LuAnn de Lesseps: No Longer a Countess, Still Never a Princess

[Sun-Bun]

21 hours ago, Maharincess said:

Sorry, I had to defend my weed, which is legal in my state and should be legal everywhere and alcohol should be illegal. Luann wouldn't have done the stupid shit she did if she had just smoked a bowl instead. 

Congrats on your sobriety and kadooze to you on learning to maintain a level head thanks to weed! Honestly, I don’t even smoke it myself but I completely support its full legalization in every state—-the overall health/emotional benefits of weed far outweigh its small downsides. Having just visited Denver, I was very impressed with all the well-run, organized dispensaries and the overall laidback attitudes of its locals. Leave it to the major pharmaceutical companies to be greedily fighting against cannabis due to its many healing benefits. 

And you’re so right—-had Lu been on a nice weed high, attacking an officer would’ve been the last thing she would’ve done. 

Look how chill resident RH potsmoker Carole is! She needs to teach Lu how to enjoy a few spliffs.

[ShawnaLanne]

On 7/4/2018 at 5:54 PM, Higgins said:

She certainly would have maintained her reason and understood she was in the wrong room had she been high.  Even if she made the stoner mistake of getting off on the wrong floor, she wouldn't have just wandered into a any old room.

Not sure about that,  but she wouldn't have been so adversarial.

[SuprSuprElevated]

18 hours ago, Sun-Bun said:

Look how chill resident RH potsmoker Carole is! She needs to teach Lu how to enjoy a few spliffs.

With or without sketchy (to some) evidence, I'm guessing that Lu would not need lessons on spliff enjoyment.

[Maharincess]

On 7/5/2018 at 8:10 PM, ShawnaLanne said:

Not sure about that,  but she wouldn't have been so adversarial.

 I am sure about that. Smoking weed doesn't make you stupid like alcohol does. Smokers don't lose their minds, black out and do things like this, drunks do.   I still say that if she'd gotten high instead of drunk, this would have never happened. 

[ShawnaLanne]

10 hours ago, Maharincess said:

 I am sure about that. Smoking weed doesn't make you stupid like alcohol does. Smokers don't lose their minds, black out and do things like this, drunks do.   I still say that if she'd gotten high instead of drunk, this would have never happened. 

I've done both. And sometimes you get distracted and confused. I can sre her getting started, being interrupted, but leaving when asked to. Probably wouldn't have happened, and as I said, no violent activity.

[Guest]

Marijuana can cause violence; people react differently to the same stimulant/depressant.

Not every shoe fits every foot.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201603/marijuana-use-increases-violent-behavior

[snarts]

In my many years on this earth, I've literally never met an angry/violent stoner. However, mean drunks/bar fights are all too common.  

Nice to see the Count be supportive. I love that he went to her cabaret show. I'm sure their kids appreciate it as well. 

[link417]

1 hour ago, snarts said:

In my many years on this earth, I've literally never met an angry/violent stoner. However, mean drunks/bar fights are all too common.  

Nice to see the Count be supportive. I love that he went to her cabaret show. I'm sure their kids appreciate it as well. 

Eric Roberts was on Celebrity Rehab way back when, said he was addicted to marijuana and basically that he would become an asshole when he wasn’t high. My understanding was that it didn’t make him an asshole, but that the withdrawal caused him to become more of an asshole (i.e., angry).

I was surprised because I had never heard of irritability associated with weed but I guess it’s different strokes (tokes?) for different folks.

[onatrek]

10 hours ago, link417 said:

Eric Roberts was on Celebrity Rehab way back when, said he was addicted to marijuana and basically that he would become an asshole when he wasn’t high. My understanding was that it didn’t make him an asshole, but that the withdrawal caused him to become more of an asshole (i.e., angry).

I was surprised because I had never heard of irritability associated with weed but I guess it’s different strokes (tokes?) for different folks.

Yup.

Listen to the police scanner (via Broadcastify or such) in a large CA city of your choosing (SD, LA, SF) especially on a weekend or summer night.  Dozens of times a night in my city near one of those mentioned above there are fight or DV related calls where it's all admitted weed use and no alcohol use by those involved.

Regardless of the generalizations about it typically mellowing people out, that doesn't mean there aren't many who don't have that same reaction and who just get angry and into prone to fight moods that are usually more expected with other substances instead of weed. It's really eye-opening if you haven't ever listened to a scanner before and/or don't have cause to listen like I do...

[HunterHunted]

We're also seeing more cases of marijuana hyperemesis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndrome?wprov=sfla1

[Duke2801]

3 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

We're also seeing more cases of marijuana hyperemesis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndrome?wprov=sfla1

Yes one of my best girlfriends is a long time habitual pot smoker and I’m convinced she began suffering from this in the past year. She tried to blame her symptoms on work stress and we’re all like—-girl, it’s the WEED. 

[link417]

15 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

We're also seeing more cases of marijuana hyperemesis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndrome?wprov=sfla1

It’s taking all my willpower not to click that link. I know what ‘hyper’ and ‘emesis’ mean separately so I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to stomach them together, but I’m a naturally curious person so I might just ...

[HunterHunted]

Just now, link417 said:

It’s taking all my willpower not to click that link. I know what ‘hyper’ and ‘emesis’ mean separately so I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to stomach them together, but I’m a naturally curious person so I might just ...

It's not bad. Basically people smoke so much weed that they start vomiting uncontrollably and the only thing that seems to help alleviate the vomiting is showering. The only thing that truly stops the condition is to stop smoking weed.

[link417]

3 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

It's not bad. Basically people smoke so much weed that they start vomiting uncontrollably and the only thing that seems to help alleviate the vomiting is showering. The only thing that truly stops the condition is to stop smoking weed.

This actually made me LOL ?

[SuprSuprElevated]

Glad it was a cozy 4th, right Lu?  Yikes!

tmz.com/2018/07/12/luann-de-lesseps-sued

[hoodooznoodooz]

50 minutes ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

Glad it was a cozy 4th, right Lu?  Yikes!

tmz.com/2018/07/12/luann-de-lesseps-sued

Whoa. 

Stiffing her own children?

[WhoaWhoKnew]

1 minute ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Whoa. 

Stiffing her own children?

MTE.

So much for the idea that she was doing well for herself with the $ she was left with.

She's been using what was meant for her children.

[SuprSuprElevated]

8 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Whoa. 

Stiffing her own children?

I am curious about something though...why couldn't the agreement simply be transferred to the new place?  I mean eventually, she'll be worm bait, right?

Edited July 12, 2018 by SuprSuprElevated

[biakbiak]

8 minutes ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I am curious about something though...why couldn't the agreement simply be transferred to the new place?  I mean eventually, she'll be worm bait, right?

 

Since it was part of the divorce agreement it doesn’t look like it was supposed to be.an inheritance but rather part of the child support agreement and since now they are of age they most likely want access.

Edited July 12, 2018 by biakbiak

[WhoaWhoKnew]

3 minutes ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I am curious about something though...why couldn't the agreement simply be transferred to the new place?  I mean eventually, she'll be worm bait, right?

I'm thinking part of the reason for the deal would be to make sure the kids had something when they became adults and moved out of LuAnn's house. 

[WireWrap]

Normally TMZ puts a link to legal papers on their stories and that there isn't one with this makes me question how real this story is. LOL Also, she bought the Sag Harbor house well after their divorce was over and she used the sale of their other marital Hamptons home in order to buy it, so if there was any agreement it would have been with that home, not with the Sag Harbor house. Me thinks TMZ has been fed some BS lies by a jealous NY HW or Tom. LOL

[Rap541]

I really hope so because otherwise, yeesh, she's back on the "shitty mom" list.

[WireWrap]

9 minutes ago, Rap541 said:

I really hope so because otherwise, yeesh, she's back on the "shitty mom" list.

The Count would have absolutely zero say in anything connected to the Sag Harbor home, they had been divorced for years before she bought the house. LOL This is just like TMZ's story that the Count filed a lawsuit trying to force Luann to drop his last name, it never happened! LOL

[biakbiak]

Victoria stopped following Luann on IG.

Edited July 13, 2018 by biakbiak

[MMLEsq]

And, People magazine is now reporting the same thing.  (A slightly more credible source than TMZ, at least in my opinion.....)

https://people.com/tv/luann-de-lesseps-sued-by-children-ex-husband-house-sale/

The article has quotes from the legal documents that (purportedly) were filed.

Edited July 13, 2018 by MMLEsq

[biakbiak]

Yeah it’s more clear why putting The Sag Harbor house up for sale triggered the lawsuit because according to the divorce decree they were supposed to have a share of either the proceeds of the sale of the first house or be put on the deed of the Sag Harbor house and neither was done.

Edited July 13, 2018 by biakbiak

[QuinnM]

13 minutes ago, MMLEsq said:

And, People magazine is now reporting the same thing.  (A slightly more credible source than TMZ, at least in my opinion.....)

https://people.com/tv/luann-de-lesseps-sued-by-children-ex-husband-house-sale/

The article has quotes from the legal documents that (purportedly) were filed.

Ok, yikes.  This is looking more and more credible.  But keep in mind that the divorce degree may not have had a deadline.  So what you do is sell the house, invest the money in your name and at some point set up a trust with the interest owed at the original sale.  So one party can legally invest a million dollars and ten years later have 15 million,  set up a trust for your percentage of the original million and waltz away with 14 million.  I believe that is one of the games the great Mr. Morgan played with Sonja. 

So that count probably denied the kids something, said use that money from the sale of the Sag Harbor and then told them they need to sue to get it.

Divorces always seem to suck.

[WireWrap]

40 minutes ago, MMLEsq said:

And, People magazine is now reporting the same thing.  (A slightly more credible source than TMZ, at least in my opinion.....)

https://people.com/tv/luann-de-lesseps-sued-by-children-ex-husband-house-sale/

The article has quotes from the legal documents that (purportedly) were filed.

Yet no link to said legal documents! The link given is to yet another gossip site, The Blast, that doesn't give any links or proof this happened! LOL Who knows, I still believe that if she was supposed to put some part of the sale of the house in a "trust" for her kids, she could do that with a new house as well.

[AnnA]

Hmm?   This is getting interesting but we still haven't seen copies of the documents.

The People article said the house was in Southhampton.   It's not; it's in Sag Harbor.

If this is true, she owes her kids 4 million dollars.  

[QuinnM]

Just now, AnnA said:

Hmm?   This is getting interesting but we still haven't seen copies of the documents.

The People article said the house was in Southhampton.   It's not; it's in Sag Harbor.

If this is true, she owes her kids 4 million dollars.  

Well more and more TMZ simply says they have the documents.  Their history is really to have the documents so I guess they’re just going forward on that reputation.  It might be that they’ve seen them but weren’t allowed to copy them.  And I am one of those that just kinda waves in that direction and says - Hamptons.  Even though the people that live/play there are very particular about the actual area name.

[WireWrap]

1 minute ago, QuinnM said:

Well more and more TMZ simply says they have the documents.  Their history is really to have the documents so I guess they’re just going forward on that reputation.  It might be that they’ve seen them but weren’t allowed to copy them.  And I am one of those that just kinda waves in that direction and says - Hamptons.  Even though the people that live/play there are very particular about the actual area name.

If they have them, the legal papers, then show them and they claimed that have them, not that they "seen" them. LOL

[SuprSuprElevated]

No news site is always right, and lots of people give side eye to celebrity gossip sites, but from my experience, TMZ has gotten it right more than they've gotten it wrong.

Not looking for a debate about it, it's simply my opinion.  This may turn out to be a whole lotta nothing, who knows?

[AnnA]

I hope LuAnn held on to the money from the Bridgehampton house.    She sold that one for 8 million and bought the Sag Harbor house for 3.1 million.  The kids aren't going to settle for half the 3.1 million.

Edited July 13, 2018 by AnnA

[WhoaWhoKnew]

People didn't release the story until 2 hours ago and TMZ first posted it late afternoon (EST), which leads me to believe they vetted it and it checked out.

I'm not sure they'd risk being the celebrity world's tabloid darling for a Bravolebrity.

[WireWrap]

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens, if any of them confirm the story that is. And, if it's true, bad, really bad on Luann's part but horrid on the kids end as well. They were all just together for the 4th at Luann's Sag Harbor home and Luann/Nicole did the commercial with Dorinda for the Momma Mia 2 movie. 

[smores]

From the People article, it sounds like when they divorced, she was supposed to either put them on the deed for the original (marital), Hamptons home or create a trust that gave them half ownership of it.  She didn't do that.  There was a stipulation that she could sell that house and use the proceeds towards another home (which, she did), as long as the kids were either given the money or put on the next house.  She didn't do that either.  Now she wants to sell that house and just move on again?  This seems like it will get messy.

[snarts]

If the decree allowed her to reinvest in other properties so long as the kids are included on the deed then it's not like they're due money now. Do they really think she'd will her estate to someone other than them?

Neither kid seems to have much going on career wise, so I'm assuming they have trust funds. Hmmm, whole thing seems odd to me. What's the Count's angle? Why now? She sold the original house years ago.

[Happy Camper]

Oh Oh....

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rhony-luann-de-lesseps-sued-husband-breach-trust-divorce-alexandre-kids-docs.pdf

Looks real!

 LU!  NO! I'm sad.

(From Radaronline)

Edited July 13, 2018 by Happy Camper

[WhoaWhoKnew]

3 minutes ago, Happy Camper said:

Oh Oh....

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rhony-luann-de-lesseps-sued-husband-breach-trust-divorce-alexandre-kids-docs.pdf

Is this for real?

(From Radaronline)

We don't know 100% yet. There's an in depth discussion in the LuAnn thread. 

EDIT: OH I'M IN THE LUANN THREAD WTF.

Edited July 13, 2018 by WhoaWhoKnew

[Happy Camper]

1 minute ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

We don't know 100% yet. There's an in depth discussion in the LuAnn thread. 

EDIT: OH I'M IN THE LUANN THREAD WTF.

But the docs appear genuine. I am losing hope.

[biakbiak]

Interesting in the legal documents it lists Noel as the son of both the plaintiff and defendant but lists Victoria only as the daughter of the defendant.ETA OOPS MISREAD IT LIST HER AS THE DAUGHTER IF VBOTH. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by biakbiak

[Happy Camper]

1 minute ago, biakbiak said:

Interesting in the legal documents it lists Noel as the son of both the plaintiff and defendant but lists Victoria only as the daughter of the defendent.

At the bottom of the document Victoria has signed as a plaintiff, just above where Noel has signed. 

I think this may be for real 

I have been a Lu fan all of this time. Now the doubts are creeping in. :(

[WireWrap]

7 minutes ago, Happy Camper said:

Oh Oh....

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rhony-luann-de-lesseps-sued-husband-breach-trust-divorce-alexandre-kids-docs.pdf

Looks real!

 LU!  NO! I'm sad.

(From Radaronline)

Something still seems off, especially sine this hasn't been accepted or verified by the courts yet. 

2 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Interesting in the legal documents it lists Noel as the son of both the plaintiff and defendant but lists Victoria only as the daughter of the defendent.

It also has Noel turning 30 in 2016! This is from Luann's SM, 

Luann de Lesseps‏Verified account @CountessLuann

Follow Follow @CountessLuann

More

Noel's 15th Birthday Party tonight. Busy, busy planning!

7:15 AM - 30 Sep 2011

Which would mean that he is 21 years old, not 30 like this court filing states and I am sure the Count, Victoria and especially Noel know his correct age! LOL

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, Happy Camper said:

At the bottom of the document Victoria has signed as a plaintiff, just above where Noel has signed. 

I think this may be for real 

I have been a Lu fan all of this time. Now the doubts are creeping in. :(

That wasn’t my point they just put Victoria’s parentage different than Noel’s so I misread it.

yep seems legit.

[WireWrap]

I think I misread what they said about his age. It says "Said trust shall terminate on September, 27, 2016 (sic.) when the youngest child, Noel Alexandre De Lesseps, reaches the age of thirty." but again, that would make him 32 now, not 21 and it says the "trust shall TERMINATE" when he is 30! Does that mean that after he is 30 he/Victoria get nothing? This doesn't make sense to me, so can someone please explain it to me. LOL

[Happy Camper]

5 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

That wasn’t my point they just put Victoria’s parentage different than Noel’s so I misread it.

yep seems legit.

Sorry about that, you are right, I misread your post!

Edited July 13, 2018 by Happy Camper

[WhoaWhoKnew]

WireWrap's on some Nancy Drew shit!

[Happy Camper]

7 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

I think I misread what they said about his age. It says "Said trust shall terminate on September, 27, 2016 (sic.) when the youngest child, Noel Alexandre De Lesseps, reaches the age of thirty." but again, that would make him 32 now, not 21 and it says the "trust shall TERMINATE" when he is 30! Does that mean that after he is 30 he/Victoria get nothing? This doesn't make sense to me, so can someone please explain it to me. LOL

I don't know. All I know is that I am going to pour myself a glass of wine which is probably very inappropriate considering.....

I am verklempt.

Wirewrap, I do so hope that you are correct and this is all garbage!

Edited July 13, 2018 by Happy Camper

[biakbiak]

6 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

I think I misread what they said about his age. It says "Said trust shall terminate on September, 27, 2016 (sic.) when the youngest child, Noel Alexandre De Lesseps, reaches the age of thirty." but again, that would make him 32 now, not 21 and it says the "trust shall TERMINATE" when he is 30! Does that mean that after he is 30 he/Victoria get nothing? This doesn't make sense to me, so can someone please explain it to me. LOL

When a trust ends with money still in it the remainder of the trust is just distributed to the beneficiaries so Victoria and Noel would just get a check for whatever was in it at that time and not have to abide by any restrictions of the trust or get the tax benefits of it being in a trust. 

[WireWrap]

9 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

When a trust ends with money still in it the remainder of the trust is just distributed to the beneficiaries so Victoria and Noel would just get a check for whatever was in it at that time and not have to abide by any restrictions of the trust or get the tax benefits of it being in a trust. 

Ok, I have a better understanding of how this "trust" works but why do they show him turning 30 in 2016 when he is currently only 21!  And, the document clearly says, in red ink no less, that it hasn't been verified/accepted by the court yet. Either the Count/Victoria/Noel hired some fly by night wanna be lawyer who didn't know the facts or this fake/a joke because the document clearly says "Said trust shall terminate on September, 27, 2016 (sic.) when the youngest child, Noel Alexandre De Lesseps, reaches the age of thirty"! LOL

Either way, if this pans out, Luann's reputation will take a beating in the press and I pretty sure ticket sales for her show will dry up. Someone is out to destroy her, it's either the Count/their kids or someone else but it will ruin her IMO.

Edited July 13, 2018 by WireWrap
because my brain is having hickups today! LOL