof of guilt, but it could be important insight into her life.



I never said it was an excuse. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will excuse what has happened to Kyron. Understanding and explaining behavior patterns doesn't equal an excuse or approval of them, IMHO.

I appreciate your response. I really was just trying to figure out whether you were trying to understand and/or excusing. I totally agree that her history, including her adoption and possible abuse may be a factor here. But as an explanation, not an excuse. Personally, I think TH may have serious issues from her adoption and also from possible abuse. Her overly sexualized nature and serial bad relationships is a huge red flag to me. I wonder what has gone on in her past, and her childhood, in particular. And the thought that she was abused is more than a fleeting thought across my mind. Sorry if I came off as confrontational. I didn't mean it that way

 

[cypress]

re: gross overstatement of retainer

There could be confusion, Terri could've lied, but either way, I'm sure Bunch and associates fact checked this before they submitted this filing to the court. I don't think they'd use this as an example in a filing in which they are trying to be awarded something by the court, only for it to turn out that Terri was lying about it, and IMHO, there is no way they are simply going to take her word on it. Even if they thought their client was Abe "Never Told a Lie" Lincoln, they'd fact check it, IMHO.

IMHO, there's more to the story. Maybe it was vague (Terri saying something like, this is going to cost 350K), and Rackner interpreted it in the way that would be most damaging to Terri, and Houze et al have a way to interpret in a way that is beneficial to Terri and this filing.

If it were only able to be viewed one way, Bunch wouldn't have brought it up, IMHO.

 

[cypress]

I appreciate your response. I really was just trying to figure out whether you were trying to understand and/or excusing. I totally agree that her history, including her adoption and possible abuse may be a factor here. But as an explanation, not an excuse. Personally, I think TH may have serious issues from her adoption and also from possible abuse. Her overly sexualized nature and serial bad relationships is a huge red flag to me. I wonder what has gone on in her past, and her childhood, in particular. And the thought that she was abused is more than a fleeting thought across my mind. Sorry if I came off as confrontational. I didn't mean it that way

We're good.

 

[Calliope]

Therein lies the rub...KH (amongst others) has repeatedly said that TH is a liar. Now, KH needs TH to believed.

Sadly, I see TH winning this one, although I hope she loses in the end.

Well, last night in that interview Kaine and Desiree say that the claims they've made have come from Terri. But hey. She's a habitual liar. She hasn't told the truth in 7 years. So what are we to believe? Houze is going to use that if this goes to trial, I guarantee it.

 

[Calliope]

I only read a bit through the thread so far but I have some (unsolicited) comments:



The attorney is simply the mouthpiece for the client. We cannot do anything without the approval of the client. When we draft motions, the motion is brought by the client, not the attorney. So, this is definitely by TH's request.

Well, the attorney would have been the one to say "here are our options and why I think ___ is what you should do". I doubt Terri would have had the legal finesse to know what to ask for without her lawyers' guidance.

 

[wondering1]

Why would they believe anything she wrote/typed? She's a liar...BUT they chose to believe this?

Now, thinking about it a while...maybe they have other proof about the costs, and just haven't shared yet (jmoo).

Moo moo moo

I don't think they necessarily believe it at all. But she said it, so they're questioning it. Either she's lying, which helps KH's case, or she's not, in which case he has a right to know where the money came from in the context of a divorce proceeding where he may be liable for joint debt and/or entitled to funds he didn't know about that were acquired during the marriage. imo, it's a win/win for KH and a lose/lose for TH.

 

[wondering1]

Well, the attorney would have been the one to say "here are our options and why I think ___ is what you should do". I doubt Terri would have had the legal finesse to know what to ask for without her lawyers' guidance.

I agree with that. And I think it's important to note when we agree

 

[goatman]

You are right, his attorney "said" it.

Portland-based child custody attorney Laura Rackner, who represented Kaine in Monday's filing, also wrote in court documents that if Terri borrowed the money, and if that loan is considered a marital liability, then the cash should be considered a shared marital asset. That, said Rackner, would make Terri Horman responsible for giving half of the $350,000 to Kaine Horman for his "attorney fees and costs."

Meanwhile, Rackner said Kaine "does not have sufficient income or resources to pay for these legal services and meet his other financial obligations for the children and himself."

If Terri contests the motion, then Kaine's attorney asks that Terri pay his attorney fees for filing the motion.

link:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/99262529.html

I only read a bit through the thread so far but I have some (unsolicited) comments:



The attorney is simply the mouthpiece for the client. We cannot do anything without the approval of the client. When we draft motions, the motion is brought by the client, not the attorney. So, this is definitely by TH's request. ....Kaine never said he could not support himself and the baby. ...What Kaine requested is not a court order. He may wish that each party pay his or her own fees but to my knowledge, no such order has been made yet. I think he was saying that he could not afford to pay his own fees, pay her fees and support the family adequately, due to the complexity of the civil case.

I bolded and snipped some...sorry, I just wanted to be concise. You stated that the attorney is only the mouthpiece for the client. If that is true, then yes, KH has stated that he cannot support himself and the baby (for whatever reason; court cost ect.). TH has not (to my knowledge) asked KH to pay any of her legal fees...so why would he suggest that he couldn't pay them? No one has asked him to, from what I gather...he wants to know where she got the money to pay her attorney (for whatever reason) and that that money can be used for his attorney-which he suggests he cannot afford. At least that is how I have read it.

 

[Donjeta]

And Terri's attorney told the court that amount was 'grossly' overstated. I'd think that he would have a direct line to Houze, and with Terri's permission of course, have access to the contract and how much she actually paid him.

Whereas Kaine's "proof" is a sext-message.

I wonder to which the Court will assign more weight?

JMO but I don't think the purpose of the petition was to prove the Court that she paid 350.000 dollars for her lawyer. He wanted to find out if what they had heard was true and have the sum taken into account when considering their finances if it was a marital liability. If it's not, then that's the end of the business.

 

[Susan10]

I was thinking the same thing. Or he gave her a flat rate charge for all legal matters.

That is an exorbitant amount of money, even for a case of this magnitude. I find it hard to believe that he would be charging her that much, especially since she hasn't been arrested yet.

 

[Calliope]

JMO but I don't think the purpose of the petition was to prove the Court that she paid 350.000 dollars for her lawyer. He wanted to find out if what they had heard was true and have the sum taken into account when considering their finances if it was a marital liability. If it's not, then that's the end of the business.

True. Seems to me that all Terri's attorney needs to do is show the judge the contract.

 

[captivagrl]

If she is just willing to sign off on the divorce and give up custody to baby K., then why can't the divorce be quick, since she doesn't own anything of his - is it only money that's the sticky wicket? They could just call it even and, after KH gets the info on where the money comes from, just let each other keep what they have. I can't imagine TMH is going to be able to do much for child support for a bit. Why don't they just call it a day and do it fast?

(Or is it naive of me to suggest they just leave each other's pockets alone at this point?)

1. baby K? she hasn't even petitioned for visitation!
2. maybe Kaine isn't as "liquid" as most are presuming and maybe she's made a deal to sell "something" that she will keep to herself $$$$

*this is in no way meant to be argumentative toward you Whyaduck, your post just reminded me of how strongly I feel about the money and custody issues*

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

Of course he did. There was probable cause, someone came forward and made an accusation. That's all it takes. Doesn't have to be true, or proven.

Think of this, you are out with some friends for a good time. You don't drink but you stay out late and have fun. You leave the bar at closing time, get in your car and begin to drive home. PO patroling the area by sees your car in the vicinity of a bar that is just closing, its late, hardly anyone out at that hour. Suspects you came from the bar. Suspects that if you stayed out at a bar until closing time you are likely driving impaired. Can't pull you over for suspicions so decides to keep an eye on you for a minute. You don't see the PO, no-one else on the road that late and you decide to see if you can find your chapstick in your purse so you lean over a bit to grab your purse and swerve slightly over the white line on the side of the road. BAM, the swerve was probable cause to pull you over for suspicion of driving under the influence. It doesn't mean you're drunk, or that you will be charged with anything, but it was enough for PO to say he thought you might be DUI so he pulled you over for it.

Let's add then that while you're pulled over your ex sister in law drives by and sees that you've been pulled over late at night near a bar so she assumes you got caught driving drunk and proceeds to tell anyone who will listen that you got a DWI the night before. Try as you might you will never convince everyone that you didn't. Even if you could prove you weren't charged with a DWI some people would just say you must have done someone some "favors" to get out of it.

Jack - what a grand explanation of probable cause. Hitting the Thanks button just didn't seem like enough for this brilliant post!

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

Interesting.

And Kaine is the petitioner, Terri the respondent, I believe.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

If KH's attorney represented to the court that TH claimed to have paid $350k to Houze, I guarantee that there's, at minimum, a reasonable basis for that assertion, if not absolute proof (which I, personally, belive to be the case). LE turned over the evidence received from MC, and it included, apparently, representations regarding the retainer. There is no reason for me to believe that if they submitted SOME of the communications with MC to the court, they didn't submit ALL of it -- regardless of whether the retainer arrangement was at issue at the time. KH's attorney is going to submit what she has, and not redact it for the benefit of TH. And it is absolutely clear that she recieved the MC information from LE. She said so herself in connection with the contempt motion.

Here's what I wonder. If LE did in fact provide the alleged communications to KH's attorney, why on earth are they providing at taxpayer expense, investigative work to a private citizen's divorce action. Taxpayers do not pay for other taxpayer's divorce, to the best of my knowledge.

If there was an allegation of contempt of a court order, why would LE not turn this over to the DA to file criminal charges.

This all seems wrong, odd, and weird to me. MOO

 

[21merc7]

Did someone have a link to something that stated Houze charges $250,000.00 for cases? That is incredible to me. That is a years worth of income for an attorney. I can see $25,000.00 for a long term criminal trial, and appeals, (well, maybe a little more for appeals), but adding that extra 0 is beyond understanding. (Unless you an attorney for Brad Pitt or some mega star.) How many years would you be making payments to an attorney that charges that much?

As you can see, I still don't believe the $350,000.00 quote.