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

[Kimster]

Didn't the Goldmans use some version of this, along with their civil judgment, to take OJ's book and publish it for their benefit? Help, I can't remember all that right now!

I don't recall the details, but it doesn't matter. This case is in Oregon.

 

[JSR]

I would imagine it's just a small retainer that's been paid to Houze so far, since Terri hasn't been charged, and he's not had much work to do yet really.

Darned if I'd drop $350k on an attorney when I didn't even know if I'd ever face charges. And I doubt Houze would require it.

Attys of his caliber don't have "small" retainer fees. Houze doesn't come cheap. Even if he's not an attorney of record for any action against Terri (in a civil matter or criminal) just his legal advise would be VERY pricey. We're talking between $800-$1200 an hour.

 

[Billylee]

baby name alert post 94, stmary's need to edit.

 

[Kat010]

Will all do respect what if she is guilty?

Community assets. If Kaine has to tell what his wages, 401K, retirement, etc., is Terri has to be held to the same standard. Where did you get the money?

Saying it is not a community asset is not proving it is not a community asset.

Wait! I just thought of something to complicate things even more. With the monies collected for the Kyron Horman Foundation, which Kaine either controls wholly (I'm not sure) or may share with DY, could TH demand a marital share of those? It's not a charity, simply a non-profit. It could be argued that since KH controls the use of those funds that his ability to designate how they're spent constitutes an asset shared via marital assets. Could Bunch demand an accounting of all donations handled by Kaine?

Lawyer! Hurry! (And bring the Bailey's please. I think I just gave myself a headache.)

 

[Billylee]

BBM

ITA, I always thought it was illegally gotten..........sex, , selling KYRON for pediphiles pleasure??? some inhumane way...as DY said KYRON saw, was involved, disgusting, not treated as a human???......so she cannot admit it.
Is this the 'LE statement ,we know things we wish we did not; you will be shocked when you look back........by sherrif

I believe the word was "surprised" not "shocked". Big difference.

 

[Kat010]

I don't recall the details, but it doesn't matter. This case is in Oregon.

OK, so they used a California law and not a federal law? Told ya I didn't remember it all!

 

[Jo in Calif]

If people get $350k simply for promising to do a , then I definitely took up the wrong career.

Off topic here, but Vivid Entertainment offered Octomom 500K to do a .

 

[krowdkat]

Wait! I just thought of something to complicate things even more. With the monies collected for the Kyron Horman Foundation, which Kaine either controls wholly (I'm not sure) or may share with DY, could TH demand a marital share of those? It's not a charity, simply a non-profit. It could be argued that since KH controls the use of those funds that his ability to designate how they're spent constitutes an asset shared via marital assets. Could Bunch demand an accounting of all donations handled by Kaine?

Lawyer! Hurry! (And bring the Bailey's please. I think I just gave myself a headache.)

A headache before the hangover is the worst case scenario! LOL

 

[Ladybulldog]

Don't know the answer to your last question, but have heard that he loves to defend people who the majority believes to be guilty... Could be that the $$$ came from a family trust ? And therefore, an attorney administering such a trust would in effect be a " third party " ? Just some thoughts... MOO

All JMO

BBM

You might be right.

A revocable living trust (also known as an inter vivos trust) is a separate legal entity created to own property, such as a home or investments. The trust is revocable, which means that during the grantor’s lifetime (the grantor is the person who originally owns the property and creates the trust), he or she controls the trust. Whenever the grantor wishes, he or she can change the trust terms, transfer property in and out of the trust, or end the trust altogether. The trust is called a living trust because it’s meant to function while the grantor is alive. The trust can continue after the grantor’s death, but the trust becomes irrevocable the moment the grantor dies.

A revocable living trust can be a useful and practical estate planning tool for certain individuals, but not for everyone. This type of trust is most commonly used to avoid probate because, unlike property that passes by will, trust assets are distributed directly to heirs. This type of trust is also used as a way to maintain management of one’s financial affairs during a period of incapacity because someone else can immediately take charge when needed. A revocable living trust does not minimize income, gift, or estate taxes, nor does it shelter trust assets from creditors in most cases.

Revocable living trusts are used to accomplish various purposes:





· To ensure that property continues to be properly managed in the event the grantor becomes incapacitated

· To reduce costs and time delays by avoiding probate

· To lessen potential challenges to or elections against a will

· To maintain privacy

· To avoid ancillary administration of out-of-state assets

· A revocable living trust can be appropriate for individuals:

• Owning real estate in more than one state (to avoid ancillary probate).

• With concerns about their health or future ability to manage their own financial affairs.

• Who want to keep transfers at death private (to avoid family conflicts, for example).

• Who want someone else to manage and invest assets (e.g., persons with special needs, persons who often travel overseas).

• Who want someone with special knowledge or skill to manage and invest assets (e.g., persons who inherit or win large sums of money).

• Who are single or who care for themselves.

• Who are unmarried domestic partners.

• Who are elderly or ill.

• Who are not concerned about transfer taxes.

 

[Kimster]

Wait! I just thought of something to complicate things even more. With the monies collected for the Kyron Horman Foundation, which Kaine either controls wholly (I'm not sure) or may share with DY, could TH demand a marital share of those? It's not a charity, simply a non-profit. It could be argued that since KH controls the use of those funds that his ability to designate how they're spent constitutes an asset shared via marital assets. Could Bunch demand an accounting of all donations handled by Kaine?

Lawyer! Hurry! (And bring the Bailey's please. I think I just gave myself a headache.)

I seriously doubt TH would have a right even if Kaine won the lottery at this point. Gitana1, IIRC - joint assets are stopped once the divorce papers are filed and even more so in Oregon since this is NOT A community property state?

 

[Kat010]

A headache before the hangover is the worst case scenario! LOL

Ain't it though! I've now confabulated myself so much I need to go get the chocolate ice cream.

 

[Kat010]

I seriously doubt TH would have a right even if Kaine won the lottery at this point. Gitana1, IIRC - joint assets are stopped once the divorce papers are filed and even more so in Oregon since this is NOT A community property state?

Ahhh! I didn't know Oregon wasn't a community property state. (Luckily, the state I divorced in was.)

But...if joint assets are stopped once the divorce papers are filed, then doesn't that mean that KH has no right to any funds given to TH or used for her benefit? If she hired Houze after KH filed (and I can't remember the dates), then doesn't that negate any claim he has to the money for Houze?

 

[debs]

Ain't it though! I've now confabulated myself so much I need to go get the chocolate ice cream.

I made a BTS cake last night, and added (in addition to everything else) caramel chips and hot fudge. I can look but don't touch. But my confabulation makes me look with drool.

 

[krowdkat]

Ahhh! I didn't know Oregon wasn't a community property state. (Luckily, the state I divorced in was.)

But...if joint assets are stopped once the divorce papers are filed, then doesn't that mean that KH has no right to any funds given to TH or used for her benefit? If she hired Houze after KH filed (and I can't remember the dates), then doesn't that negate any claim he has to the money for Houze?

That's why KH is asking for an accountability of said funds. If acquired after, no biggy. If not, well then, Houston, we have a problem.

 

[Kat010]

I made a BTS cake last night, and added (in addition to everything else) caramel chips and hot fudge. I can look but don't touch. But my confabulation makes me look with drool.

I'll be right over with Bailey's and ice cream. 'k?

 

[Billylee]

Off topic here, but Vivid Entertainment offered Octomom 500K to do a .

ewwwwe yuk!

 

[gwenabob]

I would imagine it's just a small retainer that's been paid to Houze so far, since Terri hasn't been charged, and he's not had much work to do yet really.

Darned if I'd drop $350k on an attorney when I didn't even know if I'd ever face charges. And I doubt Houze would require it.

Didn't Houze appear in court today and the last court hearing? He gets paid for that.

We don't know what he has done for Terri so far. He might have a PI out there right now collecting information on Terri's behalf. He gets paid too. Just because Terri hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean Houze is sitting on his hands.

 

[gardeness]

She really didn't. She asked for a two year abatement and got 90 days. That's a compromise that is more in favor of KH's position, when looking at the length of time. Also, there was no ruling yet on whether she needs to disclose the source of her criminal attorney's fees because that was postponed for at least 90 days. That's why the abatement motion was set first.

sbm bbm

In my limited experience in court (divorce), this would have been a win. I well remember asking for "x" while really only hoping for a little of "y". I suspect that's how many of these cases work...

 

[Kat010]

Here's the official court document that TH's lawyer filed today. It's quite, errr...terse.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Horman_Court+documents_10_7_2010.pdf

 

[Billylee]

I think this judge has inkling that this criminal case will probably be much further along by January and thus the constitutional issues will be mute at that time. JMO

If he doesn't have an inkling, I think he's certainly "hoping" the criminal case will be much further along by then.