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

[pufnstuf]

I'm probably just missing something here. But the issue of where the money came from for Terri to hire an attorney, as far as I can figure anyway, was only as to whether or not the money came from joint assets, i.e., Kaines. Two attorneys have said before a judge that it has NOTHING to do with Kaine's money and that in fact, the money came from a THIRD party, not Kaine's nor Terri's money. That is why it seems like they're beating a dead horse. Maybe I'm wrong, but legally, I don't think Terri has to say where the money came from at all, so long as it wasn't from Kaine and/or their joint assets.

What am I missing?

The judge hasn't ruled on it yet.

 

[citigirl]

I'm probably just missing something here. But the issue of where the money came from for Terri to hire an attorney, as far as I can figure anyway, was only as to whether or not the money came from joint assets, i.e., Kaines. Two attorneys have said before a judge that it has NOTHING to do with Kaine's money and that in fact, the money came from a THIRD party, not Kaine's nor Terri's money. That is why it seems like they're beating a dead horse. Maybe I'm wrong, but legally, I don't think Terri has to say where the money came from at all, so long as it wasn't from Kaine and/or their joint assets.

What am I missing?

IANAL, but, for example, if the money came from pictures of Kyron, Kaine's attorneys might want to argue that those pictures should really not belong to Terri. Or if Terri is using her story to get an advance, Kaine may want to ask the judge to hold the money until after trial to be sure Terri does not profit if she is found guilty.

Without knowing who the third party is, it is hard to speculate what the issues might be. But if it is her parents--why doesn't Bunch just say so? That's why I think it is more complicated than that. Why are Houze and Bunch trying to hide the source of the money?

Something else occurred to me recently--is it possible Houze and Bunch suggested TH's parents mortgage their house to throw off Kaine's lawyers as to the true source of the money?

 

[germaine]

I'm probably just missing something here. But the issue of where the money came from for Terri to hire an attorney, as far as I can figure anyway, was only as to whether or not the money came from joint assets, i.e., Kaines. Two attorneys have said before a judge that it has NOTHING to do with Kaine's money and that in fact, the money came from a THIRD party, not Kaine's nor Terri's money. That is why it seems like they're beating a dead horse. Maybe I'm wrong, but legally, I don't think Terri has to say where the money came from at all, so long as it wasn't from Kaine and/or their joint assets.

What am I missing?

you're missing, imo, the fact that she's demanding that kaine pay for everything based on her indigence, while obviously having vast means available to her. If the request for attorneys' fees is based on the frivolous nature of the relief requested, then the relative means of the parties should be irrelevant. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Billylee]

The judge hasn't ruled on it yet.

I'm not sure what you mean by the judge has not ruled on it. Ruled on what? Where the money came from? Does the judge believe the attorneys who told him where the money came from, i.e., a third party, and was not a part of KH's assets, are telling the truth or does he think they're lying?

What exactly is he supposed to be ruling on? You have two attorneys telling the judge in a court of law that the money came from a third party. Not Terri Horman.
Okay, so, does the judge look at the attorney and say "you're lying, I'll have you disbarred". If so, why hasn't that been done? This is an attorney(s) telling the judge, the money I received for MY SERVICES did not come from Terri Horman, Kaine Horman, nor the joint assets of the two. That should be pretty freakin' simple language, don't you think?

This case is perhaps more complex than need be.

 

[citigirl]

I'm not sure what you mean by the judge has not ruled on it. Ruled on what? Where the money came from? Does the judge believe the attorneys who told him where the money came from, i.e., a third party, and was not a part of KH's assets, are telling the truth or does he think they're lying?

What exactly is he supposed to be ruling on? You have two attorneys telling the judge in a court of law that the money came from a third party. Not Terri Horman.
Okay, so, does the judge look at the attorney and say "you're lying, I'll have you disbarred". If so, why hasn't that been done? This is an attorney(s) telling the judge, the money I received for MY SERVICES did not come from Terri Horman, Kaine Horman, nor the joint assets of the two. That should be pretty freakin' simple language, don't you think?

This case is perhaps more complex than need be.

Let me turn this around and ask--why won't the lawyers say where the money did come from? What harm could there be?

 

[pufnstuf]

I'm not sure what you mean by the judge has not ruled on it. Ruled on what? Where the money came from? Does the judge believe the attorneys who told him where the money came from, i.e., a third party, and was not a part of KH's assets, are telling the truth or does he think they're lying?

What exactly is he supposed to be ruling on? You have two attorneys telling the judge in a court of law that the money came from a third party. Not Terri Horman.
Okay, so, does the judge look at the attorney and say "you're lying, I'll have you disbarred". If so, why hasn't that been done? This is an attorney(s) telling the judge, the money I received for MY SERVICES did not come from Terri Horman, Kaine Horman, nor the joint assets of the two. That should be pretty freakin' simple language, don't you think?

This case is perhaps more complex than need be.

It's not really that complex, as far as this issue goes.

Simply stated, the judge has not ruled on Kaine's motion asking that Terri disclose the source of the 350K that she told Michael Cook it cost to hire Houze.

That's all there is to it. The judge is expected to hear this motion in January.

 

[cluciano63]

I believe one of the lawyers said in the legal thread that attorneys almost always ask for the other party to pay for anything that comes along...it is not unusual and may not have even come from TH personally.

 

[SmoothOperator]

It's at the judges discretion, I believe, whether or not she must tell... I know in my divorce that my stb-ex was shocked when I left him[he never thought I could leave cuz I was a SAHM, therefor thought he had me "under his thumb"]... so when I did leave and immediately retained a reputable divorce atty who then immediately served him with papers.. He was so angry and demanded to know where the large amount of money had come from for my atty's unGODly priced retainer...

My atty told me it was at the judges discretion and he had seen it go both ways, depending on judge and circumstance as to whether I had to disclose this info to my stb-ex...

That is my personal experience..Don't know if it varies from state to state and was also about 12 yrs ago...

 

[germaine]

I believe one of the lawyers said in the legal thread that attorneys almost always ask for the other party to pay for anything that comes along...it is not unusual and may not have even come from TH personally.

It is common practice. BUT, in a regular civil case, an award of attorneys fees is based on whether you prevail and/or whether the motion you're responding to is friviolous. In family court, on the other hand, a party can be made to pay for the other party's having to respond to perfectly valid motions, indeed, for the other party's case entirely, based solely on their relative means. The latter is what's going on here. Terri is saying "I have no means" and Kaine is saying, "gee, that's funny, 'cause you just paid Houze $350k"

 

[i.b.nora]

If Kaine is so worried that this phantom $350,000 is coming from his and/or their bank account/s why doesn't he look into his and/or their accounts and see if $350,000 is missing?

If there is nothing missing then, its really none of his business, imo.

 

[germaine]

If Kaine is so worried that this phantom $350,000 is coming from his and/or their bank account/s why doesn't he look into his and/or their accounts and see if $350,000 is missing?

If there is nothing missing then, its really none of his business, imo.

It's his business because she's demanding that he pay counsel fees that she "can't afford" to pay when, obviously, she can.

 

[ThoughtFox]

If Kaine is so worried that this phantom $350,000 is coming from his and/or their bank account/s why doesn't he look into his and/or their accounts and see if $350,000 is missing?

If there is nothing missing then, its really none of his business, imo.

If TH hadn't asked for money you might have a point. But she asked for money and opened that whole pandora's box.

She can't be indigent and have $350,000 - it's only logical that someone would ask where the money came from. If they didn't, they would be foolish indeed.

 

[grandmaj]

If Kaine is so worried that this phantom $350,000 is coming from his and/or their bank account/s why doesn't he look into his and/or their accounts and see if $350,000 is missing?

If there is nothing missing then, its really none of his business, imo.

Well actually I do respectfully disagree with this. What if she took a loan out he does not know about? As the woman who is the focus of the investigation on the disappearance of his son, what if she had money that she received by selling Kyron? What is she sold the rights to Kyron's and Baby K's pictures to pay for her defense? What if she was doing some kind of work that would lead to Kyron's location, that no one knows about?

Certainly 350K is a great deal of money. If I believed , and LE told me that my husband was involved in my son's disappearance, I'd be stopping any attempts to make money off of my son if that is what she might have done. No one knows but Kaine has a right to know if it involves his children.

 

[ami]

I'm probably just missing something here. But the issue of where the money came from for Terri to hire an attorney, as far as I can figure anyway, was only as to whether or not the money came from joint assets, i.e., Kaines. Two attorneys have said before a judge that it has NOTHING to do with Kaine's money and that in fact, the money came from a THIRD party, not Kaine's nor Terri's money. That is why it seems like they're beating a dead horse. Maybe I'm wrong, but legally, I don't think Terri has to say where the money came from at all, so long as it wasn't from Kaine and/or their joint assets.

What am I missing?

If Kaine is so worried that this phantom $350,000 is coming from his and/or their bank account/s why doesn't he look into his and/or their accounts and see if $350,000 is missing?

If there is nothing missing then, its really none of his business, imo.

Well, the attorneys here have said several times that's not legally true.

In Terri's documents re: the $350K, they say that some amount of money was given to Terri's cause for Terri's use, but was not considered what is conventionally considered "a gift" (because a gift may be considered a marital asset). If they're arguing that the word "gift" can be construed several ways, but they're unwilling to share the source so Kaine's attorneys can determine if they believe it was a "gift", then they have to expect the issue won't go away.

 

[Calliope]

Besides the legal maneuvering here...
imagine if your partner ,that you believed in your heart was involved with the disappearance and possible death of your little son, after months of showing no interest ( and having another relationship in the interim!) wanted time with your only remaining child...
I too would fight like a tiger to prevent it.
Whatever the legal right and wrong of it...I would fight.
JMO

And I sure as heck wouldn't keep, much less drive, the vehicle I knew was used to abduct and transport him.

 

[Calliope]

imo, it's ridiculous. Put yourself in Kaine's position, or for that matter in the position of anyone else in a normal divorce situation. You are the spouse who's asked to pay attorneys' fees. Your stb-ex buys a new house, new car, and travels to Italy staying at five-star hotels (let's just say), but is asking YOU to pay his attorneys' fees because he is unemployed and has no obvious means. I mean you, personally. Is that honkey-dory with you, or do you want to find out why all the new stuff and leisure is possible, while the attorneys' fees can't be paid. Seems like a no-brainer to me. btjmoo

That's quite a strawman.

But since Terri isn't flying off to Italy, staying in 5-star hotels, buying a new house and car, etc., your question seems to be irrelevant to this case.

I believe it's been stated here on numerous occasions by our professionals on board that this is SOP. Terri is asking that Kaine pay, Kaine is asking that Terri pays.

 

[Calliope]

Let me turn this around and ask--why won't the lawyers say where the money did come from? What harm could there be?

Because if it's not a joint asset or liability to Kaine, it's none of his business.

 

[Calliope]

It's his business because she's demanding that he pay counsel fees that she "can't afford" to pay when, obviously, she can.

How do we know she can afford to pay Bunch?

 

[citigirl]

Because if it's not a joint asset or liability to Kaine, it's none of his business.

That's just the point--Kaine does not trust Terri to be truthful about their joint assets or anything else...

how do we know Terri didn't lie about the source of the money to her lawyers? The poeple who she might have told she murdered someone--and they cannot/will not divulge?

Right now they are married and everything is their mutual business. Kaine will be required to disclose his assets and Terri will be required to disclose hers...

You remember, Terri asked for this abatement in the first place, or we all would know where that money came from--if the abatement is granted (which it has been--at least until January)--Kaine would like that portion of her assets disclosed now before she gives it all to Houze--in the event that whether or not it is a joint asset is contestable.

 

[citigirl]

How do we know she can afford to pay Bunch?

We don't!

btw I love love love love your icon...