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

[hoodooznoodooz]

You would think they could set up separate trusts. 

[Giselle]

22 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

You would think they could set up separate trusts. 

One would think that. This thing was screwed from the beginning. Would have been just as easy to force the sale of the house from the start, have the judge divide it up, and each be on their merry way. 

 

Money, divorce and death show people for who they really were and are as do fame & power.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Giselle
Singing: "It's Friday, Friday...."

[smores]

I think it basically was the Count giving up his portion of the house.  Instead of Luann buying out the Count and paying him the 4M, she was putting it into a trust for the kids.  So he gave up rights to the house, in exchange for the 4M, but, he didn't take the cash, his terms were the kids get it under these circumstances.  Maybe it has something to do with international assets?  It seems like kind of a weird thing to do, but, it did guarantee his minor children a home in the US to live in, as well as make sure that they had a secure chunk of money should something happen to him. 

If you look at Sonja and her issues, her ex pretty much left her with the townhouse, so, of course his child has a place to live while with her mother.  She got a settlement, but, Sonja has managed to squander quite a bit of money and has had to mortgage her house.  So, she's jeopardized the financial security that her ex left her with, and should something happen to her ex, if her ex hasn't planned for their child, then the child would basically be screwed when it came to college.  If Sonja's ex had forced some sort of arrangement where she had to hold half of the townhouse in trust for the child, then Sonja wouldn't have been able to make some of the mess she's in.  

[Giselle]

I wonder how hard up for money Luann was to screw her kids like that right off the bat if that was the agreement? Geeze, scale down, live within your new means, get a job if you have to and do what you agreed to do. Boom, your kids don't have to sue you.

[Jel]

Luann never fails to disappoint me.

[Mozelle]

1 minute ago, Giselle said:

I wonder how hard up for money Luann was to screw her kids like that right off the bat if that was the agreement? Geeze, scale down, live within your new means, get a job if you have to and do what you agreed to do. Boom, your kids don't have to sue you.

I would hope that LuAnn wasn't or isn't hard up for money. For as much as people like to snark about the HWs not having "real" jobs, at the end of the day they have a contract with Bravo, which makes them employees who earn a check. I don't know what LuAnn's rate would be after 10 years on this franchise, but damn, she's gotta be making a nice six figure salary for six months of taping, right? 

[Mrs peel]

15 hours ago, WireWrap said:

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

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

This is odd.  I don't know the courts in Suffolk County, but where I used to practice the case number was stamped immediately on the pleadings.  So odd this one has no case number; though maybe the systems are just different (or someone leaked a copy prior to filing?).  The attorney does exist, it would be dangerous for anyone to fake the pleading using his name (and he acted as notary for the signatures too).

The terms of the divorce agreement are a bit odd too, I can't believe no one ever caught that Noel wouldn't turn 30 in 2016.  And that problem may be at the heart of a problem for the plaintiffs.....  Because does Luann still have time to create the trust?

It would certainly have been simpler for the divorce agreement to have the Count turn his share of the house over to the children immediately (or into a trust for them); or require, prior to finalizing the divorce, see evidence that the trust had been created.  Based on the language, it looks like they anticipated Luann would need to sell the home eventually, and selling it while half was in trust for minors might have created problems (I'm not a real estate lawyer).  yet if they realized she couldn't keep the larger home, why have an agreement that she needed to put the proceeds into a new home?

I wish the Exhibit C was attached, I wonder how much $$ we're really talking about.  That the marital home sold for $8M doesn't mean that was the net total to her; and if they were concerned about the trust, shouldn't someone have demanded the proof of the trust around the time she bought the new home for $3.1M? 

Maybe I just don't know enough about wealthy people divorces.  But the kids are clearly third party beneficiaries of the settlement agreement, and have the right to demand performance of its terms.  if this is real, it looks like Luann has been living off the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, and if that money is gone, the kids have been harmed by their mother, which is horrible.

[Taralightner]

@Mrs peel THANK YOU for your expertise! Very helpful!! 

[smores]

She was allowed to put the proceeds into a new home, which she did, but, she put the proceeds into a new, cheaper home, which meant that there's money unaccounted for.  Plus, it looks like she used the proceeds to pay back a mortgage she took on the original home, so, she pretty much was already in the hole to the kids.  The original home sold for 8M, which would mean 4M should have been put into the trust.  She had to pay off a 3M mortgage, though, when she sold that house, leaving 5M.  She then bought a house that was 1.3M, leaving 3.7, and she's already "underfunding" the trust. Or, would be if it existed.  Then, she went on to remodel the new house, at what cost?  Who knows, but, she wants to sell that home for 6.5M, so if she's successful, she'll only have 2.5M to purchase a new home, after she funds the trust.  

[Taralightner]

1 hour ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

You would think they could set up separate trusts. 

Larger accounts garner more interest and can be managed financially with more options. And, keeping it all together makes sense because of interest earned on the money will be even. I still don’t think it’s fair that she has to wait, but I think I understand some of the potential benefits. 

[Giselle]

25 minutes ago, Mozelle said:

I would hope that LuAnn wasn't or isn't hard up for money. For as much as people like to snark about the HWs not having "real" jobs, at the end of the day they have a contract with Bravo, which makes them employees who earn a check. I don't know what LuAnn's rate would be after 10 years on this franchise, but damn, she's gotta be making a nice six figure salary for six months of taping, right? 

 

For the record I never said she wasn't working a real job. I was snarking on her kids and yes being a full time artist is also a real job as long as it pays your bills.

She's working a real job and collecting a paycheck from Bravo and she has her Countess Collection if she is still hawking that but if that isn't enough then scale back your living to your net income or less until you can add to the coffers.

I would love to see Kim Zolciak and her brood in 10 or 20 years. Many of the housewives seem to live in the moment not caring about the possibility of lean years or their future winter years.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Giselle
the sky is blue

[WireWrap]

3 minutes ago, smores said:

She was allowed to put the proceeds into a new home, which she did, but, she put the proceeds into a new, cheaper home, which meant that there's money unaccounted for.  Plus, it looks like she used the proceeds to pay back a mortgage she took on the original home, so, she pretty much was already in the hole to the kids.  The original home sold for 8M, which would mean 4M should have been put into the trust.  She had to pay off a 3M mortgage, though, when she sold that house, leaving 5M.  She then bought a house that was 1.3M, leaving 3.7, and she's already "underfunding" the trust. Or, would be if it existed.  Then, she went on to remodel the new house, at what cost?  Who knows, but, she wants to sell that home for 6.5M, so if she's successful, she'll only have 2.5M to purchase a new home, after she funds the trust.  

She was to put the kids as part owner (50%) of any new house she bought if she didn't set up a regular cash trust, so all she had to do was put their name on the deed of the Sag Harbor house if that was legal to do when she bought it and she could still do that with a new house in the Catskills (plus cash/investments). That said, I still want to hear Luann's side of this before I put her on my deplorable HW list, although just this has placed her near the basement already. 

[smores]

I can't imagine, though, that it would be ok for her to pocket the difference as she moves on down the line, which is basically what she'd be doing.  They went from 8M, so the kids getting 4M, if she gets 6.5, they'd now only get 3.25.  Plus, if the answer is to put them on the deed of the new house, let's say she buys another one for 1.5, then their share of the original 4M is now only 75k? I think that's pretty much why they're suing, as they're trying to block her from selling this house without having their trust in place, she can pocket the profits.

[Giselle]

23 minutes ago, smores said:

She was allowed to put the proceeds into a new home, which she did, but, she put the proceeds into a new, cheaper home, which meant that there's money unaccounted for.  Plus, it looks like she used the proceeds to pay back a mortgage she took on the original home, so, she pretty much was already in the hole to the kids.  The original home sold for 8M, which would mean 4M should have been put into the trust.  She had to pay off a 3M mortgage, though, when she sold that house, leaving 5M.  She then bought a house that was 1.3M, leaving 3.7, and she's already "underfunding" the trust. Or, would be if it existed.  Then, she went on to remodel the new house, at what cost?  Who knows, but, she wants to sell that home for 6.5M, so if she's successful, she'll only have 2.5M to purchase a new home, after she funds the trust.  

Was that 8 million pure profit? Was the house paid off or did she and the count have a prior mortgage that was "rolled into" the new mortgage that she alone took out? If so the count's portion at the time of that old unpaid mortgage should be deducted from what was to be given to the kids.

The kids are due the "money" their father negotiated for them to have. Why doesn't Lu's possible inaction on the matter not surprise me. Did she have her stubborn head in the sand the same way she did with marrying Tom.

[Mozelle]

34 minutes ago, Giselle said:

 

For the record I never said she wasn't working a real job. I was snarking on her kids and yes being a full time artist is also a real job as long as it pays your bills.

She's working a real job and collecting a paycheck from Bravo and she has her Countess Collection if she is still hawking that but if that isn't enough then scale back your living to your net income or less until you can add to the coffers.

I would love to see Kim Zolciak and her brood in 10 or 20 years. Many of the housewives seem to live in the moment not caring about the possibility of lean years or their future winter years.

Oh no! I wasn't saying that you did. It's just been a constant refrain across all the franchises over the years, that "such and such HW doesn't have a job."

[snarts]

52 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

She was to put the kids as part owner (50%) of any new house she bought if she didn't set up a regular cash trust, so all she had to do was put their name on the deed of the Sag Harbor house if that was legal to do when she bought it and she could still do that with a new house in the Catskills (plus cash/investments). That said, I still want to hear Luann's side of this before I put her on my deplorable HW list, although just this has placed her near the basement already. 

Which is what makes little sense to me.  What if Luann had hung on to the original Hamptons home past 2026 when Noel turns 30? Neither kid would receive an income stream, which is what I think this entire claim is about. 

Was all of this done just to thwart her sale of the Sag Harbor house?  Where was everybody when she sold the original house and bought Sag Harbor?  and when she spent all the money renovating it?  

Also, if the original intent was for the Count to give his share of the house to the kids, why didn't they just do a quitclaim deed when they divorced and transfer his interest to the kids?

Edited July 13, 2018 by snarts
Extra thoughts

[Giselle]

32 minutes ago, Mozelle said:

Oh no! I wasn't saying that you did. It's just been a constant refrain across all the franchises over the years, that "such and such HW doesn't have a job."

No worries 'Zelle. I'm sorry, maybe I was a bit earnest in trying to post clearly.

X's and O's Mozelle!

Edited July 13, 2018 by Giselle
No "maybe" about it!

[smores]

13 minutes ago, snarts said:

Which is what makes little sense to me.  What if Luann had hung on to the original Hamptons home past 2026 when Noel turns 30? Neither kid would receive an income stream, which is what I think this entire claim is about. 

Was all of this done just to thwart her sale of the Sag Harbor house?  Where was everybody when she sold the original house and bought Sag Harbor?  and when she spent all the money renovating it?  

That's exactly what they're trying to do. When she sold the first house (the marital one), she was allowed to do so, IF she reinvested the profits of the sale of the house into the next one AND she put the kids on the title of the house (or, put it into a trust if the kids were underage, I think, since I don't think kids can be on a deed). Also, I think she wasn't able to mortgage more than 1/2 of the value that kids were due, but I'm too lazy to re-read the papers right now.  She did buy a new house, but she didn't bother to add the kids or put it into a trust, which means Luann is the sole owner of house 2.  House 2 should currently either have 2 or 3 owners, Luann and kids (3 owners), or Luann and trust (2 owners).  It's just Luann, putting her in breech of the agreement she made.  If she sells house 2 she will be able to take whatever money she gets for it and roll it over into house 3, she's effectively stealing from the kids because she never created the trust with the money from house 1/titled house 2 to them.  They're suing to block her from selling house 2, so that they can stop her from taking that money from them.

[WireWrap]

12 minutes ago, snarts said:

Which is what makes little sense to me.  What if Luann had hung on to the original Hamptons home past 2026 when Noel turns 30? Neither kid would receive an income stream, which is what I think this entire claim is about. 

Was all of this done just to thwart her sale of the Sag Harbor house?  Where was everybody when she sold the original house and bought Sag Harbor?  and when she spent all the money renovating it?  

I agree that somethings don't make much sense but I think they, the Count/Luann. knew she couldn't afford to keep the original home after the divorce. What surprises me is that no one thought she would need to get a mortgage on it to help pay for upkeep on it or to get it ready for resale, which is what happened (she got a 3.1m mortgage on it). Luann has never lived an OTT lifestyle since she joined the cast. It's not like she is jet setting all over the globe spending money like it's water, so I suspect that she has been paying for her kids lives (rent/food/pocket money) since they moved out of her house, they are both "artists" and have no steady income from a "regular" type of job and I don't see the Count doing it for them, so that leaves Luann. 

I also wonder if they just want her to keep the Sag Harbor home because Noel lives in the guest house there and because they prefer having a home at the beach instead of in the Catskills even if said home in the Catskill is a better place for their mom (slower pace of life) to live.

[WireWrap]

6 minutes ago, smores said:

That's exactly what they're trying to do. When she sold the first house (the marital one), she was allowed to do so, IF she reinvested the profits of the sale of the house into the next one AND she put the kids on the title of the house (or, put it into a trust if the kids were underage, I think, since I don't think kids can be on a deed). Also, I think she wasn't able to mortgage more than 1/2 of the value that kids were due, but I'm too lazy to re-read the papers right now.  She did buy a new house, but she didn't bother to add the kids or put it into a trust, which means Luann is the sole owner of house 2.  House 2 should currently either have 2 or 3 owners, Luann and kids (3 owners), or Luann and trust (2 owners).  It's just Luann, putting her in breech of the agreement she made.  If she sells house 2 she will be able to take whatever money she gets for it and roll it over into house 3, she's effectively stealing from the kids because she never created the trust with the money from house 1/titled house 2 to them.  They're suing to block her from selling house 2, so that they can stop her from taking that money from them.

She could always put their names on the deed for a new house in the Catskills. Noel was still a minor when she bought the Sag Harbor home and if she wasn't legally allowed to add his name then, she could/should do so now with any new home. And she should be allowed to buy a home where ever she wants as long as the kids have 50% ownership of it and that she makes up any difference between in the 4 M in the form of a cash trust minus any payouts she might have given them to fund their "artist" (no regular job/paycheck) lifestyle.

[Giselle]

2 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

She could always put their names on the deed for a new house in the Catskills. Noel was still a minor when she bought the Sag Harbor home and if she wasn't legally allowed to add his name then, she could/should do so now with any new home. And she should be allowed to buy a home where ever she wants as long as the kids have 50% ownership of it and that she makes up any difference between in the 4 M in the form of a cash trust minus any payouts she might have given them to fund their "artist" (no regular job/paycheck) lifestyle.

She should put it right before it goes any further. It can only damage her to stall.

[AnnA]

14 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

 

I also wonder if they just want her to keep the Sag Harbor home because Noel lives in the guest house there and because they prefer having a home at the beach instead of in the Catskills even if said home in the Catskill is a better place for their mom (slower pace of life) to live.

So much of this doesn't make sense to me.   If the kid's trust owns 50% of the house (any house) and LuAnn doesn't sell it, the kids get nothing but their trust's name on the deed.    Also if Noel wants her to keep the Sag Harbor house so he can live there, is he paying his share of the property taxes and maintenance?   I think not.

[Taralightner]

On 7/3/2018 at 11:20 PM, Happy Camper said:

I believe that it's a sign of maturity when ex's can spend time together for/with their kids. Setting a wonderful example for them Kadooz to Lu!!

I had a shitty first marriage, but managed to still maintain civil and positive relationship with my ex and his subsequent wives. I know that my kids and grandkids have benefited from that. I am very grateful to my ex for this as well.

What a difference a week makes. I hope lu is able to get a lid on all of this and quickly repair any damage to her relationships that really matter. Lu, I’m pulling for you! I know there’s another side to this story. But, stop, breathe, assess and please do the right things (right away) for your kids and your relationship with their father. I know you can. Right? 

[HunterHunted]

I bet the kids and Alex started to renew discussion of the trust when she put the house on the market. And then when she started to talk about buying another house in the Catskills that probably kicked the lawsuit into overdrive. I can see her doing that sort of dismissive thing that she sometimes does and freaking them out enough to push them to file. It's a shame because if she had been more responsive (I'm speculating), she wouldn't be in this mess. The longer it stays unresolved the more she looks like she was doing this maliciously and she doesn't need that.

[Giselle]

1 hour ago, AnnA said:

So much of this doesn't make sense to me.   If the kid's trust owns 50% of the house (any house) and LuAnn doesn't sell it, the kids get nothing but their trust's name on the deed.    Also if Noel wants her to keep the Sag Harbor house so he can live there, is he paying his share of the property taxes and maintenance?   I think not.

I would think that even if Lu finally sets up the trust the kids may not get the payout at 30 unless it is stipulated that she sell whatever house she is in by that time to cash out. Otherwise once she kicks the bucket they still get 50% equity, the count's share of, of what ever the house in question sells for minus outstanding liens and also Lu's share should she bequeath it to them. If they mediate or if the lawsuit goes through, someone is gonna crunch numbers to determine what the kids would have been entitled to had she set up the trust when she was suppose to. The kids may end up owning a larger percentage of Lu's next house and/or be compensated some other way because of her failure to act. Lu may become Noel's and Victoria's tenant.

 

Just my thoughts.

[film noire]

18 hours ago, geauxaway said:

 So they were all set to sue her but just played happy 4th of July family?  Da fuq?

Bethenny was raised by wolves, and Luann had children with one.

This clan makes the Sopranos look like the friggin' von Trapps  -- I can't believe Count JewHater didn't understand that sliming Luann would also put his children in an ugly position (be a fucking man and sue on your children's behalf,  you pissant. Take all the heat yourself instead of shoving your kids between you and the bullet. Now the whole family looks like a feral pack of vicious grifters.  Bravo and well done, mon fucking père! Isn't there a National Front meeting you need to get to?)

Edited July 13, 2018 by film noire

[WireWrap]

5 minutes ago, Giselle said:

I would think that even if Lu finally sets up the trust the kids may not get the payout at 30 unless it is stipulated that she sell whatever house she is in by that time to cash out. Otherwise once she kicks the bucket they still get 50% equity, the count's share of, of what ever the house in question sells for minus outstanding liens and also Lu's share should she bequeath it to them. If they mediate or if the lawsuit goes through, someone is gonna crunch numbers to determine what the kids would have been entitled to had she set up the trust when she was suppose to. The kids may end up owning a larger percentage of Lu's next house and/or be compensated some other way because of her failure to act. Lu may become Noel's and Victoria's tenant.

 

Just my thoughts.

I'm not sure when the kids were to get the trust money because the initial agreement allowed for Luann to put their entire trust money (4M) into a house, which is why they were to get 50% ownership. And, although RE prices can/normally do increase over time, it can be less than what one could make when the money is invested in the stock market and it can take longer. As someone pointed out, it may not have been legal to put a minor child's name on the deed, which would prevent Luann from putting Noel's name on it which means only Victoria's name could be added when she bought it, which would cause issues, different issues but still issues. Now that both kids are adults, she can add them to the deed or to a deed for a new house. But, that again opens up a new can of worms/problems, when do the kids get access to their money, can they force Luann to sell the house/buy them out just so they get their cash? She would be better off placing 4 mil in a trust minus any money she already gave them for their living expenses that would have come from the trust anyway and buying a smaller/less expensive house in the Catskills. 

[film noire]

On 7/13/2018 at 11:17 AM, Diane Mars said:

BUT there's a way to do it and you have to laugh, at the end WITH the people you're laughing at, not at their expense, if that makes sense in English !

Oui ;) 

The Mamma Mia ad (and all the lovey talk between Lu and Victoria) is looking so fucking awkward now  ("Mamma Mia, here I go again! My my kids are suing me!") 

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by film noire

[Giselle]

30 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

I'm not sure when the kids were to get the trust money because the initial agreement allowed for Luann to put their entire trust money (4M) into a house, which is why they were to get 50% ownership. And, although RE prices can/normally do increase over time, it can be less than what one could make when the money is invested in the stock market and it can take longer. As someone pointed out, it may not have been legal to put a minor child's name on the deed, which would prevent Luann from putting Noel's name on it which means only Victoria's name could be added when she bought it, which would cause issues, different issues but still issues. Now that both kids are adults, she can add them to the deed or to a deed for a new house. But, that again opens up a new can of worms/problems, when do the kids get access to their money, can they force Luann to sell the house/buy them out just so they get their cash? She would be better off placing 4 mil in a trust minus any money she already gave them for their living expenses that would have come from the trust anyway and buying a smaller/less expensive house in the Catskills. 

True. I would think that while as minors they may not be directly on the deed, the trust that should have been created should have been named on the deed even if Lu acted as trustor and trustee, that would separate  the children's ownership from hers. Would it not  be similar to underage actors who buy homes where someone enters into the contract on their behalf.

It's all above my paygrade.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Giselle

[AnnA]

All this bruhaha could have been avoided if the Count had the lawyers transfer ownership of the Bridgehampton house to LuAnn and the trust instead of just to LuAnn.

[Giselle]

50 minutes ago, AnnA said:

All this bruhaha could have been avoided if the Count had the lawyers transfer ownership of the Bridgehampton house to LuAnn and the trust instead of just to LuAnn.

The kids could have still been and still be in a pickle if Lu was appointed as the trustee managing the trust. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Giselle
Added "could have still been"

[AnnA]

32 minutes ago, Giselle said:

The kids could have still been and still be in a pickle if Lu was appointed as the trustee managing the trust. 

Ugh!   That's true.    

I want to believe that a mother wouldn't rip off her own children but it's not looking good.  

[Mozelle]

5 hours ago, Giselle said:

No worries 'Zelle. I'm sorry, maybe I was a bit earnest in trying to post clearly.

X's and O's Mozelle!

 

Since this is LuAnn's thread, bisous on each cheek lol.

52 minutes ago, AnnA said:

Ugh!   That's true.    

I want to believe that a mother wouldn't rip off her own children but it's not looking good.  

I have a lot of thoughts about LuAnn. I think that she's condescending and pretentious and has the idea that the world revolves around her, but I don't think she'd maliciously harm her kids. What I do think she'd do is think that she would do whatever she wants and that everyone would just fall in line because, again, LuAnn acts as though she's the center of the universe.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Mozelle

[AnnA]

16 minutes ago, Mozelle said:

Since this is LuAnn's thread, bisous on each cheek lol.

I have a lot of thoughts about LuAnn. I think that she's condescending and pretentious and has the idea that the world revolves around her, but I don't think she'd maliciously harm her kids. What I do think she'd do is think that she would whatever she wants and that everyone would just fall in line because, again, LuAnn acts as though she's the center of the universe.

Maybe she figured the kids would inherit whatever she had anyway so it didn't matter if they had a trust owning half of her home or not.  She screwed up but so did the Count.  He should had made sure all this was settled when they signed the divorce papers.

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, WireWrap said:

Noel lives in the guest house t

Noel lives in a loft in the city. He is hardly ever at the Sav Harbor house.

[Taralightner]

The other thing is- I seriously doubt that this is the only money in a trust for the kids. The Count clearly has more than half a house to offer. It seems to me, he didn’t want to hand over straight cash to Lu, but agreed to give her HALF of his share of the house he bought. The other half he donated to the kids in another trust. LuAnn, maybe, played loose with the rules thinking she’d eventually put 4 mil in a trust for them, but didn’t do it BEFORE she married carelessly and now is selling another house and moving to a place where real estate won’t increase in value as fast as it does out east on the island. Just something I’ve been thinking about. Whatever is the truth, Lu- fix it fast! 

[AnnA]

4 minutes ago, Taralightner said:

 It seems to me, he didn’t want to hand over straight cash to Lu, but agreed to give her HALF of his share of the house he bought. The other half he donated to the kids in another trust.

I don't understand this part of your post.  I thought LuAnn got the whole house as part of the divorce settlement but had to give half of it to her children in a trust.

[WireWrap]

19 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Noel lives in a loft in the city. He is hardly ever at the Sav Harbor house.

He does? I know he lived in the guest house she built for him for a while, when did he move and how do he/Victoria pay for their rent, especially in NYC, neither have jobs beyond being "artist's" as far as I can find. I wonder if Luann and or the Count have been paying/helping to pay it for them and if it is Luann doing, she may think she is fulfilling her part of the trust agreement. LOL

[HunterHunted]

7 minutes ago, Mozelle said:

I have a lot of thoughts about LuAnn. I think that she's condescending and pretentious and has the idea that the world revolves around her, but I don't think she'd maliciously harm her kids. What I do think she'd do is think that she would whatever she wants and that everyone would just fall in line because, again, LuAnn acts as though she's the center of the universe.

I think Luann is cavalier and self-absorbed to her detriment. I think she just assumed it would be no harm no foul. I really think she thought she could continue to use the money as her own until Noel turned 30 and then she'd put it in the trust. I'm sure all of the questions the kids and Alex asked about the trust probably flew straight over her head. Like hint hint put the money in the trust. Don't brag about the new place you're going to buy. I don't think she did it maliciously, but being kind of selfish and oblivious got her into this mess. And as both her divorce from Alex and Tom demonstrates, Luann often can only be spurred into action when she's publicly humiliated. It took Alex showing up somewhere in public with his new girlfriend to get her to divorce. Same thing with Tom. Maybe Alex and the kids knew they had to embarrass her like this to get her to do the right thing. It's a shame.

[biakbiak]

3 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

He does?

Yep. I follow him in IG for some reason and he does Instastories of his apartment a lot because it’s also his art studio.

[WireWrap]

12 minutes ago, AnnA said:

I don't understand this part of your post.  I thought LuAnn got the whole house as part of the divorce settlement but had to give half of it to her children in a trust.

He gave the kids his half of the house and allowed Luann to keep the house, then sell it as long as when she sold it she either put both kids on the deed to the new house or put 4mil in a trust for them. It seems she didn't do either when she bought the new house. Why he didn't just give them his half right at the divorce is something I don't understand unless he know (and I think he did) that Luann would have to put money into it so it would sell. IMO, the trust value should be what the house/property was worth at the time of the divorce and not at the time she sold it after putting money into it to fix it up and/or maintain it. And, if the trust started then, it would also be responsible for 50% of maintaining it/renovating it for sale, same with co owing the Sag Harbor house.

4 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Yep. I follow him in IG for some reason and he does Instastories of his apartment a lot because it’s also his art studio.

Do you think he earns enough through his selling his work/art to pay rent on his apartment/studio on his own or do you think The Count/Luann pick up the slack because he doesn't have a regular job with a steady paycheck?

[Taralightner]

42 minutes ago, AnnA said:

I don't understand this part of your post.  I thought LuAnn got the whole house as part of the divorce settlement but had to give half of it to her children in a trust.

Because half was Alex’s, but he put in the divorce settlement that his half should go to the kids in a trust. Maybe it would have been cleaner for him to split the house 50-50 and then set up the trust for the kids himself, but the divorce essentially forced LuAnn to do it. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Taralightner
To try to be clearer

[AnnA]

8 minutes ago, Taralightner said:

Because half was Alex’s, but he put in the divorce settlement that his half should go to the kids in a trust. Maybe it would have been cleaner for him to split the house 50-50 and then set up the trust for the kids himself, but the divorce essentially forced LuAnn to do it. 

I know that but you phrased it differently in the other post.  The "half of his share" part threw me.

Maybe it couldn't be done at the time of the divorce beause the children were minors but I'm just guessing.

[WireWrap]

2 minutes ago, AnnA said:

I know that but you phrased it differently in the other post.  The "half of his share" part threw me.

Maybe it couldn't be done at the time of the divorce beause the children were minors but I'm just guessing.

I can see this happening, that she couldn't put part of the house in their names at the time of the divorce because of their ages. The when she buys the Sag Harbor house only Victoria is an adult which left Noel out, so she put it off, then thought she had a few more years to either put them on the deed or start the trust for them after he became an adult because they weren't to receive their trust until Noel turned 30 in Sept. 2026, so no rush. But with her selling the Sag Harbor house, the kids and the Count want her to set up the trust by either putting them on the SH house's deed before she sells (insuring them the funds for the trust) or just giving the cash funds for the trust minus any deed NOW. Again, any funds she gives them should be minus any living expense money/cash she gave them after they reached adulthood and a % of the cost of maintaining/renovating both houses for sale.

[breezy424]

Well, this is totally f'd up.  And I blame it on the count.

First question?  How do we know that Lu took a $3mil mortgage on the first house?  I admit I didn't read the lawsuit closely so maybe it's in there.  I also admit that I tried took look up the property records on the house in Sag Harbor.  Suffolk county property records are a pain in the neck.  You can only look up with lot and block, etc.  Now that is shown on the lawsuit but I couldn't get in.  The numbers from the lawsuit weren't working for me.  Getting access would have been a great help but I got no love.

This gets very complicated.  No, the kids don't get half the sale of the marriage house.  There's closing costs, etc.  Should Lu have set up a trust?  Yes.  And we have no idea about the proceeds from that house.  Did she spend it?  We don't know.  And apparently the count and the kids didn't question it.

So now Lu is selling the Sag Harbor house.  Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, she is planning to buy another home that costs more than half the value of the Sag Harbor house and the count and the kids' are calling foul and then there is this sudden discovery that a trust was never set up after the sale of the first Hampton house?

This gets very complicated because if the children are supposed to 'own' a home, they're also responsible for the cost of owning the home.  This would include property taxes, etc.  Yeah, Lu is writing off some of it on taxes but it's not offsetting all of it.  And....in the lawsuit, the kids are listing the Sag Harbor house as their address.   We also don't know how much Lu has been supplementing their income.   I doubt Victoria supports herself from her artwork and I don't know what Noel is doing.  Is he in college?

The ironic part is that Lu made a very good investment in the Sag Harbor house.  Will she get five mil?  Probably not.  But I do think the house is going to make a tidy profit.  And... do the improvements go against the trust that wasn't set up?  It's complicated.

In the end, so far, I can't say that Lu screwed her kids because we don't have her side of the story.  I do think it was a bad divorce agreement.  And apparently this all came out on the July 4th weekend (after Lu posted the picture with her ex).  We also don't know what support arrangement the count made for the kids.  As far as I know support ends when the kids turn eighteen.  I don't know what agreement was made after that or what agreement was made about college or after that.  I'm reserving judgement at this point.  Yes, Lu should have set up the trust but I just don't know the whole story.

[WireWrap]

37 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Well, this is totally f'd up.  And I blame it on the count.

First question?  How do we know that Lu took a $3mil mortgage on the first house?  I admit I didn't read the lawsuit closely so maybe it's in there.  I also admit that I tried took look up the property records on the house in Sag Harbor.  Suffolk county property records are a pain in the neck.  You can only look up with lot and block, etc.  Now that is shown on the lawsuit but I couldn't get in.  The numbers from the lawsuit weren't working for me.  Getting access would have been a great help but I got no love.

This gets very complicated.  No, the kids don't get half the sale of the marriage house.  There's closing costs, etc.  Should Lu have set up a trust?  Yes.  And we have no idea about the proceeds from that house.  Did she spend it?  We don't know.  And apparently the count and the kids didn't question it.

So now Lu is selling the Sag Harbor house.  Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, she is planning to buy another home that costs more than half the value of the Sag Harbor house and the count and the kids' are calling foul and then there is this sudden discovery that a trust was never set up after the sale of the first Hampton house?

This gets very complicated because if the children are supposed to 'own' a home, they're also responsible for the cost of owning the home.  This would include property taxes, etc.  Yeah, Lu is writing off some of it on taxes but it's not offsetting all of it.  And....in the lawsuit, the kids are listing the Sag Harbor house as their address.   We also don't know how much Lu has been supplementing their income.   I doubt Victoria supports herself from her artwork and I don't know what Noel is doing.  Is he in college?

The ironic part is that Lu made a very good investment in the Sag Harbor house.  Will she get five mil?  Probably not.  But I do think the house is going to make a tidy profit.  And... do the improvements go against the trust that wasn't set up?  It's complicated.

In the end, so far, I can't say that Lu screwed her kids because we don't have her side of the story.  I do think it was a bad divorce agreement.  And apparently this all came out on the July 4th weekend (after Lu posted the picture with her ex).  We also don't know what support arrangement the count made for the kids.  As far as I know support ends when the kids turn eighteen.  I don't know what agreement was made after that or what agreement was made about college or after that.  I'm reserving judgement at this point.  Yes, Lu should have set up the trust but I just don't know the whole story.

It was in one of the reports that she took out a 3 million dollar mortgage on the marital home after the divorce, which she paid off with the sale of that home. She also had to maintain that home and fix it up before she sold it as well as pay/help pay for Victoria's college. The cost of the Sag Harbor house was reported when she bought it, 1.3 million but she added a second story, master bedroom suit, guest house (for Noel to live in) and a general update to the rest of the house after she bought it (about 1 - 1 1/2 years after she bought it).

I agree that we need to hear her side of the story before we make any final decision that she is totally in the wrong. But, she needs to set the trust up as soon as possible to put an end to this before the damage becomes irreparable.

[Atwood]

4 hours ago, WireWrap said:

The cost of the Sag Harbor house was reported when she bought it, 1.3 million but she added a second story, master bedroom suit, guest house (for Noel to live in) and a general update to the rest of the house after she bought it (about 1 - 1 1/2 years after she bought it).

Just for the sake of clarity, the cost of the house was 3.1 million when she bought it in 2013. 

[Maharincess]

I'm surprised to see so many people feeling bad for Luann and defending her, I'm even seeing comments blaming her kids and/or her ex husband.  From what I'm getting, this is Luann putting her wants ahead of everyone else. As usual.  She basically violated an order she agreed to and screwed over her kids. Again.   I don't mean here in particular, I'm talking in general. I don't do social media but I peeked at the Housewives Facebook and people are shocked and blaming everyone but her. 

I for one (and I think the only one) am not the least bit surprised by this.   She always seemed like a distant, uninvolved mom. I'll never forget her son begging her to stay home for taco Tuesday and she just laughed him off.  Then he said she's always leaving and never home.  I don't know how long she was with them but I think Rosie did most of the raising of the kids.  

I've never liked her.  I've always thought she was a snooty, snobby bitch.  I'll never forget her telling Bethenny to introduce her to people like the driver as Mrs. Delesseps, "you know like you do a child".  And now she's playing her "been to prison" card for all the attention she can get.  She spoke about being in prison, during an argument she commented that people in jail behave better than the ladies.  She was never in jail  and the closest she's been to prison is watching Shawshank Redemption. She was in a drunk tank for a few hours, slept it off, saw a judge and was released.  She's milking it and exaggerating this for all its worth. 

Her cheating her kids doesn't surprise me at all. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Maharincess

[Mozelle]

3 hours ago, Maharincess said:

I'm surprised to see so many people feeling bad for Luann and defending her, I'm even seeing comments blaming her kids and/or her ex husband.  From what I'm getting, this is Luann putting her wants ahead of everyone else. As usual.  She basically violated an order she agreed to and screwed over her kids. Again.   I don't mean here in particular, I'm talking in general. I don't do social media but I peeked at the Housewives Facebook and people are shocked and blaming everyone but her. 

I for one (and I think the only one) am not the least bit surprised by this.   She always seemed like a distant, uninvolved mom. I'll never forget her son begging her to stay home for taco Tuesday and she just laughed him off.  Then he said she's always leaving and never home.  I don't know how long she was with them but I think Rosie did most of the raising of the kids.  

I've never liked her.  I've always thought she was a snooty, snobby bitch.  I'll never forget her telling Bethenny to introduce her to people like the driver as Mrs. Delesseps, "you know like you do a child".  And now she's playing her "been to prison" card for all the attention she can get.  She spoke about being in prison, during an argument she commented that people in jail behave better than the ladies.  She was never in jail  and the closest she's been to prison is watching Shawshank Redemption. She was in a drunk tank for a few hours, slept it off, saw a judge and was released.  She's killing it and exaggerating this for all its worth. 

her cheating her kids doesn't surprise me at all. 

You actually aren't the only one. I said something quite similar yesterday:

21 hours ago, Mozelle said:

I still don't have a handle on what's going on, but honestly that Victoria and Noel would also be plaintiffs doesn't truly surprise me. I think LuAnn has largely been hands off with her kids that they probably see her as the person who gave them half their DNA who sometimes is around to be "cool mom." Her major focus has always seemed to me to make sure that she has someone, anyone on her arm, so if this case and filing holds merit, and seeing how she jumped right in with Tom? Yikes. 

A couple others (myself included) have also noted that LuAnn is selfish and self-absorbed. LuAnn's focus is and will continue to be on herself and her male companion of the moment (as noted early in the season when LuAnn met up with Victoria and Victoria asked LuAnn if she wanted a hug. As they're hugging, LuAnn--same LuAnn who was just lamenting the break up of that short-lived marriage--remarks that she needs a boyfriend).

All that said, I don't think LuAnn set out to *intentionally* screw her kids. She likely just thought she'd do whatever the hell she wants with the home sales and proceeds, and that everyone would simply fall in line because she's LuAnn Nadeau DeLesseps, darling, formerly of Count Alexandre DeLesseps.

[Ellee]

Not reading all this really close but ....

 

Oh, LuLu .... your own kids????

 

I’ll come back to read details and try to stay objective.  My immediate thought though is ‘why would the kids be involved in a lawsuit against their mom if it wasn’t true’.   Yep ... staying objective is going to be extremely hard. 

 

ETA:  Please don’t be afraid to point out what I’m missing.  I would welcome that. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Ellee