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

reCAPTCHA · Aug 9, 2023

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, but would like to have that confirmed in fancy legal speak.

Hiraeth · Aug 9, 2023

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.

welp · Aug 9, 2023

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);

oh no, but what about all her promos on SM that single-handedly CARRIED his career smh

Loveu2 · Aug 9, 2023

She's not going to like this.

BingoFlamingo · Aug 9, 2023

Thank you for this!!! So he’s got to pay her spousal support for ever?
Should she ever get convicted for abuse of DVRO is that likely to be removed?

Hiraeth · Aug 9, 2023

BingoFlamingo said:
Thank you for this!!! So he’s got to pay her spousal support for ever?
Should she ever get convicted for abuse of DVRO is that likely to be removed?

We don't know if there's a term in the prenup, such as for a number of years (sometimes people limit spousal support to half the length of the marriage) or until the other party gets married.

A DVRO conviction would likely affect this but the judge would have to rule on it.

reCAPTCHA · Aug 9, 2023

Hiraeth said:
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.

I know no-one gives a shiny tit but can I note for the record that I actually interpreted the financial bit correctly

I’m generally quite dim when it comes to money so I’m quite proud

I_dream_of_Snyders · Aug 9, 2023

Hiraeth said:
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.

Cariad Mawr Hiraeth

BingoFlamingo · Aug 9, 2023

At the end of the day she isn’t going to pay what she owes him because she doesn’t have it, nor is likely to earn it any time soon. I wonder if she’s doesn’t declare bankruptcy and that’ll be the end of it?

Someone mentioned in last thread that can he write this off should he wish to, to be rid of her?

M33L4 · Aug 9, 2023

So Gloria will earn more for looking after Alice than Alice will get? Hahahahahahahahahaha

Moonflower · Aug 9, 2023

Hiraeth said:
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.

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

BingoFlamingo · Aug 9, 2023

I’m still laughing at the judge’s special bollocking coat.

SC_love · Aug 9, 2023

So she bagged a handsome, kind, loving, talented, supportive, family oriented millionaire…and then fucked it up so spectacularly that wonders will never cease. More than anything this latest document shows me that she never loved Ioan, he was always a meal ticket to her. It’s the money and lifestyle that she’s so furious about, she really didn’t give one shiny, tiny, duck about him. And now the cycle repeats with the girls.

How, how does someone become so empty and soulless? What went wrong with Alice?

Finally, Hiraeth, you are too bleeping fabulous for words and please may I have your autograph

M33L4 · Aug 9, 2023

TLDR recap…
Alice fucked around and just found out…

Ametrine · Aug 9, 2023

It's funny to me that Alice has been raging that Ioan made a promise to her to be married forever and ever, and he's a terrible person for breaking his vows, and when a man has a family it means he has to be with the mother forever and ever etc.

She signed a pre-nup. Was there not a tiny bit of her mind that was telling her that this might not be forever, especially since many marriages nowadays end in divorce, and the rates for divorce are astronomically high in Hollywood?

This was her mistake - to assume he would never leave her, which meant she thought she could act however she wanted.

BingoFlamingo · Aug 9, 2023

So has Ioan applied to be remote or does he not have to be there, what with him being in the motherland ?

Loveu2 · Aug 9, 2023

Ametrine said:
It's funny to me that Alice has been raging that Ioan made a promise to her to be married forever and ever, and he's a terrible person for breaking his vows, and when a man has a family it means he has to be with the mother forever and ever etc.

She signed a pre-nup. Was there not a tiny bit of her mind that was telling her that this might not be forever, especially since many marriages nowadays end in divorce, and the rates for divorce are astronomically high in Hollywood?

This was her mistake - to assume he would never leave her, which meant she thought she could act however she wanted.

He only proposed to her because she gave him an ultimatum. Doesn't seem like he really wanted to marry her.

SC_love · Aug 9, 2023

Ametrine said:
It's funny to me that Alice has been raging that Ioan made a promise to her to be married forever and ever, and he's a terrible person for breaking his vows, and when a man has a family it means he has to be with the mother forever and ever etc.

She signed a pre-nup. Was there not a tiny bit of her mind that was telling her that this might not be forever, especially since many marriages nowadays end in divorce, and the rates for divorce are astronomically high in Hollywood?

This was her mistake - to assume he would never leave her, which meant she thought she could act however she wanted.

She genuinely and bleeping bizarrely frankly, has always had a reverse dysmorphic view of herself. She still has it. Still thinks she could make Ioan come back if she could get him on his own, still thinks a gazillionaire Disney exec is going to fall at her feet. This woman needs to be studied, in a cage, Hannibal Lecter style.

sweetnessfollows · Aug 9, 2023

I think game recognized game and bernal will fleece Alice. All the deadlines she missed will lead to him charging more.

I think this is going to be a very bad weekend. Some medical emergency from the kids or her or some public accident, especially with school starting.

Lulugrace · Aug 9, 2023

Hiraeth said:
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.

Thank you for this, so in a nutshell, unless she can prove otherwise (highly unlikely due to the watertight prenup) she isn't due anything apart from 10% of his baseline salary. Child support TBA, but he has been giving them monies in any event. Alice will have to pay back any extra monies to Ioan, in respect of support, as he has overpaid her/she has been pillaging the shared accounts, we all know he was clearing off the credit card bills, plus putting money in an account for her.

I noticed that Ioans lawyers pointed out that Bernal had a month more than they did to get this information pulled together

For the time being I'm going to give Bernal the benefit of doubt, and that it's mAlice that's not given him the information required to do so.
Question: in PMAs is there a general time period that they have to pay spousal support for? Or is that agreed on a case, per case basis?