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

[SacreBleu]

because it is irrelevant and no one's business? OTOH Perhaps a donor gave it to the attorney under the condition their identity is not revealed. To me it is not relevant unless she earned it as income and she is basically swearing that is not the case.

But, according to our very own lawyer, gitana1, it is not irrelevant. Kaine has the right to know that no marital assets are being used for Terri's defense. Not my rules... it's the law.

 

[debs]

Terri's attorney argued reasonably that Kaine is not owed the answers because he thinks he can then force Terri to testify, and therefore his need to know should supersede her right, not to mention the attorney's right, to not have to be forced to divulge that information. There is no burden to Kaine, and Kaine is not proving any reason beyond "i want to use any and all information to incriminate Terri in a criminal action."

Terri's divorce attorney, like Kaine's attorney, has asked for the other party to pay their legal fees. Standard op.

Kaine has not proven Terri is responsible for anything. Just because she's not giving him answers he thinks he's owed, or worse, the answers he demands she gives him regardless if they are true or not, does not make it okay.

 

[gwenabob]

gosh to me this is no mystery. parents pay fees on her behalf as most parents would. the money is not hers(no loan) not a gift(not given to her) and has been earned (belongs to attorney not TH). The funds are not a liability(no pay back no loan) not an asset(belong to attorney) and their position is it is irrelevant to the proceedings.
what am I missing? i did not see the hearing and have only read the document.

Well, I think the IRS would see it as a gift. And as Gitana said earlier, it is not a good idea for a third party to pay attorney fees because it muddies the water as to who is the client--the accused, or the party paying the fees?

 

[JBean]

But, according to our very own lawyer, gitana1, it is not irrelevant. Kaine has the right to know that no marital assets are being used for Terri's defense. Not my rules... it's the law.

I totally understand that,if it is income it is relevant. But they are saying it is not. I also am reading that Kaine knows it is not income (according to the document)but he is pushing forward.

 

[Barry]

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

The undercurrent I sense in this document is an irritation in their perception that the court system is being abused here. And, as someone mentioned the broader implications of allowing it to continue. I would not be surprised if the answer of the money is a very simple one, but that they are making the process as painful as possible because of the above mentioned.

IMO, anything being done to find Kyron in this vein is forgivable, I would do the same thing in a heartbeat. I do, however, see that opening the door to legal tactics like this could be very harmful to people and their ability to have legal representation in the future.

My only hope is that they find Kyron, or find out what happened to him. All of this, while very fascinating, is completely secondary to that.

MOO

 

[Jade2010]

typically only gloria allred and mark geragos.

LOLoLOL

 

[debs]

Well, I think the IRS would see it as a gift. And as Gitana said earlier, it is not a good idea for a third party to pay attorney fees because it muddies the water as to who is the client--the accused, or the party paying the fees?

It appears that the money went directly into a fund for Houze. The IRS will ding him, then. It would only seem logical that those funds then came to the attorney with a stipulation that his only responsibility is to Terri.

 

[Aedrys]

Terri's attorney argued reasonably that Kaine is not owed the answers because he thinks he can then force Terri to testify, and therefore his need to know should supersede her right, not to mention the attorney's right, to not have to be forced to divulge that information. There is no burden to Kaine, and Kaine is not proving any reason beyond "i want to use any and all information to incriminate Terri in a criminal action."

Terri's divorce attorney, like Kaine's attorney, has asked for the other party to pay their legal fees. Standard op.

Kaine has not proven Terri is responsible for anything. Just because she's not giving him answers he thinks he's owed, or worse, the answers he demands she gives him regardless if they are true or not, does not make it okay.

But how could Kaine possible use that her parents gave her money against her? As far as we know, they are totally innocent of this. I can't see him wanting to destroy their lives just because they gave money to Terri's defense lawyer. They have nothing to do with what happened to Kyron.

What I am saying is, if her source is legit and has nothing whatsoever to do with Kyron, can't be tied to him, can't be used against her in any court of law, then what the frack is the harm of saying it? Heck, if is legit, that just takes some winds of Kaine's sails. It wouldn't help him in any way. I can't see why they wouldn't want to get an upper hand here if her money has no ties whatsoever to Kyron. Heck, they could take it to the media and make him look very bad for asking in the first place. But they WON'T!

The only reason not to say anything is because her money is connected to Kyron, would incriminate her, and she can't afford to do that to herself. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

 

[Calliope]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_delays_terri_and_kaine_h.html

"Bunch contends Kaine Horman's interest in seeking the source of Terri Horman's attorney fees is to interfere with his estranged wife's attorney-client relationship with Houze and to "aid police in their investigations."

Does this mean Terri's attorney is saying....knowing who the source of the money is...will aid police in their investigations?

WOW!

If this is accurate...the money can't be from Mom and Dad. Terri came by that money in a way that will aid the investigation into Kyron's disappearance.

Remember..."Kyron saw it all" said Desiree.

Very interesting...

bbm

No, that is not what he's saying.

 

[JBean]

Well, I think the IRS would see it as a gift. And as Gitana said earlier, it is not a good idea for a third party to pay attorney fees because it muddies the water as to who is the client--the accused, or the party paying the fees?

I paid attorney fees for someone, but the client relationship was not with me and I was not privy to any information. The attorney made that very clear. I was only paying the freight and was not a client and not given any special privileges or rights. The contract for services was written between the attorney and the client and my name was not even a postscript. No water was muddy. I am sure gitana1 can give examples where that is the case and I have no doubt she is correct. i can only speak from my own experiences. IRS did not consider it a gift and at the end of the day i paid attorney fees for a case. the money went straight to the attorney and he paid the income tax on it.

additionally, if money did come as a gift from parent to child they may have made sure it fell within a yearly gift exclusion amount.

 

[gwenabob]

I totally understand that,if it is income it is relevant. But they are saying it is not. I also am reading that Kaine knows it is not income (according to the document)but he is pushing forward.

I believe it is relevent in the sense that both parties have to declare all their assets and liabilities at the time of the divorce so that everything is divided fairly. Parties try to hide assets from each other all the time. That is not fair. If Kaine had $500,000 hidden in a secret fund that Terri knew nothing about, would that be fair? What if he swore in a court of law that the money came from a secret admirer? Just a gift? Would that make a difference? Don't you think Terri would have the right to know for certain when/where/how those funds came into Kaine's possession? Should she simply take the word of his attorney? Of course not! She would absolutely have the right to know!

 

[debs]

The "harm" comes to the precedent it might set that all attorneys would be forced to stipulate beyond a reasonable point to where their fees came from. Because a client has the privilege of their attorney keeping their transactions private. Because another party, as poignant as his cause might be, cannot through that emotional point, force the attorney or the other party to disclose information which has no bearing on the action in front of the court (in this case, the divorce).

Terri's attorneys filed a stipulation, and with the knowledge that any information therein being false could render a charge of perjury for the attorney, that the money came from a third party, was not a marital asset or gift, or that it fell into the area of marital property.

Asked, and answered. And Kaine pushes on anyway. That's on him. It can't always be blamed on Terri. Kaine is pushing past the information he got because he thought he could, and the court is saying no, he can't.

 

[SacreBleu]

I paid attorney fees for someone, but the client relationship was not with me and I was not privy to any information. The attorney made that very clear. I was only paying the freight and was not a client and not given any special privileges or rights. The contract for services was written between the attorney and the client and my name was not even a postscript. No water was muddy. I am sure gitana1 can give examples where that is the case and I have no doubt she is correct. i can only speak from my own experiences. IRS did not consider it a gift and at the end of the day i paid attorney fees for a case. the money went straight to the attorney and he paid the income tax on it.

Was it for a criminal case, or was there the possibility of a criminal case against the recipient of your gift?

 

[tlcya]

If the money is not a marital asset, loan or debt and is not relevant to the divorce proceeding the suggestion is why won't Terri (through counsel) just give Kaine the info? I assume because if you give an inch with this sort of fishing tactic then Kaine's counsel will get the proverbial toe into the door and insist on a mile. Additionally, from Terri's perspective, she's been denied access to her daughter, left by her husband, booted from her home and called a monster by the general public at large. Perhaps she is just not willing to give anyone, Kaine, LE or us the satisfaction.

If I were in her position and was guilty, I would do exactly what she is doing. No comment, no comment, not relevant, not your business, no comment.

If I were in her position and was blameless, I would do exactly what she is doing. No comment, no comment, not relevant, not your business, no comment.

 

[gwenabob]

The "harm" comes to the precedent it might set that all attorneys would be forced to stipulate beyond a reasonable point to where their fees came from. Because a client has the privilege of their attorney keeping their transactions private. Because another party, as poignant as his cause might be, cannot through that emotional point, force the attorney or the other party to disclose information which has no bearing on the action in front of the court (in this case, the divorce).

Terri's attorneys filed a stipulation, and with the knowledge that any information therein being false could render a charge of perjury for the attorney, that the money came from a third party, was not a marital asset or gift, or that it fell into the area of marital property.

Asked, and answered. And Kaine pushes on anyway. That's on him. It can't always be blamed on Terri. Kaine is pushing past the information he got because he thought he could, and the court is saying no, he can't.

I think the court only said "not today." The question was not considered today and will be considered in January.

 

[SacreBleu]

and the court is saying no, he can't.

Did they say that? I thought the whole thing was just postponed until January??? IANAA - duh!

 

[nonfictionrocks]

But how could Kaine possible use that her parents gave her money against her? As far as we know, they are totally innocent of this. I can't see him wanting to destroy their lives just because they gave money to Terri's defense lawyer. They have nothing to do with what happened to Kyron.

What I am saying is, if her source is legit and has nothing whatsoever to do with Kyron, can't be tied to him, can't be used against her in any court of law, then what the frack is the harm of saying it? Heck, if is legit, that just takes some winds of Kaine's sails. It wouldn't help him in any way. I can't see why they wouldn't want to get an upper hand here if her money has no ties whatsoever to Kyron. Heck, they could take it to the media and make him look very bad for asking in the first place. But they WON'T!

The only reason not to say anything is because her money is connected to Kyron, would incriminate her, and she can't afford to do that to herself. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Didn't TH's lawyers ask for the 911 logs earlier in the day and were stone walled - why not return the favour in the afternoon? From where I sit (in lieu of an IMO), if the LS's claims are legit, maybe the mysterious donor is too - tit for tat!

 

[Aedrys]

I believe it is relevent in the sense that both parties have to declare all their assets and liabilities at the time of the divorce so that everything is divided fairly. Parties try to hide assets from each other all the time. That is not fair. If Kaine had $500,000 hidden in a secret fund that Terri knew nothing about, would that be fair? What if he swore in a court of law that the money came from a secret admirer? Just a gift? Would that make a difference? Don't you think Terri would have the right to know for certain when/where/how those funds came into Kaine's possession? Should she simply take the word of his attorney? Of course not! She would absolutely have the right to know!

ITA. There would be total outrage if Kaine were hiding money from Terri, and people would be demanding that he tell her where it is. But when he asks her about her money, it's a bad thing and a fishing expedition. There is such a double standard going on here. Neither has the right to hide any money from each other. And she doesn't have the right to ask him for money but hide her assets from him.

No matter what we think of her, she doesn't have more rights to her money than Kaine has to his money. They are both accountable in this divorce for their assets. And fine, she doesn't say where it's from now, but she will have to when the judge says she has to.

 

[SacreBleu]

snip...Additionally, from Terri's perspective, she's been denied access to her daughter, left by her husband, booted from her home and called a monster by the general public at large. Perhaps she is just not willing to give anyone, Kaine, LE or us the satisfaction.

If I were in her position and was guilty, I would do exactly what she is doing. No comment, no comment, not relevant, not your business, no comment.

If I were in her position and was blameless, I would do exactly what she is doing. No comment, no comment, not relevant, not your business, no comment.

Not to disagree with you or what you have to say - just to add that:
As a mother, I would do whatever I needed to do to see my child again. I really would not care what the "general public", my soon to be "ex" or anyone else in the world said about me - just do what you need to do to let me see my child, particularly if I were innocent.

 

[debs]

ITA. There would be total outrage if Kaine were hiding money from Terri, and people would be demanding that he tell her where it is. But when he asks her about her money, it's a bad thing and a fishing expedition. There is such a double standard going on here. Neither has the right to hide any money from each other. And she doesn't have the right to ask him for money but hide her assets from him.

No matter what we think of her, she doesn't have more rights to her money than Kaine has to his money. They are both accountable in this divorce for their assets. And fine, she doesn't say where it's from now, but she will have to when the judge says she has to.

Again. The lawyer stipulated that the money was NOT Terri's, but paid to her defense attorney by a third party. It was never Terri's money.