Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sorta think these women intentionally don’t move out of the shared houses as part of a inheritance or divorce strategy. Dennis Hopper’s wife did same.
I just read about Dennis Hopper’s wife’s lawsuit. Interesting that the share of the estate that was awarded to her reduced her daughter’s share versus it coming off the top and then the children receiving the % he allocated.
That situation was a little different because the estranged wife was trying to get what she was entitled to under their prenuptial agreement (and her stepdaughter was fighting it). It seems Paulina should get some of their estate either from the pending divorce or from his will. She should not be shut out entirely because he happened to die before they completed divorce proceedings.
What does the pre-nup have to do with Dennis’ ex-wife’s share only reducing her daughter’s share? The amount owed to her should have been a debt to be paid by the estate. The remaining estate would be split based on his will. It’s odd that the ex-wife’s share was taken from one of the children’s share and not the entire estate.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sorta think these women intentionally don’t move out of the shared houses as part of a inheritance or divorce strategy. Dennis Hopper’s wife did same.
I just read about Dennis Hopper’s wife’s lawsuit. Interesting that the share of the estate that was awarded to her reduced her daughter’s share versus it coming off the top and then the children receiving the % he allocated.
That situation was a little different because the estranged wife was trying to get what she was entitled to under their prenuptial agreement (and her stepdaughter was fighting it). It seems Paulina should get some of their estate either from the pending divorce or from his will. She should not be shut out entirely because he happened to die before they completed divorce proceedings.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sorta think these women intentionally don’t move out of the shared houses as part of a inheritance or divorce strategy. Dennis Hopper’s wife did same.
I just read about Dennis Hopper’s wife’s lawsuit. Interesting that the share of the estate that was awarded to her reduced her daughter’s share versus it coming off the top and then the children receiving the % he allocated.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I saw the CBS Morning Show yesterday. She seemed very sympathetic. There are a lot of mean/nasties on DCUM. They guy took her modeling money. He's the crook not her and he wrote some of his kids out of his will. That's a real dick move as well. She deserved better.
Agree
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I saw the CBS Morning Show yesterday. She seemed very sympathetic. There are a lot of mean/nasties on DCUM. They guy took her modeling money. He's the crook not her and he wrote some of his kids out of his will. That's a real dick move as well. She deserved better.
Agree
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She seems like a nice lady but I fail to see why she expected any money if she was separated and was dating another man.
Also, if she and the other disinherited children all filed with lawyers the reality is that there won't end up being much for anyone. Usually the lawyers win in these cases.
I think that she was under the impression that since Ric died before their divorce was finalized that she would get everything due to an odd stroke of luck of them still being married.
I think she's legitimately sad that Ric died but I also think that she's really been playing up the part of the grieving widow. And that just doesn't sit right with me. You don't get to leave your husband because he's "too old", find yourself a boyfriend, start divorce proceedings and then act like the grieving widow when your soon to be ex husband passes away unexpectedly. Shocked, saddened? Sure. But grief stricken like you've just lost the love of your life? No. You were ending your marriage to the guy lady.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She seems like a nice lady but I fail to see why she expected any money if she was separated and was dating another man.
Also, if she and the other disinherited children all filed with lawyers the reality is that there won't end up being much for anyone. Usually the lawyers win in these cases.
So because the marriage ended, those 35 years mean nothing? Sounds like a successful marriage that ran it's course.
Um by definition a marriage that ends (legally or not) is no longer successful when it's over. Not to say it was terrible but when something is done, anything not just a marriage, it can't be a current success by definition.
Anonymous wrote:Who the heck expects to inherit money from their ex spouse or soon to be ex spouse. They were *divorcing* for goodness sake.
She doesn't get to hit the lotto just because he died before it all was finalized. He changed his will to leave his portion of the estate to 4 of his kids. I don't know why he disinherited 2 of his kids, I'm sure there is a story there, but I most certainly understand why he wrote Paulina out of his will.
It's crazy for her to talk about how betrayed she feels when she was the one who ran off and got herself a boyfriend because she didn't want to deal with an aging husband anymore. It is clear that their marriage was over.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who the heck expects to inherit money from their ex spouse or soon to be ex spouse. They were *divorcing* for goodness sake.
She doesn't get to hit the lotto just because he died before it all was finalized. He changed his will to leave his portion of the estate to 4 of his kids. I don't know why he disinherited 2 of his kids, I'm sure there is a story there, but I most certainly understand why he wrote Paulina out of his will.
It's crazy for her to talk about how betrayed she feels when she was the one who ran off and got herself a boyfriend because she didn't want to deal with an aging husband anymore. It is clear that their marriage was over.
Someone whose husband took all of the money she earned.
What does this mean? I saw the articles where she said she gave him all her modeling money, but for what? Does she just mean she got married and merged her money into a joint account? The phrase “gave him all her money” just strikes me as odd. Many couples merge their money post marriage but it’s not giving your spouse your money. She would have had access to the same funds over the last 30 years.
Anonymous wrote:I sorta think these women intentionally don’t move out of the shared houses as part of a inheritance or divorce strategy. Dennis Hopper’s wife did same.
Anonymous wrote:I do wonder what these guys thimk when they marry women so much younger. I would think there would be a recognition that they can play around once he’s over a certain age. If you told a man he had to be celibate at 40 or 50, he’d act like you were out of your damn mind and of course he has the right to fool around.
Anonymous wrote:I do wonder what these guys thimk when they marry women so much younger. I would think there would be a recognition that they can play around once he’s over a certain age. If you told a man he had to be celibate at 40 or 50, he’d act like you were out of your damn mind and of course he has the right to fool around.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She seems like a nice lady but I fail to see why she expected any money if she was separated and was dating another man.
Also, if she and the other disinherited children all filed with lawyers the reality is that there won't end up being much for anyone. Usually the lawyers win in these cases.
So because the marriage ended, those 35 years mean nothing? Sounds like a successful marriage that ran it's course.