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

[KungFuBunny]

1 minute ago, AnnA said:

That's not exactly right.  The trust was half interest in a house and not cash.    Since the 2nd house cost less than the first house there is some cash.   If she keeps the Sag Harbor house until 2026 and half of it is in a trust, the kids still do t have access to that money.m there has to be some provision for her buying them out.   What if she doesn't want to (or can't afford to) buy them out?   

I thought the stipulation was either half interest in the marital home OR a trust. They couldn't have half interest in the home - neither child was 18 - you can not legally own property until 18 in NY.

[AnnA]

3 minutes ago, KungFuBunny said:

I dunno. The Bridgehamptons home sold for 8M in 2014. Even if she put 4M in the bank for the kids - it would have grown with interest over 4 years.

If she can claim she invested the money and "lost" it - like on her music videos? Bwahahahaha

I think she was allowed to use the proceeds to buy a new house. 

[biakbiak]

29 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

Or a family psychologist. When she was selling out of the Hamptons and moving to the Catskills there was a lawsuit. She says she’s not selling and suddenly has reconciled with both her children.

She is reconciled with them but the lawsuit is still on they just gave her a month longer to respond.

[Higgins]

9 hours ago, AnnA said:

I think one needs to be an attorney and a CPA to understand the agreement.    I don't think LuAnn was required to set the trust up after the sale of the first house.  I believe she was allowed to use those proceeds to buy a new house, which she did.  She could then set the trust up for the kids giving them half of the new house.   I don't know how that  would work since the new house is worth much less than the marital home was.  There was also capital gains taxes on the proceeds of the first home not used to buy the second home.  If the trust was simply half ownership on the deed, there's no interest to calculate.  It's half ownership of a property not a bank account. 

Not necessarily.  There is an exemption to capital gains. 

[snarts]

The divorce decree stated that Luann could sell the original Hamptons property and use the proceeds to purchase another.  However, she was supposed to add the kids to the new deed, which she didn't.  Noel was underage at the time, but a trust could have been established for their share of the ownership.  If the kids were supposed to get a set amount of $, the decree would have stated that, instead it just said they would share half ownership of a Hamptons property. 

What I don't understand is why the Count didn't just establish that trust himself and transfer his share of ownership from the first house to it.  It would have significantly simplified the whole deal. The only thing that makes sense to me is he knew Luann couldn't afford to maintain the first house and they discussed her need to downsize (hence the clause allowing her to sell),  Where Luann dropped the ball, however, was in not adding the kids interest to the current house.  When she told them she was selling and moving to the Catskills, they freaked out.  The lawsuit was likely filed to stop the sale of that home, as Luann was supposedly fell of the wagon, required an intervention and return to rehab.  Once they're added to the deed, the lawsuit will be dropped, I'm sure.  I do wonder, long-term, how this will affect her relationship with the kids.  

Money doesn't buy you happiness either.

Edited August 25, 2018 by snarts

[KungFuBunny]

@jovanifashions must absolutely BURN Dorinda.

[bagger]

3 hours ago, KungFuBunny said:

@jovanifashions must absolutely BURN Dorinda.

Oh dorinda’s chapped drunk ass is sitting in the berzerkshires cussing up a storm that’s the countess dares to thank jovani directly.

[BodhiGurl]

I honestly can't stop laughing... turn sound up (hoping this link works)

 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by BodhiGurl
figured out how to embed the video ;)

[Taralightner]

On 8/24/2018 at 10:15 PM, Martinigirl said:

That won't add up to much. Can Luanne argue she was investing the trust money?

A Trust IS an investment vehicle. According to the divorce agreement, she wouldn’t have the authority to independently invest or manage that money. It clearly states that half of the House value was to be placed in a trust for the kids. The Count essentially gave his 50% of the House to the kids. 

[AnnA]

16 hours ago, Taralightner said:

A Trust IS an investment vehicle. According to the divorce agreement, she wouldn’t have the authority to independently invest or manage that money. It clearly states that half of the House value was to be placed in a trust for the kids. The Count essentially gave his 50% of the House to the kids. 

 It says half the house (not house value) was to be placed in a trust.    It also said she could use the net proceeds from the marital residence to purchase another home.   I couldn't find anything that stated she wouldn't have the authority to manage the trust.

 

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

"breached the Stipulation of Settlement (a) through her failure to create the Trust for the benefit of her two children, (b) through her failure to fund the Trust with an undivided one-half interest in and to the Marital Residence and (c) after her reinvestment of the net proceeds of the sale of the Marital Residence, through her failure to fund the Trust with an undivided one-half interest in the Premises."

Edited August 29, 2018 by AnnA

[Taralightner]

32 minutes ago, AnnA said:

 It says half the house (not house value) was to be placed in a trust.    It also said she could use the net proceeds from the marital residence to purchase another home.   I couldn't find anything that stated she wouldn't have the authority to manage the trust.

 

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

"breached the Stipulation of Settlement (a) through her failure to create the Trust for the benefit of her two children, (b) through her failure to fund the Trust with an undivided one-half interest in and to the Marital Residence and (c) after her reinvestment of the net proceeds of the sale of the Marital Residence, through her failure to fund the Trust with an undivided one-half interest in the Premises."

 

Of course it’s the value, not the house. You can’t put kitchen cabinets in a bank. The value is either determined by an appraisal or by the price that it is sold for. (Thus my usuage of the term value.) 

And, no, unless Lu is a licensed financial professional, she wouldn’t actually manage the investments. It’s not like she can be a day trader for his kids’ money- there is a reason that a trust fund is established. It’s a forced savings, investment vehicle. She might be on the list of people that allow kids to draw from it, but generally, there are 3rd party attorneys that do that. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Taralightner

[AnnA]

7 minutes ago, Taralightner said:

Of course it’s the value, not the house. You can’t put kitchen cabinets in a bank. The value is either determined by an appraisal or by the price that it is sold for. (Thus my usuage of the term value.) 

And, no, unless Lu is a licensed financial professional, she wouldn’t actually manage the investments. It’s not like she can be a day trader for his kids’ money- there is a reason that a trust fund is established. It’s a forced savings, investment vehicle. She might be on the list of people that allow kids to draw from it, but generally, there are 3rd party attorneys that do that. 

You're not understanding.  The deed to the house was to be in half in LuAnn's name and half in a trust for the children.   

There were no investments.  There was no cash money.  The trust owned half of the house.

[Taralightner]

2 minutes ago, AnnA said:

You're not understanding.  The deed to the house was to be in half in LuAnn's name and half in a trust for the children.   

There were no investments.  There was no cash money.  The trust owned half of the house.

Right. Until she sold it. THEN, half of the value was to be put in a trust fund for the two children. That’s why she didn’t buy another $8MM house. HALF was supposed to be in a fund. The fund wasn’t set up. The kids, at the time of divorce couldn’t have a deed in their name. This agreement was supposed to protect their share. Unless she has $3M-$4M lying around... earning interest, she didn’t uphold the agreement. 

[Natalie68]

On 8/19/2018 at 10:00 PM, Maharincess said:

I just need to add my opinion here.  There's more than one way to get and stay sober. I didn't go to AA and I never lived their principles or anything like it.  Just because a person isn't working steps or doing 90 in 90, doesn't mean they're not in recovery.  I dislike AA for a variety of reasons and have never once been to a meeting. I've been sober since 95. 

I'm not knocking anyone who gets sober through AA, I just wanted to point out that it's not the only way. 

Congratulations to everyone who is sober, if it's a year or 20 years, it's a big accomplishment to get and stay sober. 

CONGRATS!  That is a really long time!  

On 8/20/2018 at 5:25 AM, walnutqueen said:

Thank you for this.  There is no scientific evidence that AA and the 12 Steps work any better than all the other ways to get and stay sober.  In my opinion, it is an over-rated and antiquated system of beliefs based on a book written in 1939.  I could go on, but I'm bound to offend a lot of people (much like my views about religion), and I have no desire to start or engage in a debate about it.

Suffice to say, I think Luann's rehab and "recovery" is entirely situational, and I doubt she'll be identifying as an alcoholic in the long term.

I have a feeling we wouldn't get into much of a debate ;) nor would I be offended!

[Taralightner]

On 7/12/2018 at 9:22 PM, biakbiak said:

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.

@AnnA- here are all the original posts on this subject. There was a lawyer involved in our conversations during this time. 

[AnnA]

Just now, Taralightner said:

Right. Until she sold it. THEN, half of the value was to be put in a trust fund for the two children. That’s why she didn’t buy another $8MM house. HALF was supposed to be in a fund. The fund wasn’t set up. The kids, at the time of divorce couldn’t have a deed in their name. This agreement was supposed to protect their share. Unless she has $3M-$4M lying around... earning interest, she didn’t uphold the agreement. 

The kids couldn't have a deed in their name but it could be in the name of a trust.  The agreement allowed her to buy a second house before setting up a trust and set the trust up on the second house.  Yes, there should have been money left over from the first sale but it's not nearly 3 or 4 million.  She sold the house for 8 million and bought the Sag Harbor house for 3 million - leaving 5 million to split between herself and the trust.  That's 2.5 million each.   By the time you deduct real estate taxes, maintenance, capital gains and commission on the sale, that 2.5 should easily be down to 1.5.   I'm sure she can scrape that together and put the kids' trust on the deed of the Sag Harbor house.

[AnnA]

Don't misunderstand my point.  I do think she was a sleaze for not doing it.  It's just that it's not 5 million like some have said.

Edited August 29, 2018 by AnnA

[RHJunkie]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:37 AM, snarts said:

The divorce decree stated that Luann could sell the original Hamptons property and use the proceeds to purchase another.  However, she was supposed to add the kids to the new deed, which she didn't.  Noel was underage at the time, but a trust could have been established for their share of the ownership.  If the kids were supposed to get a set amount of $, the decree would have stated that, instead it just said they would share half ownership of a Hamptons property. 

What I don't understand is why the Count didn't just establish that trust himself and transfer his share of ownership from the first house to it.  It would have significantly simplified the whole deal. The only thing that makes sense to me is he knew Luann couldn't afford to maintain the first house and they discussed her need to downsize (hence the clause allowing her to sell),  Where Luann dropped the ball, however, was in not adding the kids interest to the current house.  When she told them she was selling and moving to the Catskills, they freaked out.  The lawsuit was likely filed to stop the sale of that home, as Luann was supposedly fell of the wagon, required an intervention and return to rehab.  Once they're added to the deed, the lawsuit will be dropped, I'm sure.  I do wonder, long-term, how this will affect her relationship with the kids.  

Money doesn't buy you happiness either.

I don't believe that the Count and the kids were unaware that a trust fund was not set up after the sale of the first house. And in believing that, I think there's a reason why they would pursue legal action now instead of when the house was originally sold and Lu failed to do what she was required to do. I'm sure her kids tried to reason with her, but given her impressive string of fucks up in the past couple of years, I'm inclined to think that her children pursued legal action as a last resort that was intended to preserve their home, not as an attempt to paint their mother as a thief.  The solution seems easy. Take the house off the market (which I read that she has since done) and add their names to the deed (which seems simple enough).

I don't recall where I had seen it, but there was home security footage of Victoria at Lu's house...Lu's dog was also pictured...I would say it was about a couple of weeks ago maybe. Given Lu's impressive string of fuck ups over the past couple of years, I would be willing to bet that her children are trying to be as supportive as they can regarding their mom's addiction but it's going to be up to Lu to realize that her decisions are what have hurt her (not her children's decisions) and she has to take full responsibility for the hurt that her decisions have caused her children. Repairing her relationship with her children will likely be in her court - I think these kids want their mom back.

[KungFuBunny]

14 minutes ago, RHJunkie said:

I don't believe that the Count and the kids were unaware that a trust fund was not set up after the sale of the first house. And in believing that, I think there's a reason why they would pursue legal action now instead of when the house was originally sold and Lu failed to do what she was required to do. I'm sure her kids tried to reason with her, but given her impressive string of fucks up in the past couple of years, I'm inclined to think that her children pursued legal action as a last resort that was intended to preserve their home, not as an attempt to paint their mother as a thief.  The solution seems easy. Take the house off the market (which I read that she has since done) and add their names to the deed (which seems simple enough).

I don't recall where I had seen it, but there was home security footage of Victoria at Lu's house...Lu's dog was also pictured...I would say it was about a couple of weeks ago maybe. Given Lu's impressive string of fuck ups over the past couple of years, I would be willing to bet that her children are trying to be as supportive as they can regarding their mom's addiction but it's going to be up to Lu to realize that her decisions are what have hurt her (not her children's decisions) and she has to take full responsibility for the hurt that her decisions have caused her children. Repairing her relationship with her children will likely be in her court - I think these kids want their mom back.

I think I agree with you.

I don't think the Count knew until recently that a trust was never set up for his kids. I think at the time of the divorce, he wasn't interested in the details - he just wanted the divorce done as quickly as possible so he could cavort with his Ethiopian Princess.

I don't think the kids ever knew about the divorce settlement details about a trust until recently.

Luann could have put 50% interest of the Bridgehampton house into Victoria's name when she turned 18 (2013) with a caveat to change it to split that 50% interest between herself and Noel when he turned 18. That house wasn't sold until 2014. I don't think she did it though, because they wouldn't be in litigation now.

My theory of what happened is: Noel and or Victoria went to daddy for money. He said I'm done, use the money from your trust. To which the kids said what trust?

I think they prevented the sale of the Sag Harbor house to freeze assets. Luann sold the marital home for 8M in 2014. The kids are owed 4M plus interest accrued if it were put in a trust minus 1/2 of the closing costs/ 1/2 brokerage fees. I don't think they are responsible for the 3M mortgage Luann took out on that house when The Count signed that house over it was free and clear.

[walnutqueen]

27 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

I have a feeling we wouldn't get into much of a debate ;) nor would I be offended!

While some might judge you for the Bad Company you keep, (i.e. Moi!), I find your views rather refreshing.  ;-)

It somehow chaps my wrinkled old ass when famous people, for instance, find an "out" for a slippery legal situation by pretending to embrace those AA "principles" and paying what I see as lip service to those tired old AA sayings. It's certainly not meant to detract from or in any way denigrate the genuine help some people experience while embracing the AA lifestyle.  I just wish that some acknowledgement would be made more often for the very valid alternatives to the AA way to sobriety.

In my opinion, it's NOT a "character flaw" requiring magical intercession from God or a "Higher Power".  It's a legit difference in brain chemistry.  In the words of Jesse Pinkman : "SCIENCE, BITCH!!!"

[/soapbox]

[smores]

In the original court papers for the lawsuit, it quotes from the divorce decree and it specifies that Luann was being given the marital home (the Bridgehampton house), free and clear.  It also said she was to, upon receipt of that title, add the children to the deed.  Of course, both of the kids were minors at the time, so they couldn't own property, which means she'd have to create a trust and put the house into the trust to hold it for them.  But, it was pretty clear that this was to be done upon getting the title to the home.  She didn't do that.  

It then also stipulated that she was free to sell this home and use the proceeds to purchase another home, but that the kid's/trust would need to be 50% owners of that future home.  And, that she was not able to mortgage more than 50% of the value.  Luann did, obviously sell that house, and she failed to put the anything into trust with the new purchase.  The other thing that was stipulated was that Luann was responsible for all maintenance costs, so, my guess is that the cost of the realtor and things like that would come out of her "half" of the proceeds.  But, either way, the title for the house should have been in a trust from the beginning (for the first, then the second), and, there should have been some cash in there from the sale of the first house, along with the deed for the second.  As it stands, there's no trust at all.  

The trust terminates when Noel is 30, but that doesn't give her until that date to do whatever she wants with the assets that should have been in there and then just dump them in at that time.  They should be in there the whole time, protected.  Look at it this way, if they were in the trust, then they're not wholly owned by Luann.  Say she had gone out driving instead of picking up some dude at a bar last Christmas and getting arrested.  What if she'd hit someone and badly injured them while drunk driving?  Her house would be fair game in a settlement, and then, boom, there goes the asset she was supposed to have protected for the kids.  Had it been in a trust, like it should have been, at least their portion would be protected.   

[film noire]

1 hour ago, smores said:

In the original court papers for the lawsuit, it quotes from the divorce decree and it specifies that Luann was being given the marital home (the Bridgehampton house), free and clear.  (snip only for space)

This is such a cohesive explanation - thank you, Smores.

And the plea deal for the Countess is in: "As a part of the deal, de Lesseps, 53, will avoid jail time....one-year probation, is required to perform 50 hours of community service; attend two AA meetings per week; not posses or consume alcohol or illegal drugs and attend a Victim Impact Class organized by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)." https://people.com/tv/judge-accepts-luann-de-lesseps-plea-deal/

So -- since last December -- the Countess has managed to avoid career-killing press, jail time -- and the reunion! -- not a bad getaway, Lightfingered Lu.

RE: Alcoholics Anonymous.  However people arrive at sobriety is clearly valid (secular, religious, in a group or on your own) and based on my father-in-law's experience,  I think AA can be a powerful place for certain people, a way to find connection and healing and health (and in a country full of "body brokers" and rehab scams, meetings being free counts for a lot, I think). That said, whatever the road chosen,  I can only stand and cheer anyone who is sober  -- for one day, or ten thousand days -- every last one of you is a hero for putting the bottle down.

Edited August 29, 2018 by film noire

[Taralightner]

3 hours ago, AnnA said:

  She sold the house for 8 million

It’s half of THAT that belongs to the kids. In the divorce, the Count and Lu split the house 50-50. He arranged for his children to get his half. That’s 4 million. She could do whatever she wanted with her half- purchased Sag for 3. 

The idea at the time was not to force her and the kids to move BECAUSE of the divorce. You can’t put a deed in a trust when the beneficiaries can’t legally have a deed.

Had she sold the marital home for a home of EQUAL value, then she would need legal documentation that HALF of that new (hypothetical, valued at the same of the original decree) house was owned by the kids combined at 50% of the sale of the marital property. The kids could have then forced her to buy them out when Noel reached 30.  

The kids received half of the value of the house in the divorce.  Alex gave his share to them.  

3 hours ago, AnnA said:

Don't misunderstand my point.  I do think she was a sleaze for not doing it.  It's just that it's not 5 million like some have said.

No, it’s 4M minus whatever came out of sale for fees, transfer tax etc 

[Taralightner]

On 8/20/2018 at 11:25 AM, AnnA said:

LuAnn is not innocent in the trust fund litigation.......far from it!    However, she did NOT steal 5 million nor did she try to steal another 3 million.  The Bridgehampton house sold for 8 million.  Deduct any outstanding mortgage, property taxes plus real estate broker commissions.   She bought the Sag Harbor house for 3 million so she had to pay capital gains taxes on the money NOT spent on the new house.   The kids share should have been about 2.5/3 million.   That said, technically she has until 2026 to pay it out since Noel can't collect it until then. 

The house was free and clear of mortgage at the time of the divorce. And, no, she doesn’t have until 2026 because investment interest is being lost since the time of the sale. 

Anna, she bought a 3 Million dollar house is because she didn’t have more than 4 from the sale. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Taralightner

[AnnA]

25 minutes ago, Taralightner said:

 

 

I work for local government with deeds and trusts all day long.   I know what I'm talking about but I'm not going to argue with you. 

Let's just agree to disagree. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by AnnA

[smores]

15 minutes ago, Taralightner said:

The idea at the time was not to force her and the kids to move BECAUSE of the divorce. You can’t put a deed in a trust when the beneficiaries can’t legally have a deed.

Had she sold the marital home for a home of EQUAL value, then she would need legal documentation that HALF of that new (hypothetical, valued at the same of the original decree)

I THINK (and I might be totally wrong), that you could hold a deed to a home in a trust for a minor child, because the child can't be on a deed.  I'm saying this because of research I've done based on looking into what would happen to property in the event of the death of a parent with minor children.  If you have kids and both parents die, you couldn't leave the house directly to the kids and transfer it right to them, the way you could if they were 50 when the parents die, so, the house would be put into a trust, which would then own it for the child.  The house could either stay in the trust later on and be sold from it, with the child being the beneficiary of the trust and getting the proceeds, or, at some later date (say, like this one, when the kid turns 30), the trust dissolves and the kid becomes the actual owner of the house on the title.  So, my understanding is that because the kids were both under 18, when the divorce was finalized and Luann got the full deed to the house, she was supposed to create a trust to own the portion for the kids.  

She couldn't sell that house for a new one of equal value, though, unless she had the assets to bring to the table to pay off the remainder of the cost of the new house.  Assuming no fees, for the sake of easy math, she sold the first house for $8M, the kids get $4M put aside and half ownership of the new house.  She was only able to mortgage 50% of the value of the original home, so, she was limited to a property of $4M or less, unless she had $4M liquid to bring to the transaction on her side.  

[AnnA]

8 minutes ago, smores said:

I THINK (and I might be totally wrong), that you could hold a deed to a home in a trust for a minor child, because the child can't be on a deed.  I'm saying this because of research I've done based on looking into what would happen to property in the event of the death of a parent with minor children.  If you have kids and both parents die, you couldn't leave the house directly to the kids and transfer it right to them, the way you could if they were 50 when the parents die, so, the house would be put into a trust, which would then own it for the child.  The house could either stay in the trust later on and be sold from it, with the child being the beneficiary of the trust and getting the proceeds, or, at some later date (say, like this one, when the kid turns 30), the trust dissolves and the kid becomes the actual owner of the house on the title.  So, my understanding is that because the kids were both under 18, when the divorce was finalized and Luann got the full deed to the house, she was supposed to create a trust to own the portion for the kids.  

She couldn't sell that house for a new one of equal value, though, unless she had the assets to bring to the table to pay off the remainder of the cost of the new house.  Assuming no fees, for the sake of easy math, she sold the first house for $8M, the kids get $4M put aside and half ownership of the new house.  She was only able to mortgage 50% of the value of the original home, so, she was limited to a property of $4M or less, unless she had $4M liquid to bring to the transaction on her side.  

You are correct about the trust owning half the home on behalf of minor children.

However, had LuAnn created and funded the trust with proceeds from the marital home in Bridgehampton and bought the Sag Harbor home with her share of those proceeds, she would not have to give the children half ownership of the new house.

[Taralightner]

25 minutes ago, smores said:

I THINK (and I might be totally wrong), that you could hold a deed to a home in a trust for a minor child, because the child can't be on a deed.  I'm saying this because of research I've done based on looking into what would happen to property in the event of the death of a parent with minor children.  If you have kids and both parents die, you couldn't leave the house directly to the kids and transfer it right to them, the way you could if they were 50 when the parents die, so, the house would be put into a trust, which would then own it for the child.  The house could either stay in the trust later on and be sold from it, with the child being the beneficiary of the trust and getting the proceeds, or, at some later date (say, like this one, when the kid turns 30), the trust dissolves and the kid becomes the actual owner of the house on the title.  So, my understanding is that because the kids were both under 18, when the divorce was finalized and Luann got the full deed to the house, she was supposed to create a trust to own the portion for the kids.  

She couldn't sell that house for a new one of equal value, though, unless she had the assets to bring to the table to pay off the remainder of the cost of the new house.  Assuming no fees, for the sake of easy math, she sold the first house for $8M, the kids get $4M put aside and half ownership of the new house.  She was only able to mortgage 50% of the value of the original home, so, she was limited to a property of $4M or less, unless she had $4M liquid to bring to the transaction on her side.  

Thank you 

[smores]

15 minutes ago, AnnA said:

You are correct about the trust owning half the home on behalf of minor children.

However, had LuAnn created and funded the trust with proceeds from the marital home in Bridgehampton and bought the Sag Harbor home with her share of those proceeds, she would not have to give the children half ownership of the new house.

The divorce decree that was quoted in the lawsuit was pretty specific about that.  It specifies that the children will be listed as owners on any subsequent homes in paragraph 27:

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rhony-luann-de-lesseps-sued-husband-breach-trust-divorce-alexandre-kids-docs-02.pdf

It does seem to say, on re-reading, though, that she could reinvest the entire proceeds of the sale, but, she could only mortgage half the home.  So, I guess she technically could have bought a more expensive property, but, she would only have been able to mortgage half the value of it.  In any event, it does also specify that Luann is the one responsible for all costs, so I wonder where realtor fees and that sort of thing fall?  Obviously that puts any sort of taxes and property improvements on "her" side of the equation, but, I wonder if it could be argued that she also would take the hit for the cost of selling.  

[AnnA]

5 minutes ago, smores said:

The divorce decree that was quoted in the lawsuit was pretty specific about that.  It specifies that the children will be listed as owners on any subsequent homes in paragraph 27:

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rhony-luann-de-lesseps-sued-husband-breach-trust-divorce-alexandre-kids-docs-02.pdf

 

Yes but that's only if she didn't split the 1st home (or proceeds) with them [which she didn't do].   She only has to do it once.   She doesn't have to give half ownership to her kids for every house she ever buys

[smores]

3 minutes ago, AnnA said:

Yes but that's only if she didn't split the 1st home (or proceeds) with them [which she didn't do].   She only has to do it once.   She doesn't have to give half ownership to her kids for every house she ever buys

Yes, she does, up until the date of the termination of the trust.  She has to maintain their interest in the asset.  It specifically says " . . . provided that the children shall continue to be the ownders, in Trust, of an undivided one-half interest in said property . . ."

[walnutqueen]

OK, y'all - this is SO random and so funny (to me).

I was shooting the shit with my physical therapist today as he was working his magic on the knots in my neck, and he mentioned some Halloween costume contest his PT facility competes in every year, against other Physical Therapists (who knew?!).  He said they won 2nd place last year with their Pirates of the Caribbean theme, and that I should check out their picture on my way out.  I did, and there he was, front and center, looking EXACTLY like LuAnn's pirate!  I think I may have squealed just a little, and blurted out "If you tell me you also fucked a New York housewife dressed up like that, I will DIE right here!".  He didn't get it, but I just knew you guys would.  :-D

Now back to your regularly scheduled Trust Law programming ...

[AnnA]

5 minutes ago, smores said:

Yes, she does, up until the date of the termination of the trust.  She has to maintain their interest in the asset.  It specifically says " . . . provided that the children shall continue to be the ownders, in Trust, of an undivided one-half interest in said property . . ."

No she only has to do it once.   The kids get half of the marital home or its proceeds - not half of any home LuAnn ever buys in her lifetime.    If she put half the proceeds from the Bridgehampton house in a trust when she sold it, she'd be done with this.  Let's say it was the 4 million she put in a trust.   That's it,  she would have been done, done, done.

[KungFuBunny]

40 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

OK, y'all - this is SO random and so funny (to me).

I was shooting the shit with my physical therapist today as he was working his magic on the knots in my neck, and he mentioned some Halloween costume contest his PT facility competes in every year, against other Physical Therapists (who knew?!).  He said they won 2nd place last year with their Pirates of the Caribbean theme, and that I should check out their picture on my way out.  I did, and there he was, front and center, looking EXACTLY like LuAnn's pirate!  I think I may have squealed just a little, and blurted out "If you tell me you also fucked a New York housewife dressed up like that, I will DIE right here!".  He didn't get it, but I just knew you guys would.  :-D

Now back to your regularly scheduled Trust Law programming ...

How hilarious would it have been if 2 of the women were dressed as Luann AND Sonya?

IIRC they both had fun with the Pirate's Plank

[walnutqueen]

1 minute ago, KungFuBunny said:

How hilarious would it have been if 2 of the women were dressed as Luann AND Sonya?

IIRC they both had fun with the Pirate's Plank

If that had been the case, I surely would've had a stroke right then & there!!!  And sadly, only my fellow PTVers would have any idea how this could happen.  :-)

[CharlizeCat]

I just watched the episodes with the "pirate" and I didn't get what all the lust was about. I thought that guy was average at best and all kinds of skeevy.  Also, I thought that when he was first introduced to the group that Sonja said he was married to her friend who owned the nightclub, then Sonja f's as well.  Anyway, not to detract from the thread at hand.

Congrats to everybody who've made the sober journey! I am going on 4 1/2 years myself. It doesn't matter how you got there, it's staying there that matters!  Bottoms up with my N/A. Australian ginger beer/lemonade faux shandy!

The trust details are too mind-boggling and I left having to hear about financial issues on a daily basis happily behind me several years ago when I changed careers.  Not to piracy, toaster ovens, cabaret acts or anti-skincare!

[hoodooznoodooz]

On 8/29/2018 at 8:00 PM, CharlizeCat said:

I just watched the episodes with the "pirate" and I didn't get what all the lust was about. I thought that guy was average at best and all kinds of skeevy.  Also, I thought that when he was first introduced to the group that Sonja said he was married to her friend who owned the nightclub, then Sonja f's as well.  Anyway, not to detract from the thread at hand.

Congrats to everybody who've made the sober journey! I am going on 4 1/2 years myself. It doesn't matter how you got there, it's staying there that matters!  Bottoms up with my N/A. Australian ginger beer/lemonade faux shandy!

The trust details are too mind-boggling and I left having to hear about financial issues on a daily basis happily behind me several years ago when I changed careers.  Not to piracy, toaster ovens, cabaret acts or anti-skincare!

I think Lu REALLY liked the fact that Tomas resembled Johnny Depp a great deal- - at least when dressed as the Pirate of the Caribbean. 

[Duke2801]

On 8/29/2018 at 8:00 PM, CharlizeCat said:

I just watched the episodes with the "pirate" and I didn't get what all the lust was about. I thought that guy was average at best and all kinds of skeevy.  

 

9 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I think Lu REALLY liked the fact that Tomas resembled Johnny Depp a great deal- - at least when dressed as the Pirate of the Caribbean. 

Agreed, hoodooznoodooz. Also never underestimate the power or beer goggles. Or, in Lu’s situation: winetequilavodka glasses. 

I’ll admit I thought Thomas was hot the first time I saw the episode. But upon subsequent viewing I agree that his whole vibe is one of skeeze. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Duke2801

[bagger]

2 hours ago, Duke2801 said:

 

Agreed, hoodooznoodooz. Also never underestimate the power or beer googles. Or, in Lu’s situation: winetequilavodka glasses. 

I’ll admit I thought Thomas was hot the first time I saw the episode. But upon subsequent viewing I agree that his whole vibe is one of skeeze. 

Let’s not forget that these are the same women that slept with harry and tom.

[hoodooznoodooz]

8 hours ago, Duke2801 said:

Agreed, hoodooznoodooz. Also never underestimate the power or beer goggles. Or, in Lu’s situation: winetequilavodka glasses. 

I’ll admit I thought Thomas was hot the first time I saw the episode. But upon subsequent viewing I agree that his whole vibe is one of skeeze. 

 

5 hours ago, bagger said:

Let’s not forget that these are the same women that slept with harry and tom.

You guys are making me laugh!  Sometimes I cringe when I remember some of the losers I was “with” in my twenties. But I kind of had an excuse: I was an idiot twenty-something. These women? Not so much.  

[KungFuBunny]

Love all the hashtags

Dorinda must be going out of her mind

[gingerella]

I’m watching WWHL with LuAnn and I cannot believe that Wonky Eyed Andy went ahead and did a shotski with her there. “Lu, you’re sitting this one out”...This guy can’t forgo one shotski when he has a guest in recent recovery?!? What the fuck is wrong with this guy? He has literally zero self awareness. What a schmuck.

[Sew Sumi]

They've put juice in the shotski for other sober guests. Maybe Lu just refused to be part of a drinking ritual?

[Rosiejuliemom]

7 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

They've put juice in the shotski for other sober guests. Maybe Lu just refused to be part of a drinking ritual?

If she did refuse, good for her!

I'm honestly rooting for her.

[FairyDusted]

I had to crack up at Lu stating she went to Rehab under her own recognizance. LOL! She just should have said she went on her own or better yet to look better at her hearing. Oh and that pesky reunion . Instead she left us listening to B and C scream and rant for 3 hours. Thanks Lu! 

I'm glad she is sober. I don't care about why.....as much;)

[Sunfield]

On 2018-08-25 at 8:28 PM, BodhiGurl said:

I honestly can't stop laughing... turn sound up (hoping this link works)

 

 

Wow... Luann’s voice is so high! And blonde hair! But it’s her voice that’s a surprise. 

Love the Jovani 

[Rosiejuliemom]

Lu looks way better as a brunette.

[Alonzo Mosely FBI]

I’m sorry but I just watched WWHL and Lu is in more denial than EVER. 

She said she went to rehab after her arrest of her own decision and Dorinda was full of shit it wasn’t court ordered. Ummm Dorinda said it was PRACTICALLY court ordered which is the truth! 

Then she described the lawsuit re the kids interest in the Hamptons home as a “hiccup”. The hiccup was that she wanted a home upstate not in the Hamptons. She “decided” to keep the Hamptons home and she is getting a house upstate with a defiant shake of the head “IN ANY CASE.” Umm the hiccup wasn’t where you want to live it was that you didn’t set up the mandated trust from a court order ! Does she think we are so stupid that we don’t see that she was forced to keep the Hamptons house AND to set up the court ordered trust ? She didn’t decide to keep it she had to, to avoid a shit ton of consequences . Hmmm kind of like go to rehab in December voluntarily or face a shit ton of consequences.

Does she think we don’t see ??????????????????? She’s the only one who doesn’t see ! 

She is as pompous and tone deaf as ever and maybe more, this is scary . Drinking isn’t her problem, drinking is only a symptom of her issues. Keep diggin Lu! You are NOT there yet and fooling no one but yourself. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Alonzo Mosely FBI

[hoodooznoodooz]

10 hours ago, Sunfield said:

Wow... Luann’s voice is so high! And blonde hair! But it’s her voice that’s a surprise. 

Love the Jovani 

Wow! Yeah, her voice IS so high! Maybe it really was all the cigarettes that deepened her voice. (I’m looking at you, Patty and Selma Simpson.)

[chewycandy]

What is she wearing? Lol