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

[believe09]

I also noted that Terri's attorney said that Kaine would get the house. So it doesn't appear as though material goods interest her as some have supposed.

I dont think she would have a prayer at keeping it. He has the children and owns the house. It is going to weigh far more heavily on his side so that the children/child can go back to their actual home...

And didnt someone bring up a book deal? She may be perfectly content with the nest egg she has provided herself. Let's hope she signed the papers sometime after she was served by Kaine.

 

[Loislane12000]

I don't really understand the reasoning behind saying that paying someone's attorney fees for them is not a gift.

If my mom paid my electricity bill or my hairdresser for me I would consider it a gift even if the money was never in my account. If the money is not a gift then the electricity or the hairdresser's services are a gift that my mom gave me, just like if she gave me a bag as a present. She paid a third party to get that bag for me and I never saw any of the money.

I don't see where the difference is.

I don't know what anyone else was/is thinking, but I am thinking in terms of the IRS and the legal system. Different than how society thinks of gifts.

IMO, of course

 

[tlcya]

I don't really understand the reasoning behind saying that paying someone's attorney fees for them is not a gift.

If my mom paid my electricity bill or my hairdresser for me I would consider it a gift even if the money was never in my account. If the money is not a gift then the electricity or the hairdresser's services are a gift that my mom gave me, just like if she gave me a bag as a present. She paid a third party to get that bag for me and I never saw any of the money.

I don't see where the difference is.

for the purposes of the legal proceedings, the word gift would refer to a financial gift as in monies given to a person without expectation of repayments. That sort of gift would be considered "taxable income" and would need to be reported and the taxes paid.

If my mom pays my electrical bill without expecting repayment for same then yes, in our idea, she gave me a "gift" but if I am in the middle of a divorce that "gift" from my moterh is not considered a GIFT for the purposes of divying up teh assets/debts of my marriage. My mother's "gift" cannot be taxed and therefore the nonexistent taxes are not relevant to my divorce.

 

[germaine]

I remember my tax guy if I had received any monetary gifts at or under ten grand or if I had given away any gifts totalling the same. that number rings a bell.

I was just schooled on this by a tax attorney I know. Not about the 10K issue (but I think whoever said it's gone up a little is right), but on the fact that you can also make $1 million in lifetime gifts without getting slapped. I can't explain it the way she did, but I was surprised to find out that an $850k gift had no tax consequences to the giver because of the lifetime limit. Even though it was a gift well in excess of the yearly minimum.

eta: er, that would be the yearly MAXIMUM

 

[germaine]

He quotes the law where it says a case can be dismissed if inactive / held in abatement for 2 years. But that's not the same as him asking for a 2 year abatement. Which is what the media and some here have claimed. He didn't ask for a specific time period, but rather "until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."

I think he is just quoting the Rule there, again. I think TH just asked for whatever relief the rule allows. Which is 2 years, or the bolded language.

 

[gitana1]

(respectfully snipped)

And then what happens when Kaine or Desiree or both decide to broadcast that information in their next 'press conference'?

Kaine could be found in contempt. But the cat would be out of the bag regardless. So, that should be TH's argument against revealing her fee arrangement. That's what I would argue if I was her attorney.

 

[stmarysmead]

I wonder...why Terri wants the general public to wonder....where she got the money?

If she has a simple easy answer this could have been a slam dunk for her side. "It's from my parents, that's WHO!"

"oh. alrighty then. never mind"

I wonder if LE knows where the money came from.

 

[Donjeta]

I also noted that Terri's attorney said that Kaine would get the house. So it doesn't appear as though material goods interest her as some have supposed.

You might be right but it could be that she is interested in material goods and just conceded in the face of the inevitable, figuring that she didn't stand a chance of getting it anyway, so why not look gracious and give in about the house? If she has no income it might be difficult for her to maintain a house in any case.

IMO anybody in the middle of a divorce would be a fool not to be interested in material goods unless everybody gets plenty anyway.

 

[gitana1]

Bunch and Houze seem to disagree with that assessment.

Yes, of course. That's what they're hired to do. And they are paid a pretty penny for that.
The fact is, the law regarding disso cases is very clear. TH has to disclose the source and amount.
But the argument is that in criminal law cases, the law would not demand such a disclosure and that such a disclosure may prejudice her rights and may be a violation of attorney-client privilege in the criminal case. (I disagree with the latter BTW).
I feel I came up with a solution that a judge may go for. Yes, it's not perfect because Kaine could easily violate an order sealing the disclosure. I mean, what does he feel he has to lose? He already lost his kid.
In any event, this is exciting to me from a legal perspective because it is a novel case, the overlap of areas of the law here is intriguing to me as a lawyer. I am very interested in seeing how this all pans out and what the court decides to do.
If a sweet little boy wasn't missing, though, I could get a lot more enjoyment from watching this legal dilemma unfold. Unfortunately, he is.

 

[krowdkat]

You might be right but it could be that she is interested in material goods and just conceded in the face of the inevitable, figuring that she didn't stand a chance of getting it anyway, so why not look gracious and give in about the house? If she has no income it might be difficult for her to maintain a house in any case.

IMO anybody in the middle of a divorce would be a fool not to be interested in material goods unless everybody gets plenty anyway.

Due to the economy, I am under water in my house. We owe more than the current market value. If my husband and I were to divorce, we'd be trying to give the house to each other. LOL

TH being unemployed (and as some say, unemployable at this time) is smart not to want the home if she can't afford it and if there isn't any equity available on the property.

 

[believe09]

o/t I think "Bunch and Houze" would be an excellent name for a television show.

 

[debs]

o/t I think "Bunch and Houze" would be an excellent name for a television show.

LOL, it's funny you say that, because I was thinking they were character names in "Hill Street Blues"

 

[Loislane12000]

I wonder...why Terri wants the general public to wonder....where she got the money?

If she has a simple easy answer this could have been a slam dunk for her side. "It's from my parents, that's WHO!"

"oh. alrighty then. never mind"

I wonder if LE knows where the money came from.

Frankly, I see no reason why TH should satisfy the public's unseemly need to know every little thing about this case. We can wonder, and we can want to know all we want, but NONE of the participants in this case have any obligation to satisfy our curiosity (and not satisfying our curiousity does NOT mean she's guilty and if she did answer the question it wouldn't make her innocent.)

IMO, of course

 

[gitana1]

This question for any legal eagles out there--Can the judge ask to see the source of the funds given to Houze without disclosing the third party to Kaine's lawyers in order to determine whether the funds need to be disclosed or not?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[debs]

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks for answering! What about in the instance of say, Houze having a trust set up where third parties donate to it in order for him to take on constitutional cases (or pick your case file criteria here). Would Houze then be obligated on behalf of the opposing attorney in a case for one of those clients that benefit from that trust, to reveal those funds, or should it suffice that he has written letters and spoken to Kaine and his attorney to clarify the matter, and brought it before the judge in a memorandum stating that Terri was never a beneficiary of the funds, only what the funds can purchase?

Is it still on her to prove how this high priced attorney with a trust can take her on?

 

[believe09]

This question for any legal eagles out there--Can the judge ask to see the source of the funds given to Houze without disclosing the third party to Kaine's lawyers in order to determine whether the funds need to be disclosed or not?

And thank you for the reply gitana1-I am pretty sure this happened in the Anthony case. Casey had received 250K and the judge at the time did an incamera review of the source...:waitasec:

 

[believe09]

I suppose Houze could say he is representing her pro bono. But he hasnt said that.

 

[gitana1]

But her rights as a parent and in fact a civilian are being attacked based on this ream of evidence that no one wants to bring forward and still take away her rights. That's a huge problem for a lot of people.



What we do know is that Terri's attorney has claimed a constitutional right to see the evidence against his client and has so far been thwarted in his attempts to see it. If this evidence is enough to move one side into taking away Terri's rights as a parent and move her from her home, then she is within the law to ask what evidence they have to do so. Stating over and over that "we do not know what LE has" is a null argument, given that by the same token "we do not know what LE has" can be used to demonstrate Terri's position.



But the law is written for a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around.



I guess I can't quite do the equation between being accused of horrendous crimes with no evidence shown me to support it and having my rights trampled on constantly, and having to be in an ash cloud. Sorry!

Although I am not on board with your position, I admire these arguments here. They are the strongest I have seen so far on the side of protecting TH's rights.
But, as I have said repeatedly, there is a very easy way for TH to protect her rights and always has been. She could now and could have forced KH to prove his case - to present evidence. She didn't have to say a word, just stand there and have her attorney say: "We contest this RO request. TH will not be testifying because it is clear that LE has her in their sights and we want to protect her from possible incrimination. However, KH has the burden of proving TH has committed DV. Let him prove it." Then the lawyer just needs to object to every single hearsay allegation.
KH likely cannot prove his case if he and LE want to protect the LE investigation. So I ask again, why hasn't TH done this? Why hasn't she forced KH to prove his case?
It's fishy to me.
I'm trying to think of a way that strategy would prejudice TH. I haven't found one yet that is significant enough to justify not seeing her baby for three months, but I'll continue to ponder.

 

[tlcya]

You have given a very good argument and food for thought gitana, I will have to ponder that last post a while.

 

[Barry]

IMO, Houze and Bunch have taken serious umbrage with the legal tactic being used here. It is causing them to expend time and resources they normally wouldn't have to. So, I think they're content to let the other side twist in the wind for awhile and expend some of their resources. I'm afraid that this could turn into a tit for tat lawyer battle, and that would really detract from the real issue

EDIT: Sorry, meant to quote, not reply. This is in response to why they might now be withholding where the funds for her defense came from.