Celebrities & the Law
Commentary without the usual nonsense. Jill is a founder of one of the nation’s most respected trial law firms, a law professor, and a former prosecutor.
Basic Asset Protection: FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS
As an asset protection attorney, Memphis, TN trusts, we can help guide you in how to best protect the personal assets you and your family have worked so hard for. In this post, we will share with you one strategy you can use in asset protection planning: The Family Limited Partnership.
An Alternative to the Limited Liability Company
The Family Limited Partnership is an alternative to the Limited Liability Company. However, when structuring a Family Limited Partnership, multiple entities are used to obtain similar benefits afforded to Limited Liability Companies. This makes the administration of a Family Limited Partnership-centered plan more difficult than the administration of a LLC-centered plan.
But, the Family Limited Partnership’s benefits include asset protection planning and valuation discounts for estate and gift tax purposes. The use of a Family Limited Partnership is an effective, ethical and legal way to minimize the disruption from attacks on your family wealth and to reduce the risks of being completely depleted by a lawsuit.
Protection Against Judgment Creditors
By using a Family Limited Partnership in a properly designed estate plan, you may be able to place a significant portion of your assets beyond the reach of judgment creditors, while still retaining complete control over those protected assets. A Family Limited Partnership is able to deflect judgment creditors away from the assets of the partnership. Under current state laws, creditors are only able to obtain a “charging order” against the partnership interest of the debtor partner, but cannot take the assets of the partnership to satisfy the personal debt of the partner.
Control Versus Ownership and Income
The Family Limited Partnership allows a family member to exercise complete control over a business or investment activity while passing the ownership and income to other family members. This entity form supports and encourages the retention of control of special family assets, such as businesses, investments, farms and other real estate, and inherited property.
Valuation Discounts for Tax Purposes
The Family Limited Partnership in many cases provides gift and estate tax reductions of the partnership interests based on valuation discounts applicable to their partnership interests. The value of the partnership interest after applying valuation discounts is the amount that is subject to gift and estate taxes, not the value of the assets that are owned by the Family Limited Partnership.
If you need help with asset protection planning, contact the trusted attorney today.
Thanks to our friends and contributors at Patterson Bray who have significant experience in business formation and organization.
Tupac and the Truth: Journalist Sues Lions Gat for Copyright Infringement
PROOF readers you likely know by now, I love intellectual property cases and this one about the new Tupac movie is topping my charts (Bad pun. I’m a sucker for them and until you all complain, I’m not sure I’ll be able to stop making them). Here’s what’s going on and it’s really quite interesting from both a storytelling and a legal perspective.
In a recently filed lawsuit, journalist Kevin Powell claims that portions of the Tupac Shakur biopic, All Eyez On Me, were directly inspired by several cover stories Powell penned for VIBE magazine prior to the rapper’s death. Powell is suing the writers and producers of the movie, including Lions Gate Films, for copyright infringement. He said the following in a statement posted on his Facebook page, “After viewing the movie twice in the past few days, it is clear that my exclusive Vibe cover stories on Tupac Shakur (when he was alive), were lifted, without proper credit or compensation of any kind to me, and used in ALL EYEZ ON ME.”
The film purports to be a biopic telling the story of a real man’s life, so if you’re wondering how Powell can claim copyright infringement to a story that’s not his in the first place, this is where things get interesting. One of the central claims in the recently filed lawsuit is that Powell recognized a central character from his own articles, a character that he fabricated. Yes, made up! “The name and character of ‘Nigel’ in the Original Work was specifically created by the Plaintiff without the authority or encouragement of Tupac Shakur,“ says Powell’s lawyer, Keith White. “This made-up character was copied and pasted into Defendant’s film to play the same central character and role in the Infringing Work as he did in the Original Work.” (FYI: the infringing work is All Eyez on Me and the original work are Powell’s articles).
According to White, Nigel was an “embellishment” of a real person, Jacques “Haitian Jack” Agnant, a music executive said to be influential in Tupac’s life. In his articles, Powell referred to the exec only by Nigel, the fictitious name. To be clear: no person in Tupac’s life was named Nigel! Perhaps because Powell referred to Nigel in interviews that the name Haitian Jack (the real person) and Nigel (the made up person) became conflated in popular culture before this film was made and released. However, if that’s the case, then Lions Gate should have made this connection very clear or called the character by his proper name, Haitian Jack, or even better should have asked Powell for the authority to use the name Nigel and discussed appropriate compensation and/or recognition for that use. Interesting that in a recent interview with actor Cory Hardrict, who plays Nigel in All Eyez On Me, he refers to his character as Haitian Jack but on IMDB Cory is listed as playing the character of Nigel. There’s not a mention of anyone named Jacques Agnant or Haitian Jack anywhere on the entire IMDB cast list for the movie. PROOF is curious to know how they referred to Cory’s character on set or in the script or when the actors was discussing the character with the director.
It is kind of a bummer for Powell to have to admit to this Nigel embellishment as some might consider that a lapse in journalistic integrity but the lawsuit cites several additional claims of infringement including, but not limited to, that in the film there is a focus on the ongoing relationship between Tupac and a journalist, (Apparently, no other project about Tupac has this as a featured relationship.) and also that the film concentrates on a sequence of arrests between 1991 and 1993 and that the pacing and coverage of these arrests is exactly like that of Powell’s. To the full complaint and all of the allegations, click here.
We do know that the filmmakers were well aware of Powell’s articles (this is kind of a given in that anyone doing even cursory research of Tupac’s life would have come across Powell’s Vibe articles; they were very widely read) as the lawsuit references an interview by one of the film’s producers, LT Hutton, in which Hutton admits that “all of the interviews” that Tupac gave were used to inform the film.This statement is pretty telling in that it confirms that Powell’s work was referenced for the film. To what degree they were referenced and whether that rises to the level of infringement is what a jury is going to have to decide.
Powell seeks compensation from the film’s box office sales, requests that the film be pulled from movie theaters (Specifically, he wants the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent further broadcast of the film) and wants defendants to destroy all copies of the movie, among other things.
Note that despite poor reviews and complaints voiced by Jada Pinkett Smith (via Twitter) and 50 Cent (via Instagram) about various aspects of the film, All Eyez on Me brought in $27 million during its first weekend in national theaters. One thing about this complex intellectual property case is clear however: Powell’s claims are not small ones and the matter is not going to go away quietly. That’s just not the kind of person Kevin Powell is.
A Small Victory for Mischa Barton in Revenge Porn Case
Victory for Mischa Barton who has received a restraining order against two ex boyfriends, Jon Zacharias and Adam Shaw, two lovely fellows who not only filmed her without her consent or knowledge but also have been shopping around a sex tape of her without her consent or knowledge. The 31-year-old alleges that the tapes were made with hidden cameras.
The court has ordered her ex boyfriends to stay an undisclosed distance away from her and not contact her. The order also stops anyone who is considering trafficking the video.
It has been a rough couple of weeks for the former “O.C.” star. She was recently hospitalized for a mental evaluation and now this “revenge porn” situation.
In an emotional press conference, Barton’s lawyer, Lisa Bloom (daughter of PROOF favorite and famed civil rights lawyer, Gloria Allred), stated that YouPorn, RedTube and Porn.com were all considering making offers on the video which features the actress in sexually explicit situations with a man she briefly dated. The tapes have been shopped around for an asking price of $500,000.
Bloom emphasized a specific portion of the court’s ruling: This individual and his agents may not sell, distribute, give away, or show any naked pictures or video of any type of Mischa Barton. The orders are very clear about what happens to violators, whether those are agents shopping the images or the men who took them– failure to obey the court order can result in jail or prison.
We at PROOF are especially inspired by Bloom’s creative and intelligent argument that because Mischa dated the man, release of the tapes is a form of domestic abuse and Mischa is therefore protected by California’s domestic violence laws.
Barton also spoke at the press conference, saying, “This is a painful situation and my absolute worst fear was realised when I learned that someone I loved and trusted was filming my most intimate and private moments, without my consent with hidden cameras.”
We applaud Mischa, Lisa Bloom and the court for taking this situation seriously. And, we know we say this all the time here on PROOF about being a celebrity but really think about Mischa’s words at that press conference and then imagine that someone you loved and trusted betrayed you, used you in this way. Surely fame is not worth that. Stay healthy and keep fighting, Mischa. We, like your lawyer and the court, are on your side!
Seeking more celebrity news? Check out other PROOF articles. We cover celebrity news like no one else!
Celebrity Makeup Lines: Everyone’s Getting Sued
Some of the most successful celebrity makeup lines are being hit hard with lawsuits – and big dollar ones at that. Let’s hope these celebrities have been wearing their waterproof mascara! Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian are facing a $180 million lawsuit regarding an alleged breach of contract over their Kardashian Beauty line. Hillair Capital Management is suing the Kardashian women for failing to promote the line. Hillair came to the rescue of Kardashian Beauty in July 2014 when the former distributor, Boldface, was experience financial struggles. Hillair agreed to (heavily) fund Kardashian Beauty as long as the Kardashian sisters actively promoted the products via social media.
We all know these famous sisters run the social media world – Kim herself can reach nearly 80 million Instagram followers or nearly 50 million Twitter followers with a single post. But the number of promotional Kardashian Beauty posts, on the other hand, isn’t looking so hot. Hillair claims that the sisters not only failed on social media, but also failed to stand by their products and even spoke out against the line in an attempt to abandon Hillair and secure more money with different investors. And, in a very related matter, the Kardashians filed their own lawsuit against another cosmetic company, Haven Beauty, claiming that the company unjustly used the Kardashian name to promote and sell beauty products. So many products; so many problems.
The uber talented Katy Perry recently launched a beauty line in collaboration with CoverGirl. Hard Candy, a rival cosmetic company is shouting, “copycat” with regard to Perry’s logo on that CoverGirl packaging and has filed a lawsuit claiming that the small heart that appears on Perry’s products is the same one that Hard Candy has been using on their lipstick. Hard Candy wants Perry’s products to be banned from sale and also demands a share of the profits that have already been made. The matter is nowhere near resolving so PROOF will await the legal fireworks from the sidelines and keep you posted.
It Looks Like the Scarlett Johansson and Romain Dauriac Divorce Will Be a Messy One
We are HUGE Scarlett Johansson fans here are PROOF so we are sad that is has been confirmed that her marriage is over. And sadder still that things look like they might get pretty messy.
Scarlett Johansson filed for divorce from her husband, Romain Dauriac, a French journalist- turned-popcorn seller (Just a few months ago he and Johansson opened Yummy Pop, a gourmet popcorn shop in Paris.) on March 7, 2017 after only two years of marriage. In January we had heard rumblings that the couple had broken up but all seemed quiet there for a while. Johansson, no dummy, thankfully did have a prenup with Dauriac so the majority of the financial issues are resolved. The biggest issue in the breakup is going to be over custody of their 2-year-old daughter, Rose Dorothy. Johansson has asked for primary physical custody. According to his lawyer, Dauriac is going to fight that.
Both Dauriac and Johansson are known to be private people. And, we remain impressed with ScarJo as one day after filing the divorce papers, she released a statement saying that in the future she will not be discussing her divorce. “As a devoted mother and private person and with complete awareness that my daughter will one day be old enough to read the news about herself, I would only like to say that I will never, ever be commenting on the dissolution of my marriage,” she stated. “Out of respect for my desires as a parent and out of respect for all working moms, it is with kindness that I ask other parties involved and the media to do the same. Thank you.” Scarlett, we hear you and we will respect your privacy and only report on facts as we know them and are substantiated.
But Johansson isn’t the only one releasing statements, Dauriac released one of his own that same day. He is not pleased that Scarlett filed papers with the court (FYI PROOF readers–a couple can’t get a divorce in the US without ultimately filing legal papers with the court. Yes, custody and other matters can be worked out without court involvement but only a court can issue a dissolution of marriage.) In fact, Dauriac asked Johansson to withdraw them in order to protect their daughter. The Frenchman said in his statement: “It is indeed unfortunate, especially for our daughter, that Scarlett filed in Court and made our personal differences so public. I would implore her to withdraw her action promptly and go back, as uncomfortable as it might be, to the negotiating table. We are the parents of a lovely daughter whom we will continue to co-parent for many years and share her joys and sorrows as only a parent can.”
What is particularly worrisome in this situation and has us thinking of poor Kelly Rutherford is that Dauriac’s lawyer has said that his client plans to petition the court to allow him and his daughter to move to France. Apparently, Johansson and Dauriac were in the middle of
private negotiations when she filed papers but it’s obvious that those discussions were not going quite how Johansson hoped and she wanted official court involvement. Depending on how broken those negotiations had become, we agree with this decision by Johansson and her team. Too much at stake here to play nice for too long.
We really hope that Johansson and Dauriac can come to an amicable solution regarding custody of Rose and that things don’t go the way of Kelly Rutherford, as we mentioned above. Most of us know how that hellish multi-year, international custody battle ended: Rutherford losing custody of her two children to her Monaco-based ex, Daniel Giersch as well as causing her to go bankrupt. If Johannson and Dauriac can keep the best interest of Rose in mind at all times as the case progresses, there is a lot to gain, as top divorce lawyer, Brandy Austin, makes clear: “Having represented numerous clients in divorce proceedings, I can attest to the emotional impact a custody dispute has on a child. Although there are multiple interests involved, the child’s best interest is of utmost importance. A parent who puts the child’s interest before their own can often avoid a contentious battle in court and win the favor of the judge or jury.”
We do appreciate this couple’s desire to keep things private, much like Brad and Angelina’s recent decision regarding their divorce (of course this was only after issues regarding custody and care of their children became VERY public) but we can’t say we think this is going to be an easy one. This custody matter seems primed to become an all out custody battle. Hopefully, the result will be the one that is in the best interest of young Rose Dorothy. We’re rooting for you little one.
Discussing celebrity news is what we enjoy most at PROOF. Please visit the rest of our site for more of our one of a kind take on celebrity news.
Manis, Minis and Mistakes: What Celebs Need to Know About Courtroom Attire
Whether it’s a drunk driving charge, shoplifting, a custody battle, or something else, celebs are in court all the time. Some get the right advice (and actually follow it!) and show up to court as if he/she were an eager college grad going on his/her first job interview; others not so much. You probably know whom I am talking about. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears are the sure-fire “winners” here. Rather than face their legal troubles with grace and respect, these celebs have made some pretty poor choices and sadly made a bit of a mockery of our system.
To be fair, not all of Lindsay’s courtroom attire choices have been bad. She has actually looked pretty appropriate a few times. Let’s face it though, she has had more opportunities than most to do the right thing. And, the bulk of her choices? Not good. If were her lawyer, I would have stashed an LBD in my briefcase, dragged her into the ladies room and made her change each and every time she showed up looking like she was ready for a night of LA clubbing rather than a day in court. The following are the choices that bother me the most. First, without a doubt, that white, skin-hugging Kimberly Ovitz mini dress. Nothing says responsible law-abiding adult like a hot party dress, right? Next, would have to be that “colorful” manicure with the obscene message on her middle finger. Was the F*** U meant for the judge, the system as a whole, or for someone else? Either way, completely inappropriate. If she had just kept her hands below counsel table, she would have been fine, It’s not as if she has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or anything! And those oh so close looks. The gray pants suit. Classy until Lindsay decided not to button her blouse. That nice beige blazer? Just fine but not when completed with short shorts and booties. Ugh. I’m getting annoyed just thinking about this because they are all such easy fixes and sometimes you just gotta follow the rules. You don’t have to like them, Lindsay, you just have to follow them, especially when there’s something in it for you.
Britney. Oh, Britney. Gosh, there was just so much going on for her personally during the time she was seemingly in and out of court that I can almost excuse some of her choices. But only just almost. That black backless dress for one hearing and lacy, white frock for another? No. I think Britney wants to do the right thing, show respect for the system, as evidenced by some of her better choices but she just doesn’t have the right people telling her what to do in ways that make her want to listen to them. Again, if her lawyers could have been one step ahead of her and brought her something respectable to wear, I am sure she would have worn it. Britney has really cleaned up her life up since those days of the shaved head and umbrella rage. She’s a good girl so I don’t think we’ll be seeing her in court too often anymore, but if we do, I bet she’ll look just fine. Stay classy, Brit.
Trump Got Sued on His First Monday on the Job!
Donald Trump is no stranger to the justice system. He has filed lawsuits and has been sued many, many times. In fact, a USA Today analysis found 3,500 legal actions by and against Trump. 3,500!!! It’s almost unbelievable, isn’t it? Well, we can add one more to the list because on the first Monday of his new job, President Trump was slapped with a lawsuit (He was also sued last week by a former Apprentice contestant).
On January 23, 2017, leading ethics experts filed a massive lawsuit against Trump alleging that his business relationships with foreign powers and foreign players violates the Constitution, specifically they allege that his actions violate the little known emoluments clause. As with any constitutional claim the legal issues are complex but, simply stated, the emoluments clause prohibits federal officials from receiving financial benefits from foreign governments. President Trump’s companies have multimillion-dollar real estate deals with foreign powers and it is those dealings, among others, the suit claims, that violate the emoluments clause. Two easy to understand examples are that The Bank of China, one of the five biggest state owned commercial banks in China, is a tenant of Trump Tower and is also as a lender in another building in New York City in which Trump has a significant partnership interest.
Trump has been fighting the conflicts issue for months as it was continually raised during the campaign. In response to such complaints, Trump said that although he would not sell his ownership in his company, The Trump Organization, he would hand over control of it to his two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric. He also promised that his company would not make any more deals abroad and would donate profits from foreign governments that stay in his hotels to the U.S. Treasury (Hmmm. Let’s see if that happens!). Naturally, Trump’s camp has praised his actions to limit his conflicts. In fact one of his lawyers, called his efforts to do so, “extraordinary.” But that’s what his side is saying. Esteemed and widely regarded government ethics lawyers and experts say Trump’s steps to remove conflicts of interest are not enough and that is why this lawsuit was filed today.
The truth is that no other president has had such wide and deep foreign business dealings. The Trump Organization, has stakes in real estate holdings in 20 countries, including Turkey and South Korea. And, Trump has not lived a life of public service, his life, to date, has been about him, about how to amass wealth and how to serve his own interests. With this history in conjunction with the breadth of his foreign business dealings in a company he still owns, it’s hardly surprising that people are worried that Trump will put his personal financial interests above those of the people of the United States.
The pedigrees of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are impressive and include attorney Norman Eisen, an ethics adviser to Barack Obama, Richard Painter, a former George W. Bush adviser, and Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence H. Tribe, among others. But despite the background and experience of these scholars and attorneys, this is no open and shut case—at any level. In fact, whether the plaintiffs even have standing (the right to sue) and whether or not the emoluments clause even applies to the office of the president, and more specifically, to Trump’s actions, has already been raised.
Two things we do know for sure? This case is going be heavily litigated by both sides and that list of 3500 Trump lawsuits is going to continue to grow to over the next four years.
If you want more details about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v Donald J. Trump, click here for a copy of the complaint filed on January 23, 2017 in federal court in New York.
Aaron Hernandez Tattoos Admissable in Double Murder Trial
Aaron Hernandez had it all—a $41M contract with the New England Patriots, a beautiful fiancée, a new baby girl, and a large home in Massachusetts. All that came to a crashing end when in June 2013 he was charged with first degree murder of Odin Lloyd, the boyfriend of his fiancée’s sister. Things got worse from there. In 2014 he was indicted for the 2012 murders of Daniel Jorge Correia de Abreu and Safiro Teixeira Furtado. In 2015, he was convicted of the murder of Lloyd and sentenced to life in prison; he was indicted that same year for witness intimidation of Alexander Bradley, Hernandez’ “friend” who was with him the night of the double murder of Abreu and Furtado and allegedly saw what occurred. (This wasn’t just any ole’ witness intimidation. Hernandez is accused of shooting Bradley in an effort to silence him about what he saw that night). The witness intimidation matter is on hold but Hernandez is set to stand trial in 2017 for the double murders. Talk about a fall from grace. Stores today can hardly give away a #81 Patriot jersey.
Along with being known as a great tight end, Hernandez was also well known for his body ink. He was frequently photographed showing it off so it’s somewhat of a just dessert that his tattoos would one day come back to haunt him in a very real way. And that is exactly what is happening now.
In 2013, Hernandez went to a California tattoo parlor and added three tattoos to his collection. All three of the tattoos are on Hernandez’ arm. Each of the three, the prosecution argued in its’ motion, had meaning and served to commemorate the double murder and the witness shooting. The first one is of a revolver with five bullets in the chamber—one bullet is missing. The night of the double murder, five shots were fired into the car in which the decedents were seated. The second tattoo says “God Forgives.” The words are written backwards so they can only properly be read in a mirror. The third tattoo is of semi-automatic gun with smoke coming out of it along with one spent shell casing. This is the type of gun ballistics showed was used in the Bradley shooting. Further, allegedly, one spent shell casing was found on the ground next to Bradley. Assistant District Attorney, Patrick Haggan, the prosecutor handling the Hernandez case argued that these tattoos link him to the crimes and should therefore be admissible.
It should be noted that after Hernandez’ conviction for the murder of Lloyd he hired new attorneys. Currently he has a five member defense team. The most famous? Jose Baez, who is best known as being the lead attorney in the Casey Anthony trial. You remember her—mother of the year, in 2011 was acquitted of murdering her two year old daughter, Caylee. Naturally Baez and the rest of the team is fighting the government at every turn and with no holds barred. They argued that the prosecution’s theory was speculative, called for inference and that the tattoos were not relevant to the case. They further contended that allowing jurors to hear about these tattoos would violate Hernandez’ constitutional right to a fair trial. No win for Baez on this round. The court ruled that all three tattoos are admissible as evidence at trial for the purpose of connecting Hernandez to the killings. Good ruling, your honor but with the current state of the law regarding tattoos as evidence, you may just have created an appealable issue should Hernandez be found guilty. And though it would be interesting to see how a higher court rules on the matter, it won’t make make much difference for Hernandez as he is already serving a life sentence for the Lloyd murder and still has to face those witness intimidation charges.
Last, Hernadez is facing several civil lawsuits stemming from his actions. After paying all of his lawyer fees though, I’m not sure how much of those NFL millions will be left to satisfy any civil judgments. For a better sense of what Hernandez’ lawyers are costing him, check out my video on how much criminal lawyers charge.
*Photo by Jeffrey Beall
The Top 10 Celebrity Divorces of All Time
Getting a divorce is usually a difficult process for anyone even with adivorce attorney Phoenix AZ relies on , but for celebrity couples, they are often forced to go through it under the intense glare of the public eye. There have been many celebrity divorces throughout time, but here is a summary of the top 10.
1. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton
This couple tops the list of celebrity divorces because they went through the process twice. Elizabeth Taylor met fellow actor Richard Burton on the set of ‘Cleopatra’ in 1962, and their first marriage lasted from 1964 to 1974. They briefly remarried after being apart for 16 months, but the second marriage lasted less than one year before the two parted ways for good.
2. Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony
Entertainer Jennifer Lopez and singer Marc Anthony were friends while both were in other marriages. They were married to each other for ten years, but their union came to an end in 2014. Despite divorcing, they have managed to remain great friends who continue to speak lovingly of each other.
3. Sandra Bullock and Jesse James
Actress Sandra Bullock and her ex-husband Jesse James were married in 2005 and seemed to have the ideal relationship. In 2010, however, she divorced him because of repeated claims of infidelity. Both Bullock and James have established new lives completely independent of one another.
4. Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger
Maria Shriver was married to Arnold Schwarzenegger for 25 years before separating from him in 2011 after it was revealed that he had fathered a child with another woman. During their marriage, Striver became an accomplished journalist while Schwarzenegger became an action film star. She also took on the role of First Lady of California when he served as governor of California from 2003-2011.
5. Princess Diana and Prince Charles
Diana Spencer became Princess Diana of Wales in 1981 when she married Prince Charles of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne. Despite its beautiful beginning, the marriage was bedeviled by scandal and tabloid controversy. The Prince and Princess separated in 1992 and divorced in 1996 after years of discord.
6. Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt
Jennifer Aniston was one of the most popular actresses in Hollywood when she married movie star Brad Pitt in 2000. They were a favorite celebrity couple until 2005 when they announced their separation and divorced later that year. Rumors spread that Pitt’s alleged affair with actress Angelina Jolie led to the demise of his marriage with Anniston.
7. Kim Bassinger and Alec Baldwin
Kim Bassinger and fellow movie actor Alec Baldwin met while starring in a movie together in 1990. During their marriage, which began in 1993, they collaborated professionally and had a daughter before officially divorcing in 2002. The nasty custody battle that ensued caused a less than amicable separation.
8. Demi Moore and Bruce Willis
When they married in 1987, Demi Moore and Bruce Willis were two of the most popular young actors in Hollywood. Their union produced three daughters, but it ended in divorce in 2000. Despite this, Moore and Willis have managed to maintain an enduring friendship.
9. Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise
Both Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise are two of the most successful actors of their time. When they married in 1990, their marriage was the envy of many. While together, the couple adopted two children, but their relationship ended in divorce in 2001. There has been speculation that Cruise’s devotion to the Scientology religion led to the demise of his marriage to Kidman.
10. Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon
Many were surprised when singer Mariah Carey married actor and comedian Nick Cannon in 2008. They became the parents of twins, and seemed to be proving naysayers wrong, until they announced their separation in 2014 and their divorce was finalized in 2016.
Who is Liable When it Comes to Fault Breast Implants?
If a breast implant ends up being defective, you most likely have grounds for a lawsuit or are entitled to recover from a class action settlement. This article discusses the variety of lawsuits that can result from defective breast implants.
The majority of lawsuits based on defective breast implants involve the injured person (the “plaintiff”) suing the manufacturer of the breast implants. Typically, a case against the manufacturer will be a product liability case and will include a cause of strict liability, failure to warn, breach of warranties, negligence or fraud.
In a strict liability claim, you only need to prove that
- the manufacturer sold the breast implant in a dangerous condition
- the manufacturer intended the implant to reach the consumer (you) unaltered, and
- you were injured by the implant’s dangerous condition.
In a failure to warn claim, as the name implies, you must prove the manufacturer knew or should have known about a particular risk inherent in the breast implant, but failed to provide you with an adequate warning. If you can prove the manufacturer, with certainty, knew about the defect, you might also win a fraud case against it and be able to collect punitive damages.
A warranty, is a guarantee that the product will perform in a certain way or will conform to certain standards. If the breast implant unexpectedly ruptures, leaks or becomes misshapen, there can be a claim of a breach of warranty. Check the insert with product to see if there is a time limit on the warranty.
A case against a breast implant manufacturer may also involve a negligence claim, although strict products liability is generally intended to replace negligence claims when the case involves a consumer good like breast implants. Only if your state allows negligence claims and strict products liability claims in the same lawsuit, to win your negligence claim you will need to prove:
- the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances (i.e. making or selling the breast implant free from dangerous defects and hidden risks)
- the defendant’s actions “breached” (i.e. did not meet) the duty of reasonable care owed to the plaintiff
- the defendant’s breach was the main or only cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and
- the plaintiff actually suffered some kind of injury
Another category of lawsuit for faulty breast implants is against the plastic surgeon. This claim would only apply if you could prove there was negligence in implanting the breast implant, if the surgeon performed the procedure incorrectly or if they did not give adequate informed consent before it.
For someone other than the manufacture to be held liable for a defective consumer product like a breast implant, that other person needs to qualify as a distributor or a seller of the product. Courts typically do not find that surgeons and other health care providers or hospitals qualify as distributors or sellers of breast implants.
Another lawsuit category to consider are class action settlements. These suits have a large group of plaintiffs in place that provide compensation to consumers who have been injured by a defective breast implant. If you think you’ve been injured by a defective breast implant, you may not need to sue to get a recovery. But if your breast implant injury is the result of negligent surgery, the class action settlement will not apply to you.
It may be quite difficult at the outset to figure out if medical malpractice or product liability is the cause of your injuries, or if there is an existing settlement out there that may apply to your case. The best course of action is to consult with a product liability or personal injury lawyer who is experienced with breast implant cases and/or an experienced medical malpractice attorney.
Valentine’s Day & Divorce
“Roses are red, violets are blue, sugar is sweet, and I want to divorce you”
“Roses are red, violets are blue, I’m thinking divorce, what about you?”
Valentine’s Day. Couples know this day to be the day they publicly celebrate their love for each other. A divorce lawyer Arlington TX trusts knows this day to be the official beginning of “Divorce Season.” AttorneyFee.com, a legal referral site, conducted a study of divorce filings in New York, Illinois and California. The study noted that referrals for a divorce attorney increased 38% following Valentine’s Day, with the largest spike being on February 15th.
Why has Valentine’s Day become synonymous with divorce? In truth, the happiness may have diminished long before the day of romance. Most people put off filing for divorce in November and December in an effort to avoid ruining the holidays. January is the busiest month for bankruptcy filings as well as the month many couples begin paying back the debt they incurred during the holidays. February happens to be the month that is the culmination of the perfect storm. Furthermore, the difficulties of a strained marriage can be highlighted during a “forced” romantic holiday leading to the filing for divorce.
Many couples realize that their spouse does not seem to care anymore. They go through the actions of being in the marriage but at the end of the day, they just co-exist. The prospect of divorce is not an easy process to deal with emotionally and many couples need some sort of advice to put them on the right path. Below are some things to consider during and after Valentine’s Day if you are seeking a divorce.
- Your emotional well-being.
Ignoring your emotions or pretending they do not exist is one of the worst mistakes one can make in a strained marriage. Valentine’s day can be the trigger point that causes those emotions to rise to the surface. A good therapist is vital to have as a part of your divorce team so that your emotional needs are tended to. On the flipside, a good therapist may be the essential person you need to help you and your spouse find love again.
- Educate yourself.
There are several laws regarding divorce and assets acquired by the married couple. Properly educating yourself with these laws is vital to a person looking to divorce their spouse. A family law attorney is the best source when educating yourself on the laws pertaining to a divorce. A consultation with a family law attorney will help ease the worry when and if you decide to divorce your spouse.
- Talk with and listen to your spouse.
Notice the subheading “talk with and listen”. Couples tend to forget that communication is necessary in a marriage. Successful communication is more than just saying what you want and expecting the other person to listen to you. You in turn must listen to their response. Listening and talking together will allow the couple to work through the difficulty they are facing. Communication is also essential during divorce. Miscommunication or no communication can lead to a very nasty divorce that could have been resolved with the simple act of talking and listening.
Unfortunately, Valentine’s Day can mean something different for each couple. If you have a spouse that does not care about the relationship anymore you need to make a decision. Contact one of our experienced Family Law attorneys whether you decide to save the marriage or pursue divorce, the decision you make will allow you to move forward in life.
Thanks to our friends and contributors from Brandy Austin Law Firm PLLC for their insight into divorce cases.