TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

What Oksana and Mel Are Really Fighting Over

10/31/2010 2:30 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

The real fight between Oksana Grigorieva and Mel Gibson may not be about child custody at all ... we've learned the various lawyers who have been repping Oksana have been focused on a legal document created long before Lucia was born.

0928-mel-gibson-oksana-tmz-ex
TMZ was first to report the problem with the Icon Trust -- created by Mel and Robyn to provide for their seven children. The trust defines "issue" (aka children) as kids born from Mel or Robyn. When it was drafted, no one thought Mel or Robyn would have a child outside the marriage. Enter Oksana.

Sources connected with Mel and Robyn say no one in their family wants to screw Lucia out of her inheritance, but if she becomes a beneficiary in Mel's trust it would create some complicated tax issues.

So when Oksana and Mel broke up and struck a settlement deal during the mediation in May, the very first term reads, "Oksana consents to amendment of Icon Trust to exclude Lucia."

In return for excluding Lucia, Mel agreed to provide a financial package for the baby worth more than $8 million.

Sounds like a sweet deal. So why did Oksana disavow the mediation she signed? We're told the lawyers Oksana hooked up with after the mediation believed Lucia got royally screwed by giving up an interest in the trust. They told Oksana that Lucia would stand to get around $50 million under the trust agreement ... which they believe represents 1/8 the value of a $400,000,000 trust.

Sources connected with Gibson tell us the money in the trust is not even in the universe of $400,000,000 ... not remotely close.

But here's the deal. If Oksana's lawyers persist and Mel settles out of court, the attorney would get a percentage of the settlement. So they've convinced Oksana there's something in it for her ... and there's something in it for them.

1097 COMMENTS

No Avatar
1036.

shyone    

There seems to be some confusion here about what a trust is and whether a trust is within the sole control of the people who give money to the trust.

Let me try to clear this up.

A trust is a separate legal entity into which people put money so that it can earn interest and return without being taxed.

When money comes out of the trust the portion that has been earned while the money is in the trust is taxed at the tax rate of the recipient/beneficiary.

When a trust is irrevocable, the do***ents control how the trust runs and may be beyond the capability of the people who donated the money to change any of the conditions and beneficiaries of the trust.

Often questions arise about how trusts are operated, who the beneficiaries include, when payments must be paid to beneficiaries, whether trustees are dealing fairly with the funds, etc.

When these questions arise and cannot be resolved between the beneficiaries and the trustee by agreement, the questions are decided by the Courts.

So the following statements made by some posters here about trusts are NOT "trustworthy": [apologies for the pun]

1. A judge can never control what happens with a trust.
2. The people who set up a trust can always amend it to change the terms, conditions, trustee, beneficiaries, purposes of the trust.
3. Amendment of a trust always results in a tax liabilty at the time of amendment.

Since we don't have the ICON trust do***ents available, it is foolish to believe that we know the wording, conditions, amount of corpus, etc. regarding that trust.

So take a lot you read here with a grain of salt. It appears that not a few posters here are claiming they are in the possession of special knowledge on "matters Mel." If these people were in the confidence of MG, I seriously doubt that they would make any comments at TMZ, especially regarding private matters which MG has not chosen to make public at this time.

JMO

Remember MG's statement: "Believe NONE of what of you read and only half of what you see."

1268 days ago
1037.

kali    

Hiya Shuffle Demon, not sure if you're aware from the posts yet but fuddyduddy reported "me" twice yesterday and got some of those sick posts being made last night removed lol!! Much kudos to her as by the time I left it was getting even sicker!!

Posted at 8:48 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by emerald

I reported 'it' several times early this morning. Whether or not the person was telling the truth about some things, it certainly did its job as a troll.

1268 days ago
1038.

shyone    

V has done a lot of leg and phone work but some of the information she has received and related to us here isn't right, including these statements:

"pro hac vice - I was told that sort of admission was used in criminal courts for criminal cases NOT civil court for civil matters."

and

"Everyone said the same thing -

CIVIL COURT requires a lawyer to be versed in STATE civil code. There are only two ways to do that and trying to join a case using that particular method was not one of them.

CRIMINAL COURT is different because federal laws are possibly in play and therefore out of state attorneys routinely join cases using that method."

----------------------------------------------------------

It is sad to see misinformation like the above related to others here who may believe this.

Pro hac vice aka pro haec vice admission to practice in a state where one does not have a license to practice is used in civil cases. I have personally moved for the admission pro hac vice for two cases in my state to allow lawyers (once my father and another time my brother both licensed in another state) to practice in my state in a single civil case under my "supervision." The reason that an instate lawyer is there to supervise the pro hac vice lawyer is to ensure that state and local procedures are respected by out of state counsel. This is done in both civil and criminal cases.

In state court, there are separate rules and statutes on both civil and criminal matters. Depending on the state involved, the civil rules may be essentially the same as the federal rules of civil procedure or markedly different. Likewise, the state criminal rules may be similar to or very different from federal rules. The rules of evidence may be similar or different in some important regards depending on whether one is in state or federal court and vary from state to state. The definitions of crime vary by jurisdiction, i.e. from state to state between state and federal court. Similarly, there are statutory considerations in civil matters that vary state to state and in federal court.

This is not being posted to criticize V's work, just to clear up some significant misunderstandings one might get from reading some of the postings here.

1268 days ago
1039.

angeleyes    

@shyone - Hmmm...so I will check with my accountant for some reason I thought I was still paying tax on the interest earned in the Trust accounts - mine are not irrevocable.
Following your statements could it then be that due to the divorce (perhaps finalization) could it be that Mel's donation to his church would possibly offset the taxes required to be paid for his half of the Trust?

Not knowing any of the parameters of the do***ent it is of course all speculation by interested parties at this point.

1268 days ago
1040.

Cindy    

It's always about GREED with this woman! Always! Does Oksana know that at any time in Mel's life if he chose to cut out any of his children that would be his right as a parent he doesn't owe any of his kids anything. If Oksana continues to try to tak all this out in the media distroying Mel's ability to make money there just may not be a dime left when it's all said and done for Mel. This is boyond silly!She's such a deadbeat mom who needs to go to work and provide for her daughter and stop all this media & court crap!

1268 days ago
1041.

shyone    

@shyone - Hmmm...so I will check with my accountant for some reason I thought I was still paying tax on the interest earned in the Trust accounts - mine are not irrevocable.
Following your statements could it then be that due to the divorce (perhaps finalization) could it be that Mel's donation to his church would possibly offset the taxes required to be paid for his half of the Trust?

Not knowing any of the parameters of the do***ent it is of course all speculation by interested parties at this point.

Posted at 9:11 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by angeleyes

-----------------------------------------------------

Angeleyes,

Before one puts money into a trust, one pays income tax on the money one earns.

While the money is in the trust and earns money by investment there, the trust doesn't pay tax on those earnings.

When the money from a trust is paid out to beneficiaries, taxes are due on those payments.

I hope this makes some sense.

1268 days ago
1042.

antbabs    


Mel was quite generous from the beginning in providing more than nicely for Ox and the baby. Ox has done nothing but try to rip him an new ah and continues to sh.it where she sleeps. I am sick of her and her "lowers". I don't know where this will end for her but hopefully a place where she can think hard about her wrongdoings over many years. I mentioned earlier that I really believe the next phase for her will bring many lawsuits against prior competent counsel for malpractice which will employ many "lowers" for years to come. I am beginning to think she doesn't care so much about the money any longer but what she really wants is to destroy a decent man and his family.
Final thought, I wonder who funded the baby's birthday party, ROL? She had no means to give to her son a birthday gift...except for a plea to the Laker organization. See how he feels about mama in a few years. Mel was right in that this woman has no soul.

1268 days ago
1043.

angeleyes    

Well Cindy - you are right - Mel could well live another 30+ years and may require his money to look after himself if his health was failing in the latter years -

1268 days ago
1044.

angeleyes    

Yes thanks Shyone - I realized after I had written that I was incorrect - the tax I'm paying is not on those accounts - and the structure I have in place is to offset future capital gains taxes on others -
Sometimes it takes a few minutes to remember what the parameters are of one's own holdings and such - especially when they were done some time ago.

1268 days ago
1045.

gonesi    

shyone,

since you seem to know the law if you think on the limited info we have, there are grounds for blackmail or extortion?

I feel there possibly is not since she had lawyers advising her just how close to the line she could go.

I would feel better if someone that knew the law felt she might have crossed it.

I feel for that child if Oki isn't put away. She will ruin Lucia's relationship with her father.

1268 days ago
1046.

angeleyes    

LOL...so TMZgossip - How did the illuminati dress for Halloween?

1268 days ago
1047.

TMZgossip    

LOL...so TMZgossip - How did the illuminati dress for Halloween?

Posted at 10:07 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by angeleyes
...

do they dress up in denmark?
or does she live in netherlands?

any time I think of the name Sophie i picture a horse

1268 days ago
1048.

kali    

Do you guys think the trust was brought up in Fridays deposition? Or maybe its part of the extortion investigation or both?

1268 days ago
1049.

angeleyes    

TMZg - I have no idea how they do the festivities in denmark or netherlands for that matter - But wouldn't a lovely large black cat be more appropriate? Spitting and hissing of course!

1268 days ago
1050.

TMZgossip    

Do you guys think the trust was brought up in Fridays deposition? Or maybe its part of the extortion investigation or both?

Posted at 10:16 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by kali
...

considering it is a Gibson family trust, I wouldn't think Gibson's lawyers would have much to ask her about.

you can bet it will be brought up in his depo

1268 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web