alice evans : Most liked Posts

• The first issue I want to mention is that, obviously, this was to be a JOINT statement of issues—meaning each side would give their version of the facts that are either agreed upon or at issue here. Since Bernal didn’t respond at all to Ioan’s attorneys, they filed only their version of the statement of issues. The [Joint] is in brackets in the document title to underscore to the court that only one side followed the court order and submitted the Statement. My suspicion is that Bernal had someone in his office get after Alice for the information and she just ghosted him and/or had tantrums and refused to provide financial information. (I see another Emma has entered the building—Bernal’s assistant. Save the 2 Es and the 2 Emmas!)

• This Statement is being filed in compliance with the Court’s order of July 13, 2023. I posted the Order earlier in the thread but let me know if you want a link. It also should be in the Wiki.

• Ioan submitted his draft Separate/Community Property Balance Sheet (“CPBS”) as an exhibit. This document is the same as the balance sheet that was included in Ioan’s financial disclosures which he filed on August 3, 2023.

• Prenup: As we all know, there is a prenup in this case. Sometimes prenups are called “Premarital Agreements,” such as in this Statement, but I’m going to shorten it to “prenup” in this analysis because it’s most common (and shorter to type!). The Statement makes clear that the prenup is “facially valid and enforceable.” This means that all the legal requirements for signing the prenup were followed and it’s a legally binding document in that respect.

• I’m front-loading the important stuff in the prenup, which is at the end of the Statement. The prenup provides that Ioan must pay Alice, per year, 10% of his average annual adjusted gross earnings for the 3 years prior to their separation (2018-2020), UNLESS his income decreases by more than 20%, in which case Ioan pays Alice spousal support every year of 10% of his actual adjusted annual gross earnings. In this case, the baseline annual earnings are $588,134, meaning Alice would get $58,813 per year. In 2021, Ioan earned $487,581 (a 17% decrease), so Alice still gets $58,813 for 2021; and in 2022, Ioan earned $52,600 (a 91% decrease), so Alice’s spousal support for 2022 is $5,260. In 2023, Ioan has earned $162,900 through July 27, 2023, and thus Alice’s spousal support for 2023 thus far is $16,290.

• Ioan states through his attorneys that he has paid Alice MORE than what she is entitled to under the premarital agreement. Ioan’s attorneys are preparing a schedule with backup evidence for his spousal support payments to Alice for 2021 through 2023 and will disclose it when it is completed.

• Although there is no existing child support court order, Ioan has paid, and will continue to pay, child support to Alice in accordance with his ability to pay. Ioan states that if he remains unemployed, he will access his separate property funds in the blocked account from the house sale in order to continue to support the children and support himself.

• Ioan’s attorney states that Alice has “grossly overlitigated” the divorce case and neither party can maintain the financial outlay for attorneys which Alice has brought on due to her actions.

• Ioan started out with $2.8 million in cash and securities and Alice started out with $35,000 in cash. What’s in the balance statement in the financials is all that’s left. Please note that there is no $100,000 “childhood money” for Alice listed in the prenup, so it was likely misappropriated at a later time by Alice.

• 4 of Ioan’s retirement accounts are his separate property. What this means is that, after the divorce is over, he will be able to name any beneficiary he wants (such as a new spouse or children). Two of Ioan’s retirement accounts are community property and will likely be divided between Ioan and Alice (before reimbursement credits, Epstein/Watts charges, etc.). Ioan and Alice’s SAG pension plans are mixed separate and community property, and the court will have to divide them up as it sees fit.

• This Statement shows that Alice has received MORE than her share of the sale proceeds of the house, which are also subject to reallocation based on reimbursement credits, interest charges, and Epstein/Watts charges. Ioan is claiming the balance of the house sale proceeds which are in the blocked account (at last count, $703,000) is his separate property based on the prenup, which appears to be a rightful claim since he still has to be paid back, with interest, for his $750,000 separate property initial investment in the house.

• Ioan has two professional corporations. One of them (Derwen Deg Productions) was started prior to marriage and is his separate property. However, it has very little in assets and twice the amount of assets in credit card debt. It also receives small residuals which are community property. Ioan’s second corporation, Fair Oaks Productions, was begun during marriage and also receives residuals and royalty payments from work done by Ioan and Alice during the marriage. Ioan is suggesting that the residuary and royalty payments received post-separation be split equally.

• The remaining assets are: Alice’s Prius, which Ioan proposes should go entirely to Alice (I hope Ratty makes a claim against it); the remaining contents of the home and some jewelry are Ioan’s separate property and should be awarded to him; and the jewelry and personal items remaining are community property to be awarded equally.

• The next bullet points are about the prenup. To be valid in California, a prenup must be all of the following (described in the Statement):

• Ioan and Alice’s prenup went even further than the legal requirements, since it was initialed by Ioan and Alice on every page. (This is a “best practice” and I have my clients do this as well.)

• Most interestingly, the prenup provided that:
  • Pereira/Van Camp claims were waived (meaning any community property efforts during marriage toward either party’s separate business interests would not be reimbursed—so Alice can’t claim money for “helping” Ioan’s career for his separate business interests);
  • Celebrity goodwill claims were waived (so Alice can’t claim that she is the only reason Ioan is famous and she should be paid for the privilege);
  • Ioan’s $750,000 downpayment on the home should be reimbursed to him, WITH INTEREST (this is important since he will now be owed more than $750,000 for the downpayment);
  • Each party acknowledged that the other party had separate property at the start of the marriage, so they can’t claim ownership of it later in the divorce; and
  • There is a waiver or limitation on spousal support rights in the prenup. Based on the Statement it seems that Alice is limited to 10% of Ioan’s income per the prenup subject to adjustments (see above).

• Finally, I want to mention the lengths that Ioan’s attorneys went to in order to prepare the Statement and get Bernal to respond.
  • The Langlois firm substituted into the case on July 31, 2023 and prepared the Statement of Issues. Bernal substituted in on June 27, 2023 (more than a month earlier, so trying to delay based on “getting caught up” won’t wash);
  • Langlois reached out to Bernal to facilitate the preparation of the joint Statement. Since Bernal was allegedly in trial, Langlois prepared their half and sent it to Bernal.
  • The Statement was overnighted to Bernal by Langlois on a flash drive on August 3, 2023. The transmittal letter is attached as an exhibit to the Statement. No response from Bernal.
  • The Statement was then hand-delivered by messenger on August 4, 2023 (proof of delivery is attached to the Statement).
  • Langlois spoke with Bernal by phone on August 4, 2023, and Bernal indicated that he would prepare his portion of the Statement and deliver it to Langlois by August 7, 2023 for filing with the court.
  • Since nothing was received on August 7 from Bernal, Langlois spoke with him by phone and Bernal stated he would send his portion of the Statement by August 8, 2023.
  • Nothing was received from Bernal by August 8 and attempts to contact Bernal went unanswered, so Langlois had to file Ioan’s portion of the Statement by itself.

Summary of Hearing on Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

August 2, 2022

Appearing for Petitioner: Attorneys Anne Kiley and Katherine Heersema.
Also present were Petitioner Ioan Gruffudd and protected person Bianca Wallace.
No appearances made on behalf of Respondent. (Alice Evans was not present and no attorney
appeared on her behalf.)

The hearing begins with the judge noting that Alice’s attorney was present when the hearing was
continued to August 2, 2022, from June 14, 2022. The judge noted that Alice had notice of the
hearing being scheduled for August 2, but neither Alice nor her counsel had appeared at the
hearing that day.
The judge said that he had reviewed the request for the Domestic Violence Restraining Order
and the Temporary Restraining Order, and he was inclined to grant the request for the restraining
order, but he had two questions (discussed below). The first question related to the length of
time that Anne Kiley was requesting for the restraining order (the judge assumed 5 years), and
the second question related to First Amendment concerns. The judge covered the second
question first.
With regard to the supplemental request Ioan filed, the judge was comfortable granting an order
restraining Alice from posting Ioan’s text messages or other communications to their children, or
the children’s text messages to Ioan, on social media, and restraining Alice from contacting
Ioan’s employers. But the judge said he was uncertain about the request that Alice not make any
posts on social media disparaging Ioan or Bianca. The judge said that posts that constitute
disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca were covered by the existing restraining order, but the
judge was concerned about the First Amendment.

2
The judge said some of the posts Alice has made are “clearly harassment.” However, his opinion
is that some of Alice’s posts come closer to being potentially protected speech in that she’s
commenting on the litigation, albeit sometimes in “colorful terms.”
Anne Kiley, Ioan’s attorney, responded that there was a case (In re Marriage of Candiotti, 34
Cal.App.4th 718, at page 726) that ruled that the Court can make an order that a parent not make
disparaging comments about the other parent either within the presence or within the hearing of
the children, and Ioan’s concern is that Alice is using her social media accounts, with well over
70,000 followers, to disparage Ioan, and at least one of their children “follows” Alice on social
media.
Anne Kiley agreed that the temporary restraining order does restrain much of what Alice has
done, including using her Instagram account to directly communicate with Ioan and Bianca, and
saying things like “you’re a pussy.” Anne Kiley argued that the Candiotti case provides
precedent for the judge to restrict Alice’s statements on social media. The judge responded that
he understood the argument, but that disparaging Ioan on social media being deemed as being “in
front of the children” is too expansive. The judge was comfortable restraining Alice’s speech to
the extent it was “harassing or disturbing the peace of Petitioner and the other protected person.”
The judge said that limiting “disparaging” speech was “awfully broad” and would potentially
encompass things that Alice was entitled to say. The judge wasn’t saying that Alice couldn’t
disparage the judicial process. He said, “She can disparage me, for example. Clearly protected
by the First Amendment.”
Anne Kiley brought up another case, Molinaro v. Molinaro, 33 Cal.App.5th 824, which held that
an order restraining someone from posting on social media with regard to the litigation was too
broad, but the court held that a narrowly tailored order speaking about the disparaging comments
and the children would be more appropriate.
The judge asked if there was any additional evidence that Anne Kiley wanted to present. She
responded that she wanted to move Ioan’s declaration and the Exhibits thereto, A through P, that
were filed on February 15, 2022, into evidence, as well as move Ioan’s declaration of July 25,
2022, into evidence. Anne Kiley stated that an exhibit list was filed with the court the day

3
before. Exhibits 1 though 16 are the exhibits that were filed February 15, 2022, and Anne Kiley
had additional exhibits, Exhibits 17 through 71, which she had brought to court with her on a
flash drive. That evidence (as yet unseen) consists of a series of text messages, Our Family
Wizard messages, voice recordings, and social media postings that Alice has made since the
restraining order was issued.
The judge took a short break to look at the Candiotti and Molinaro cases. A short recess was
taken.
After the recess, the judge had two additional questions. His first question was to ask Anne
Kiley to point him to where the evidence was with respect to Alice’s communications with
Ioan’s employer. The evidence was in Ioan’s declaration, but Anne Kiley said that Ioan could
testify right then. The judge asked Ioan to stand up and testify for the Court.
Ioan was sworn in by the judge’s clerk. Ioan testified that he believes that Alice has
communicated with his employers, not since January of 2022, but in 2021, Alice did contact his
employer repeatedly. Ioan testified that he recently took a trip to Monaco to the Television
Festival, and, while there, the producer of the television series that Ioan shot in the South of
France told him that he had been contacted at least seven (7) times by Alice Evans, in letters both
in English and French. The producer chose not to alert Ioan of the letters at the time because he
felt that it would be disturbing Ioan’s peace and his ability to work there. Ioan testified that this
disturbed him and it was shocking to him, and that it concerned him with regard to obtaining
future employment. The judge stated that he was going to exclude Ioan’s testimony on the
ground that it was hearsay.
The judge reiterated his second question, which was what the length of the restraining order
should be. The judge assumed that Ioan would ask for a length of 5 years. Anne Kiley
responded that, given the volume of communications prior to the restraining order and the
continued harassment and disturbance of the peace of Ioan and Bianca after the restraining order,
they were asking that the restraining order be granted for three (3) years with the understanding
that they could come back to court and seek renewal.

4
The judge stated that the Court finds that Ioan has satisfied his burden of proof, proving by
preponderance of the evidence that Alice has engaged in a course of conduct that constitutes
harassment of Ioan and Bianca, and that constitutes disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca. The
judge stated that there was sufficient evidence already in the record to support the issuance of the
restraining order, and that he was not ruling on the exhibits that Anne Kiley brought with her on
the flash drive because he hadn’t reviewed them and didn’t need them to make his order, since he
already had enough evidence.
The judge ruled that the court would issue a 3-year restraining order with the same terms as the
temporary restraining order, plus the following two terms: that Alice shall not make any posts on
a social media account, including but not limited to Instagram and Twitter accounts, harassing or
disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca, and that Alice shall not post Ioan’s text messages or any
other communications to the parties’ children or the children’s text messages or any other
communications to Ioan on any social media account, including but not limited to Twitter and
Instagram accounts. The court denied the request that Alice be restrained from contacting Ioan’s
employers. In addition, the order shall provide that Alice is not prohibited from commenting on
this proceeding on social media provided that such comments do not constitute harassment or
disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca.
The judge also, after ruling, made clear that Ioan did not ask for any custody orders in
connection with the DVRO, and that Ioan’s declaration of February 15, 2022, plus the exhibits
and declaration filed July 25, 2022, are all moved into evidence.

Click to expand...

Invictus said:

Thank you for everything you do! You were so missed.

Click to expand...

• Bernal was indeed fired by Alice and turned over $30,000 in unspent legal fees to Ioan’s attorney

• Ioan’s attorney told the court that Alice had in the past spent money earmarked for legal fees for other purposes (!)

• Ioan’s attorney for financial matters has 3 witnesses for the trial: Ioan, the forensic accountant, and Alice

• The judge pointed out to Alice that the stipulation for her spousal support only goes until the end of April

• The judge seemed to indicate that Alice told him that Bernal Ojeda had health issues and that is why she terminated his services

• Ioan’s attorneys and the judge seemed to feel that the financial trial would not last long, and it seems from the conversation that the financial trial may be completed before the custody trial

1. Poor woman. How awful for a mum to be dumped for a younger model
2. She’s a bit mad but who wouldn’t be in the circumstances
3. Ok she’s cray cray but he cheated on her
4. Nope just cray cray
5. Hmm. you can’t blame him but he could have done it better
6. Nope he couldn’t have done it better
7. Fuck me what took him so long
8. She‘s an evil narcissist lying cunt
9. Save the E’s
10. Save Leon.

• As a preliminary matter, YES! This filing is just as horrible as it looks. The bolded all-caps responses and myriad typos will tick off the clerk and the judge, not to mention the very cavalier effort made at “explaining” the issues. If I had paid this attorney $15,000 I would be screaming for a refund.

• Bernal claims that he is still reviewing the balance sheet “due to time limits.” This is the equivalent of “the dog ate my homework” and isn’t going to go over very well with the judge.

• The prenup: Despite Alice’s tweets to the contrary, the prenup is not being contested. In retrospect, this may be a smart move because at least under the prenup, she gets 10% of Ioan’s income. If she contested the prenup, she may well have gotten nothing at all if she lost, due to her horrible behavior, PA of the kids, and DVRO.

• Cash accounts: Bernal is basically rolling over here and saying the prenup controls the property division.

• Retirement accounts: Bernal claims a forensic accountant is not needed, but doesn’t say why. He desperately wants to avoid a forensic accountant going over Ioan and Alice’s financials. If Alice were telling the truth, she would welcome a forensic accountant going over the financial documents.

• Sale proceeds of the house: Bernal admits that Alice did receive some house proceeds (contrary to Alice’s claims) but he is leaving the issue of the remaining funds in the blocked account open for proof to be shown at trial. Given that the $750,000 is in the prenup, and he admitted above that the prenup is valid, this seems ridiculous.

• Business interests: Bernal is claiming that Alice doesn’t know the value of Fair Oaks Productions; this will be proved later at trial.

• Bernal brings up “other assets” which are already listed in Ioan’s balance sheet in his income and expense declaration. They are all in Ioan’s name, the balances were disclosed if available, and all were claimed as separate property on his balance sheet. This is a nothing burger.

• Notably, Bernal does not clear up the mystery Fidelity account #7694 which Alice claims is Ioan’s (and Ioan states he doesn’t have). Another issue for trial, I guess.

• Spousal support: Bernal doesn’t dispute that Alice has received spousal support thus far. Bernal says that possibly Alice’s support should be increased due to the marriage being a “long term marriage” mentioned in California Family Code Section 4320. First of all, prenups modify the legal factors under which spousal support is given, including statutes such as Family Code 4320 (which describes factors the court may consider when ordering spousal support). Secondly, okay Bernal, go ahead and bring up Family Code 4320. Please pay attention to subsection (i) [history of domestic violence and emotional distress caused by the domestic violence] and subsection (l) [the goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time]. If Alice is arrested for violating the DVRO, also look at (m) [criminal conviction of an abusive spouse].

• Bernal is claiming that the industry strike doesn’t affect Ioan’s earning power—uh, that’s not how this works.

• Child support: Bernal doesn’t dispute that Ioan has paid child support. He just states that child support will be an issue for trial.

• Attorney fees: Bernal says Alice doesn’t want the child custody evaluation (even though she agreed to it per Ioan’s declaration) because it’s too expensive and the children apparently need more time in therapy before a custody evaluator is needed. As we know, Alice doesn’t want the children in therapy, so this is just an underhanded way to try to convince the judge to hold off on the custody evaluation.

• Of course, Bernal ends by getting in a request for $25,000 more in attorney fees if the parties go to trial.

• The typos are killing me but you’ve all already brought them up, so I will only say that this Statement is so unprofessional, it’s embarrassing.