Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

They not only purchased a home in the UK, they have been living in a longterm rental there since May, and before that were stying in London and with Sophie's family. They spent months touring homes to buy there. AND they sold the Florida house when they left Florida.

Also it's not accurate to say they "only" lived in the UK 2 months before separating. They moved there in April. Joe filed for divorce in September. They weren't living in Florida during that time. For purposes of a legal place of residence, the UK was their "place of residence" for that time. That's five months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

They were scheduled to close in December -- it's not like they declined to close a month ago. So it's clearly relevant in looking at their "intent of permanence" in making the move.

But I agree as a general matter that if you ignore all the evidence of their intent, then there's no evidence of their intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

The biggest issue I see from his side is that none of them were residents of Florida when he filed.

The children hadn’t lived there for months. Neither Joe or Sophie lived there and their whereabouts are easily proven. This was very stupid.

That’s the easiest route to getting the filling thrown out of court.

[Anonymous]

She should date Jon Snow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should date Jon Snow

He married the girl he shot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

They were scheduled to close in December -- it's not like they declined to close a month ago. So it's clearly relevant in looking at their "intent of permanence" in making the move.

But I agree as a general matter that if you ignore all the evidence of their intent, then there's no evidence of their intent.

Isn’t that weird? 5 months gap between contract and closing. Assuming it wasn’t a request from the seller, why would they do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am oddly fascinated by this situation and find myself following closely.

It’s weird to think that a few weeks ago I vaguely knew the Jonas brothers were a boy band and recognized Sophie Turner from GOT. I did not follow them closely at all, and yet the way he tried to use the “bad mom” playbook felt so sleazy that now I’m really invested.

What a terrible PR fail.

I’m Team Sophie!!! Joe seems weird and manipulative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

They were scheduled to close in December -- it's not like they declined to close a month ago. So it's clearly relevant in looking at their "intent of permanence" in making the move.

But I agree as a general matter that if you ignore all the evidence of their intent, then there's no evidence of their intent.

Isn’t that weird? 5 months gap between contract and closing. Assuming it wasn’t a request from the seller, why would they do that?

Because the plan was for Sophie to join Joe and the kids on tour for the fall. The fall tour is all in the USA so they could probably home base somewhere and he would fly to gigs. The tour takes a break from Dec to March so during that time they would go back to England and move into the new house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How often is he going to tour? They’re the Jonas brothers, not taylor swift.

The parents should each have 50/50 custody. It’s incredibly sad that the two of them didn’t align on where they’d raise their kids were born, and actually establish that life. Sophie is basically attempting to say that if Joe wants to have them 50% of the time, he’ll need to be in England. And their background just doesn’t establish that whatsoever. Her best hope is a judge ruling that it would be in the kids best interest to grow up in England despite their US father being opposed to it. I don’t really see that happening given the circumstances.

I know they are famous, successful and wealthy, but I am truly so confused about who their adult fan base is and who is going to the Jonas Brothers concerts.

100%. and do they produce any new music? are they on tour with the M-bop brothers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How often is he going to tour? They’re the Jonas brothers, not taylor swift.

The parents should each have 50/50 custody. It’s incredibly sad that the two of them didn’t align on where they’d raise their kids were born, and actually establish that life. Sophie is basically attempting to say that if Joe wants to have them 50% of the time, he’ll need to be in England. And their background just doesn’t establish that whatsoever. Her best hope is a judge ruling that it would be in the kids best interest to grow up in England despite their US father being opposed to it. I don’t really see that happening given the circumstances.

I know they are famous, successful and wealthy, but I am truly so confused about who their adult fan base is and who is going to the Jonas Brothers concerts.

100%. and do they produce any new music? are they on tour with the M-bop brothers?

I'm by no means a Jonas Brothers fan, but even I know they've had reasonable successful album releases in the last 5 years. Sucker was a pretty big hit and the Waffle House song has been playing all summer on the radio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

Of course it matters.

If it can be proven that none of them were residents of Florida at the time of filing, then Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case is thrown out.

That’s the part you don’t get.

Jonas is the one who needs to prove that they were residents of Florida to keep the case there. That’s going to be really difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

Of course it matters.

If it can be proven that none of them were residents of Florida at the time of filing, then Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case is thrown out.

That’s the part you don’t get.

Jonas is the one who needs to prove that they were residents of Florida to keep the case there. That’s going to be really difficult.

I don’t know- they don’t meet the criteria for UK to have jurisdiction either. Ironically both fl and the UK residency minimum is living there for six months prior to divorce. England seems like 6-12 months prior actually. The most recent place they were six month residents of anywhere was florida and that might be what they need to go off of. I bet that’s why his lawyers advised him to file there.