amarante

Are you being sarcastic? Kyle didn’t steal the house. When the house was left to the three sisters, it was appraised and Kim decided to sell her interest to Kyle and I think Kathy also did. For many years Kyle paid taxes, maintained the house and also improved it. Kim and her family were free to use it and it was used as a gathering place for the family. Kim in her alcoholic delusion decided that being paid the fair market value of her share was not adequate since the hime had appreciated in value while Kyle owned it. This would ignore that Kim, made no financial contributions to the upkeep of the home at any time. The home in La Quinta is a new purchase as the other home was a fairly modest home with a relatively low fair market value. This would be especially true since it was sold before Palm Springs real estate became super heated. Kyle is one of the wealthiest of the housewives as her husband owns a major real estate agency. She bought a condo for Kim which is probably worth at least as much as the house and essentially supports Kim. You might not like Kyle but that stupid charge hurled by a drunk ungrateful jealous Kim was just not true. The original house wasn’t flipped. It was owned for a number of years and then sold. Kyle is wealthy enough that the she didn’t have to sell a modest home in order to upgrade. Your use of the term flipping implies something shady going on to cut Kim out of profits when it was sold. If someone buys you out at fair market value and you then maintain the hime and pay taxes, you don’t owe the person who used to own the home anything if the hime has increased in value. Most homes increase in value in ten years or so which is at least as long as Kyie owned the house. They paid Kathy for her share ajd she has never said that Kyle stole her house. 😂😂

I am pretty certain I read an interview with Sutton or a transcript of her appearance somewhere in which she said she did indeed talk to an attorney. Being deposed is not something anyone would willingly want. Most people who are deposed actually hire attorneys to make sure they are protected in the deposition.

Yes I agree that all of the mocking had to do with her poor lies about who owned the house. And as I recall Ashley and her mother have received a lot of derogatory comments about the mother freeloading and how much her husband was pissed at the situation. She certainly wasn't given any kind of pass - if anything the mother really appeared like a degenerate grifter. Presumably Ashley is now paying for her mother's expenses with her BRAVO paychecks so Michael is no longer on the hook. I never thought there was anything amiss about a parent of ANY color helping with expenses. I know kids whose parents have bought them a home but no one lies about it and lots of kids get help with down payments for the first home. Most of my friends look upon it as an advance on the inheritance - why not give it to their children for a house. I did think that Candiace's over the top wedding was ridiculous. I know people have said the mother has made great real estate investments but it still doesn't seem as though spending $250,000 or more for a wedding made any kind of sense.

I am sure this is not the "bank" Erika was referring to but there was a private storage vault in Beverly Hills that was raided a few months ago and ALL of the contents of the boxes was confiscated because their investigation had turned up strong evidence that it was being used to hide assets, money laundering activities etc. There are people who claim that they are innocent people who just wanted to stash their valuables in a private storage facility 😃 The legitimately wealthy people I know don't use private storage facilities in a strip mall - albeit one in Beverly Hills - to store their jewelry or other valuable stuff. They have safe deposit boxes in banks if they aren't keeping them in their homes in a fire proof safe.

The home is being sold. Once the home is sold, they will arrange for appraisal and disposition of the contents. I believe that Erika is claiming that she is entitled to the home and the contents or at least her 50% stake in terms of community property. It gets complicated so that will be decided by the courts but theoretically it could be a factor in why she filed for divorce. When you file the status of your assets changes as of that date. I think she is also claiming that all of the expensive jewelry, art etc. was a gift from Tom and therefore not part of the community property. However, that is difficult in California law, since expensive gifts are part of the marital estate unless there is a specific transmutation written agreement to the contrary. It will be interesting to see if Tom and Erika were conniving enough to have a written agreement and if so, when was it actually drafted. Evidently Erika's divorce lawyer, accountant and her landlord are being deposed next week.

I realize that everything is an opinion. However if you go to the Dorit thread or any of the most recent BH threads, Dorit is mocked for her choices. I only bring this up because your initial post implied (well more than implied) that people are racist in terms of calling out the black housewives while giving the white housewife a pass. And that just isn't factually correct as people are equal opportunity mockers. Garcelle on RHBH wears the occasional overtly branded accessory and is never lampooned like Dorit is.

Are Robyn's parents wealthy enough to "take are of her"? I always thought they were comfortably middle to upper middle class but it never seemed they had such serious wealth that they had enough to support her - i.e. that she is a trust fund baby. But I also don't understand how Candiace's mother so wealthy either since she is a therapist. She might have made some good investments but I had thought from the way Candiace and her were presented in the initial season that the mother was some kind of mogul with $50 million or more in net assets.

I don't know what online sites you frequent regarding RHBH but Dorit is routinely excoriated from her ridiculous head to toe designer initialed crap.

I understand why someone who loses weight or gets body plastic surgery would feel more comfortably dressing in a more body conscious manner. However her definition of what is "sexy" is so outside the bounds of what most woman would wear that there is a disconnect. As has been posted, the outfit on the bus and the ill fitting Versace "bra" are just ugly and - dare I say it - vulgar. Of course a "professional" woman can dress in an attractive and even a sexy manner but Wendy's outfits look like something a stripper would wear and would seriously be detrimental to any serious career path. As others have pointed out, while Micelle Obama and Oprah might be extreme in terms of not even being interested in presenting a hyper-sexual look, there are plenty of actresses or very stylish professional women who dress to showcase their bodies who don't prance around in outfits that over-expose their breasts like that Versace bra did.

The link for New York Magazine is nymag.com and their cultural stuff can also be accessed more directly by going to vulture.com Here are Moylan’s recaps for this season https://www.vulture.com/tv/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/ He also recaps RHNY and those are also well done and very snarky. Potomac and Orange County are also recapped but with different writers. Once you are in the site, you can find them if you are interested. I subscribe to New York Magazine and I think there is a limit to how many articles you can read if you aren’t a subscriber. His book about the housewives shows was recently published and is a very easy fast read

I understand and actually get the Frederick reference 😁 Obviously production is technically savvy enough to have gotten that iPad robot but I think it was a deliberate choice to be a bit "homier" in terms of the "shtick". I don't think the entourage was actually holding the iPad for anything other than shooting the actual stuff where the entourage, bride and Randy were interacting together. I think it was done so that it all appeared to be part of the "action". I was thinking to myself that Randy might have stayed in Florida to help with his mother. I think she is still alive and if he and she were careful with COVID restrictions, he might have wanted to really be available to limit her interactions with other people in terms of getting her food, prescriptions, taking her to necessary medical appointments etc.

Everyone deserves legal representation under our system but there is an issue of how Erika is funding her extremely expensive legal battles which are being fought by her to keep her hands on the money Tom stole. The attorney representing the Bankruptcy Trustee is investigating the sources of funding. He is also investigating whether her current rental is a "sham" because the person who owns it is also a client of Erika's business manager/acountant just as Rinna is.

This was undoubtedly set up as the odds of their being a ball gown that fit such a tiny woman available would be close to zero. I am short - not as short as her - and I would never be able to buy anything with a complicated bottom because you can't just hem the bottom. When you order the bridal gowns everything is theoretically cut so that the skirt, bodice and waist are put together so that the design elements remain intact. The show has never provided the "real" Kleinfeld experience because shooting takes much longer than their normal appointment. But with COVID I would imagine it is even more of a set up in order to deal with COVID restrictions on maximum number of people. I don't mind Randy being on the IPAD. He is not there during the whole shopping experience as I would imagine that he is on to shoot certain specific scenes. No one is holding an IPAD for hours :-). As I recall one of the earlier episodes had a bride whose father was too sick to be in person so they had a room set up in order for him to be part of the day. I seem to remember they said that this was part of their normal services but I have never heard them discuss this again so I might be remembering incorrectly.

Not to belabor but why does she have to "get in shape" in order to start dating. As per my original post not every culture or ethnicity would find her current body shape to be unattractive. I used the Anglo-American ideal because slender is pretty much the prevalent ideal of body shapes currently among white women versus other ethnicities in which other body shapes are prized. If it weren't prevalent why are there comments that she needs to get "in shape" in order to be date - e.g. that unless she lost weight she wouldn't be able to find men who found her to be attractive as a partner.

There are different standards of desirable body shapes in different cultures - as well as personal preferences of course. But not every culture finds the very slender Anglo-American body type to be the ideal.

I realize it might be a distinction without a difference but almost all Ponzi schemes exploit people who are unsophisticated and generally can't afford to lose the money. Typically they work with affiliation groups - i.e. people in a close knit community or members of a church and they generally aren't bilking the rich. So when the Ponzi scheme collapses many of them leave people destitute who had invested literally their life savings. Madoff's Ponzi was rather unique in that he bilked a lot of hedge funds and sophisticated high net worth individuals. However even in the Madoff Ponzi scheme there were relatively "poor" people who lost their retirement life savings and were forced to sell their retirement homes and try to live on Social Security. However, there are financial white collar crimes which are still ultimately bad as they ripple down into the economy but don't impact individual victims in the same way. If someone takes out a fraudulent loan the bank takes a financial hit and there are theoretical economic repercussions but it isn't as if a specific individual is destitute. Unless of course you are cooking the books in a massive way like Enron when you did destroy the assets of many not particularly wealthy people who had bought Enron stock.

I don't think Crystal particularly hides her wealth. She seems like a pretty typical rich Los Angeles person. There is no doubt that anyone seeing her would know she is extremely wealthy. I also don't think that Kyle either hides or flaunts her wealth and she is at this point extremely wealthy. This discussion really is derived from a post a bit up thread which quoted an expose that her husband wasn't that wealthy and she was being subsidized by her brother. I think her husband has made enough with his movies and television series to support their life style - unlike PK (for example) because there is no way that managing Boy George could support anything more than a two bedroom condo :-) Sutton just loves clothing and I think she has a good time with it. Her clothing is couture but isn't obviously a specific designer unless you are a real aficionado of the runway shows and recognize what she is wearing but most people outside of professionals would just know it is expensive and very striking. She is genuinely wealthy and if couture is her passion, go for it since she can afford to indulge it. I don't know anyone in real life in LA who goes around dressed like Dorit who dresses for instagram. She would be a subject of derision if she actually showed up dressed like this. It is so obviously "branded" and not particularly stylish that I find it hard to believe she is actually buying the stuff - especially given their obvious lack of income/wealth to support that kind of wardrobe/

Given the tie in with Steve's new penthouse listing, I think Steve is living in the apartment for free as a promotional deal with the developer. The apartment got a lot of air time and based on what Ryan said there is a lot of vacant units in the building. Dorinda from RH of New York got her apartment free for several years because the developer wanted the promotional benefit of having it featured on the show and with that show it wasn't as obviously promoted as with Steve. In general you can't protect a view in New York (or anywhere) unless the developer actually purchases those rights from buildings adjacent which some of the really expensive buildings have done. When you buy air rights in New York, you purchase the right of a building to build higher than its current zoning would permit so the selling building is locked into a certain height. It is somewhat equivalent of selling mineral rights. There is a whole category of what are called "lot line windows" in New York which are when buildings have windows that are built right on the lot line because the existing buildings are low. So when a new higher building is built you don't just lose a view but the existing window also has to be bricked up to comply with fire safety laws so you effectively now have an apartment with interior walls where there used to be walls with windows. https://www.hauseit.com/lot-line-windows-nyc/ I have never owned a pool in the North East but I thought they needed to be drained in the winter because of freezing conditions. A purchaser might want to have the pool drained to verify the condition of the pool. If anyone owns a pool in the north perhaps they can verify. I would think that keeping a pool filled in cold weather would stress the pool construction as well.

I know people pay for followers but do they pay for people to comment and offer support. Support for her seems more prevalent in her social media stuff than in sites like this which discuss the housewives and people are more knowledgeable. New York Magazine has recaps by Brian Moylan who wrote her memoir. He is getting a lot of blowback from the commentators regarding his bias. Unfortunately his recaps have suffered because of his pro Erika bias because he is a really witty writer and his recaps were great. The comments are worth reading every week though as they are generally in a pretty high level.

There are two separate problems facing Erika as she is dealing with civil and criminal liability. It doesn’t matter whether or not Erika knew anything for the purposes of the civil liability. She will be forced to repay all of the money that was transferred to her fraudulently AND she has no claim to any of what assets there are in the marital estate. This is what Erika is attempting to prevent because she would be on the hook for at least $25 million that was loaned to her corporation and might be liable for all of the approximately $58 million Tom owes. Criminal liability would be harder to prove and so prison time is less of a concern to her. Ruth Madoff wasn’t charged for any criminal activities but she lost everything. Tre was not liable criminally for Joe’s actions but for Tre signing fraudulent bankruptcy papers when she had a lawyer assisting her and warning her. Jen Shah’s husband doesn’t appear to have any criminal charges against him but would probably lose any of the money or assets Jen Shah had accumulated.

Interesting analysis. I wasn't focusing on the fans of her performances so much as her fans of her persona who are continuing to post messages of heartfelt love and affection on her social media. However your observations on Erika Jayne's "fame" as a performer are pretty much how I view her showbiz career. In her book, she acknowledges that prior to joining the show she and Tom were about to end it because it was such a money losing proposition. Even at the height of her success as a housewife before things started tumbling down, I doubt the entertainment portion was a money maker. At best it was a wash because without having that Erika Jayne split in her personality she would have been a housewife of very little interest - she lacks any kind of inherent charm or wit. For the most part during all the seasons we showed her performing as Erika Jayne in her interactions with cast members snd her confessionals with a very small amount of Mrs. Tom Girardi. Lisa V was the real deal - a very funny "broad" with fantastic albeit over the top taste and style. Who wouldn't want to be a friend of Lisa? Who in their right mind would ever want to be a friend of Erika or Mrs. Girardi? I don't think Erika has ever been shown interacting with anyone besides her cast members and her paid entourage.

I love a good expose but I don't think the lifestyle depicted on the show is outside that of a relatively successful Hollywood director/producer. They obviously are living the good life but except for that very expensive Hermes handbag there doesn't seem to be any really over the top lavish displays beyond those of a moderately "rich" person. Kyle lives a much more lavish lifestyle as those private cruises in Europe aren't cheap :-). Crystal dresses well and obviously expensively but nothing like the kind of stuff that Sutton has. Dorit has an expensive wardrobe but I am not convinced that they are not lent to her by the brands since they are almost all completely branded and I can't imagine even she would be idiotic enough to actually pay for that crap. I don't know why Jeffrey Kung (her brother) would have more money than her husband and would be subsidizing her lifestyle. He was a Chinese pop star and I am sure that was reasonably lucrative but he wasn't an international superstar.

I will occasionally drop by Erika's instagram page when I read about some outrageous tone deaf post like the widows and orphans one in which she proclaims herself as some kind of martyr nailed to the cross. I don't understand who her fan base is - all kidding aside about Mikey posting 😃 She wasn't my cup of tea prior to all of this but I accept that people are fans of different housewives but I just don't get it.

It was a Ponzi scheme so for many years it worked because he would have enough coming in to pay off until it all collapsed. He was also borrowing enormous amounts from companies that specialize in lending to law firms with contingent practices like Girardi. He was defrauding the lenders by pledging the same collateral to multiple lenders. And it worked, until it didn’t which is what happens with all Ponzi schemes inevitably. 😏 There have been allegations against the firm for many years but Tom was in bed with the Bar official who was supposed to be keeping tabs so he got away with it. All of this isn’t disputed. The burn victim has a $12 million judgment against Tom. The issue is tracking down whatever assets there are to pay off the approximately $58 million owed to his creditors. That is why Erika is so frantically trying to create some kind of fiction distancing herself from the scam but it won’t work because anything that she got will be clawed back and she is the deep pockets. She could theoretically get liens against all her earnings for years because of the fraud.

If you google eeny meenie and racist, there are a lot of articles about this and other childhood rhymes and songs having shockingly racist roots. There was a popular pancake house that used racist tropes until fairly recently and the English had books and dolls about gollywogs. And of course there was Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben were on supermarket shelves until last summer. From a vox article which I will censor. Mo and toe rhyme and Mo and tail don’t rhyme- I.e. catch a tiger by the tail in the bowdlerized version I learned A little over a week ago, NPR had an illuminating and poignant report on the the racist beginnings of the ice cream truck song. The song's melody, it turns out, was popularized in antebellum minstrel shows where the lyrics "parodied a free black man attempting to conform to white high society by dressing in fine clothes and using big words." To make matters worse, that song became the basis for an offensive folk song in 1916 titled, "N-word Love A Watermelon Ha! Ha! Ha!" before turning into the melody that beckons ice cream seekers today. For Theodore Johnson III, who wrote the article, knowledge of that history ruined ice cream trucks for him. "When the reach of racism robs me of fond memories from my childhood, it feels intensely personal again. Whenever I hear the music now, the antique voice laughing about n-word and watermelon fills my head," Johnson wrote. Johnson's piece got us thinking about the songs like the ice cream truck song — a seemingly innocuous folk song, nursery rhyme, or jingle — that we may not have known were racist, and what we should do when we learn about their histories. "Eenie, Meenie, Miney, Mo" (Early 19th Century) The words: "Eenie, meenie, minie mo. Catch an n-word by the toe. If he hollers, let him go. Eenie, meenie, minie mo." An alternate version: "Catch a negro by his toe/ If he hollers make him pay/Twenty dollars every day." The meaning: The meaning of this rhyme is rooted in the slave trade. There's an idea that it comes from slave selection or a description of what white slave owners would do if they caught a runaway slave. It was actually a part of a 2004 lawsuit against Southwest. The black plaintiffs in that case sued the airline for discrimination because a flight attendant had used the rhyme while urging them to take their seats. The jury did not side with the plaintiffs, and though they appealed, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the initial ruling.