Ioan Gruffudd & Alice Evans #199 w.h.e.r.e.a.r.e.y.o.u.r.f.i.n.a.n.c.i.a.l.s.a.l.i.c.e.

[Ametrine]

I can do a new thread. Am I right in saying that the winner with 62 votes is “Tattle adopts a walrus”?

@bats*itbarbie edited her title to this:

Tattle Adopts a Walrus with a Grossly Over-Litigated, Scorched-Earth Agenda

Ioan Gruffudd & Alice Evans #199 w.h.e.r.e.a.r.e.y.o.u.r.f.i.n.a.n.c.i.a.l.s.a.l.i.c.e.

I'm a lawyer but not a family lawyer--however, my area of practice is family-law-adjacent. I'm a published author on certain family law issues though (such as prenups, so I'm dying to see theirs!). Spoiler alert: Alice is screwed. Pity it’s not attached!

tattle.life

 

[Hiraeth]

Hey all, I’ve finished reading the [Joint] Statement of Disputed/Undisputed Financial Issues (the “Statement”) and these are my thoughts. Standard disclaimer again, I’m not a family lawyer and these are just my thoughts upon review of a publicly available court document.

• 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):

• Entered into by both parties voluntarily and free of coercion;
• Both parties were fully aware of all the terms of the prenup;
• must have had at least 7 days to review the final version of the agreement before signing it;
• Both parties were represented by legal counsel who explained all the terms of the prenup to them;
• Both parties’ attorneys signed the prenup as well, certifying to the above; and
• A full disclosure of each party’s income, assets and debts was made to the other, and attached to the agreement.

• 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.

Sorry this is so long, happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Edit: I'll repost this in the new thread as well.

 

[Lulugrace]

Also Ioans lawyer throwing shade at mAlices new lawyer too, by saying we have both just recently started on this case, but my clients financials etc were done in a short time, so there's no reason why the other sides hasn't been

 

[reCAPTCHA]

Thread this way

Ioan Gruffudd & Alice Evans #200 Tattle adopts walrus with a grossly over-litigated, scorched earth agenda

With thanks to @bats*itbarbie for the thread title. Ioan has submitted his financials. Alice has missed the deadline and we are on tenterhooks (or tender-hooks as you wish) to see Alice submit hers. Tattlers eagerly await the legal commentary of @Hiraeth. We largely think Alice it’s screwed...

tattle.life

---

Hey all, I’ve finished reading the [Joint] Statement of Disputed/Undisputed Financial Issues (the “Statement”) and these are my thoughts. Standard disclaimer again, I’m not a family lawyer and these are just my thoughts upon review of a publicly available court document.

• 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):

• Entered into by both parties voluntarily and free of coercion;
• Both parties were fully aware of all the terms of the prenup;
• must have had at least 7 days to review the final version of the agreement before signing it;
• Both parties were represented by legal counsel who explained all the terms of the prenup to them;
• Both parties’ attorneys signed the prenup as well, certifying to the above; and
• A full disclosure of each party’s income, assets and debts was made to the other, and attached to the agreement.

• 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.

Sorry this is so long, happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Edit: I'll repost this in the new thread as well.

Thank you. Sorry…just made it now!

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

Wow he had loads of money before they married and now there's duck all

But but but Alice saved his career with her wonderful advice and management! She will probably try to claim a consultation fee for her 'services'.

Be careful who you put a ring on!

"In 2022, Petitioner's actual adjusted annual gross earnings were $52,600, a 91% decrease from his baseline adjusted
gross earnings. See Report on lAS thru July 27, 2023 (filed separately as Attachment 7 to Petitioner's Income and Expense Declaration dated August 3, 2023). Accordingly, Petitioner's annual spousal support obligation to Respondent for 2022 was $5,260. In 2023, Petitioner's actual adjusted gross earnings are $162,900 through July 27, 2023, and he is currently unemployed due to the industry strike. Accordingly, Petitioner's spousal support obligation to Respondent for 2023 year to date is $16,290."

LOL at these numbers, when your rent is $6.5k a month. I am still hoping that they request no spousal support given her DVRO - it would also be pay back for overlitigating.
---

this shows so well how much marrying Alice costed him. He was pretty much settled for life :/
View attachment 2368499

It's insane how they didn't even pay off their mortgage. AE pissed through so much money and IG went along with it to keep the peace.

 

[Lulugrace]

Hey all, I’ve finished reading the [Joint] Statement of Disputed/Undisputed Financial Issues (the “Statement”) and these are my thoughts. Standard disclaimer again, I’m not a family lawyer and these are just my thoughts upon review of a publicly available court document.

• 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):

• Entered into by both parties voluntarily and free of coercion;
• Both parties were fully aware of all the terms of the prenup;
• must have had at least 7 days to review the final version of the agreement before signing it;
• Both parties were represented by legal counsel who explained all the terms of the prenup to them;
• Both parties’ attorneys signed the prenup as well, certifying to the above; and
• A full disclosure of each party’s income, assets and debts was made to the other, and attached to the agreement.

• 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.

Sorry this is so long, happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Edit: I'll repost this in the new thread as well.

Thanks for this 🩷
Can we pull this into the new thread somehow?

 

[Hermes Banana]

Every time Loopy bangs on about poor Alice fighting for her survival and DARVO I think of Davros from Dr. Who. I imagine that’s what he looks like.

 

[Moonflower]

Hey all, I’ve finished reading the [Joint] Statement of Disputed/Undisputed Financial Issues (the “Statement”) and these are my thoughts. Standard disclaimer again, I’m not a family lawyer and these are just my thoughts upon review of a publicly available court document.

• 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):

• Entered into by both parties voluntarily and free of coercion;
• Both parties were fully aware of all the terms of the prenup;
• must have had at least 7 days to review the final version of the agreement before signing it;
• Both parties were represented by legal counsel who explained all the terms of the prenup to them;
• Both parties’ attorneys signed the prenup as well, certifying to the above; and
• A full disclosure of each party’s income, assets and debts was made to the other, and attached to the agreement.

• 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.

Sorry this is so long, happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Edit: I'll repost this in the new thread as well.

I can't thank you enough for this Hiraeth. I don't know what we'd do without you. Thank you so much.

 

[Gossipy PA]

Alice's conversation with Bernal.

View attachment 2368916

Not to mention her first meeting with Bernal and his associate…

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

Wonder if Bernal has receipts asking Alice for the info needed to prepare the financials, with no response. Maybe we'll find out tomorrow.

Yep Bernal can't really do his job if AE doesn't cooperate, can he?

 

[my cup runneth]

I can't thank you enough for this Hiraeth. I don't know what we'd do without you. Thank you so much.

Ditto

 

[WinterSolstice]

Alexa play- What’s she gonna look like with a chimney on her…

Alexa play Crystal Waters’s most famous song

 

[marjorytrashheap]

For UK people, King Arthur is on 5Action at 9pm tonight…that’s a nice welcome home for Ioan

It’s not a favourite of mine because I think Clive Owen is a dire actor

But Ioan does look particularly fine in it, Ioan-2-Swords!!

Oh my god I think Clive Owen is dreadful as well! Can never understand why he gets cast in anything. The rest of the cast are pretty great though.

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

You have to have been convicted of domestic violence to automatically have consequences (i.e., loss of custody, supervised visitation, no spousal support). She has the RO; she hasn't been convicted of an offense. Any money she owes him would likely be deducted from either community assets or spousal support.

She hasn't been convicted yet but it's just a matter of time. Her socks won't stop.
---

Alice absolutely didn't know what she had.

I think she knew what she had hence her obsession with him to this day and her desperate attempts to keep him via blackmailing him etc. Being nicer to him didn't seem to occur to her.

Oh well duck around and find out..