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
1066.

igotfleasfromtmz    

thats pretty evil cb!

1402 days ago
1067.

chickenblaster    

thats pretty evil cb!

Posted at 11:35 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by hellnurse
----------------------------------------------------------
:-)

1402 days ago
1068.

Mel5309    

My comment is going to make people angry but I don't care. If ICON is owned by Mel, and Robyn, why should Lucia get an equal part? Yes she should get an equal share of her dad's 50% of the company, which would equal out to about 4% for each child. I do not think that Robyn's 50% of this company should be brought into. She should be able to leave her 50% to HER children, not be forced to give it to a child her husband had with another woman.

1402 days ago
1069.

igotfleasfromtmz    

My comment is going to make people angry but I don't care. If ICON is owned by Mel, and Robyn, why should Lucia get an equal part? Yes she should get an equal share of her dad's 50% of the company, which would equal out to about 4% for each child. I do not think that Robyn's 50% of this company should be brought into. She should be able to leave her 50% to HER children, not be forced to give it to a child her husband had with another woman.

Posted at 11:51 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by Mel5309
You are so right!!

1402 days ago
1070.

V    

Thank you SHYONE.

Apparently Mr. Howoritz and Mr Garbus teamed up on a case a year or so ago IN CA. The case numbers #A120258 & A120260.... The involved Terry McMillan, an author.

Wish I could access PACER. Would make life so easier. I am not sure if that case is done.

I have been trying to find out what happened with these cases.

So this is not the first time Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Garbus have worked together on a CA case. I wonder how Mr. Garbus was admitted in these cases?

If anyone can find it. PLEASE POST. Also dates would be great. THANKS.

1402 days ago
1071.

igotfleasfromtmz    

V I can access pacer what are you looking for?

1402 days ago
1072.

V    

#A120258 & A120260...

Terry McMillan is one of the named parties

Mr. Garbus and Mr. Horowitz represented her.

How was Mr. Garbus able to work this case?

Is it still open?

Who won if closed?

1402 days ago
1073.

angeleyes    

@Mel5309 & hellnurse - I imagine that's what all the squabbling is about - from the get-go it seems Oksana has wanted whatever Robyn has or is getting - To me at least all little Lucia is entitled to is whatever Mel decides is fair and equitable - I can't see that Oksana has contributed anything at all to the betterment or financial rewards of ICON so really at least to me it would be up to Mel what he decides.
It is a niggling item mentioned though that the Trust reads to the children of Mel Or Robyn though -
I would guess the presumption would be if either of them died and one remarried they could potentially adopt another child.

We know little about the terms though so it's really a speculation on our parts -

1402 days ago
1074.

maya    

Mel5309

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do you want someone telling you who you need to give your money to.
If Oksana wants Lucia to have the exact same lifestyle as Mel and Robyn's children, then she needs to give the child to Mel and Robyn so that they can raise Lucia the exact same way, otherwise how can Lucia possibly have the exact same lifestyle?

Maya 28

1402 days ago
1075.

V    

My comment is going to make people angry but I don't care. If ICON is owned by Mel, and Robyn, why should Lucia get an equal part? Yes she should get an equal share of her dad's 50% of the company, which would equal out to about 4% for each child. I do not think that Robyn's 50% of this company should be brought into. She should be able to leave her 50% to HER children, not be forced to give it to a child her husband had with another woman.

Posted at 11:51 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by Mel5309
--------------------------

I think you are confusing ICON PRODUCTIONS - a film production company

With

ICON TRUST - a private trust created by two people for their children.

1402 days ago
1076.

LA me    

@Chicken Blaster

LOVED the Satan story!!

1402 days ago
1077.

shyone    

Here's a description of the Terry McMillan case in which Mr. Garbus represented her publisher when it was sued by her ex over her fictional portrayal of a negative character he claimed defamed him in her book Disappearing Acts.


"Leonard Welch, McMillan's former lover and the father of their son, also found that portions of Disappearing Acts rung true—so true, in fact, that in August of 1990 he filed a $4.75 million defamation suit against McMillan. Welch claimed that McMillan used him as the model for the novel's main male character, and therefore the book defamed him. The suit also named Penguin USA (parent company of Viking, the publisher of the book) and Simon & Schuster (publisher of the book in paperback) as defendants.

The suit alleged that McMillan had acted maliciously in writing the novel and that she had written it mainly out of vindictiveness and a desire for revenge. In addition to believing that the novel realistically portrayed his three-year relationship with McMillan, Welch claimed that he suffered emotional stress. McMillan had dedicated the book to their son, and Welch feared that Solomon would believe the defamatory parts of the novel represented reality when he was old enough to read it.

Martin Garbus, the lawyer for Penguin USA, maintained that if McMillan had been an obscure writer who wrote an obscure book, there would not have been a lawsuit at all. One of McMillan's writing peers was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying, "I think it's just part of the general nastiness of the time, that people see someone doing well and they want part of it." The suit raised the issue of the delicate balance fiction writers must maintain. Many novelists draw on their experiences when writing, and most feel that they have an obligation to protect the privacy of an individual. In the Los Angeles Times, Garbus explained: "What Terry McMillan has done is no different than what other writers have done. It has to be permissible to draw on your real-life experiences. Otherwise, you can't write fiction." Most people involved in the suit, including Welch's lawyer, agreed that a victory for Welch could set an unfortunate precedent that would inhibit the creativity of fiction writers.

In April of 1991, the New York Supreme Court ruled in McMillan's favor. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the judge in the case wrote that although "the fictional character and the real man share the same occupation and educational background and even like the same breakfast cereal … the man in the novel is a lazy, emotionally disturbed alcoholic who uses drugs and sometimes beats his girlfriend." The judge declared that "Leonard Welch is none of these things.""

http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2812/McMillan-Terry.html

1402 days ago
1078.

Jade evergreen    

I really feel sorry for Lucia she has a mom who only care about her dad money and not her and pray that Court set Luica money into a trust fund for Lucia only where her greedy so call mom can't touch Luica money and Oksana never love Lucica like a real mother should and Mel was right about Oksana she no soul and she never love him and she really is a c-u-n-t.

Team Mel&Luica

1402 days ago
1079.

angeleyes    

Coming soon to a theatre near you - the fictional story of "The Russian Woman" the dramatic portrayal of love and extortion!
Intriguing plot lines, subversive characters, illuminating pictorals from around the world. A captivating illustration of narcissism and sociopathy and its effects on a modern family.

1402 days ago
1080.

shirleyholmes    

new post

1402 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web