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
1081.

lexx    

She is a gold digger. Bottom line. Why do you even entertain us with this crap?!?!?! BTW Harvey you looked great as Gloria, what a great laugh!!!

1362 days ago
1082.

Shell    

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."
Posted at 8:50 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by shyone
=========================================================

Food for thought. Especially the paragraph relating to "private matters". Thanks shyone.....

1362 days ago
1083.

lawdhvmrcy    

I cannot believe everyone is still so hung up over this Mel and Oksana crap.I love TMZ,just sick of them. (M&O)

1362 days ago
1084.

Holly    

If Mel's religious views don't prevent adultery, what prevents him from wearing a condom? Also, way to go reconciling religious fervor with your temper and lack of tolerance for other genders, races, religions, sexual ideations, etc.. Does anyone really believe that they can get to some place called heaven if they say "sorry" at a church periodically? if you truly believe in heaven, Mel, then you must also believe in hell...and I bet there will be a special place just for you and your cronies, and you can't fix this dilemma by throwing money at it. Personally, I'm an atheist and believe hell is having to deal with the likes of you.

1362 days ago
1085.

Holly    

If Mel's religious views don't prevent adultery, what prevents him from wearing a condom? Also, way to go reconciling religious fervor with your temper and lack of tolerance for other genders, races, religions, sexual ideations, etc.. Does anyone really believe that they can get to some place called heaven if they say "sorry" at a church periodically? if you truly believe in heaven, Mel, then you must also believe in hell...and I bet there will be a special place just for you and your cronies, and you can't fix this dilemma by throwing money at it. Personally, I'm an atheist and believe hell is having to deal with the likes of you.

1362 days ago
1086.

Gingermary    

IT SERVES MEL GIBSON RIGHT for messing around on Robyn and getting Oksana pregnant!! Don't blame Oksana for Mel's stupid decisions, he should have known better, instead he thought he was smart and prancing around everywhere with a sexy young thing like Oksana and feeling like he's THE MAN ha ha, WHO IS THE MAN NOW??

1362 days ago
1087.

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.

1362 days ago
1088.

V    

Mel5309 -

I think you are confusing ICON PRODUCTIONS- a film company with ICON TRUST - a private trust set up by two people for their children.

1362 days ago
1089.

mary    

most lawyers are money hungry, just like ox. thats why people dislike most of them. they will fight for you until there is only enough left for their fees. this happens quite a lot. she is stupid. as for how much mel g. has that is not her money she had a child with him while he had a wife, she should be given resonable child support like any other child born out of wedlock. and mel g. will not have 100% of money after robin his WIFE who worked with him to make money and has been with him since he had nothing. but then robin loved him. ox is just someone who uses people. i read on ROL, that tim dalton was at the babies birthday party. guess he heard free cake and food. he is sickening, why does he only pay 2,500. and not have to supply home for his son, but mel is supposed to pay 20,000. plus home and all other expenses. tim is the dead beat, it was his son who had his mother beg for gifts, why in the hell didnt tim dalton, give her money to buy his son a gift, waiting for mel to pay for the boys birthday gift? the whole thing is insane. she should be proscuted for extortion. not rewarded with more money...the goal since first meeting mel g.

1362 days ago
1090.

ImissDC    

I am SO SICK of seeing Mel Gibson on tmz all day everyday!!!!

1362 days ago
1091.

Wiley    

Well, I don't know a lot about trusts but I always thought none of the monies were distributed until the person who set it up died. I do know though that you have to be very careful in how you word it. If it is set up to be distributed to "all his children" then Lucia would automatically get hers unless someone contested it. If the children were included by name in it then she would have to fight to be included. I assume the latter is true from what Mel said. I believe the trust is a lot like a retirement account in that a certain amount of money can be deposited before taxes and if the account is changed or closed Mel would owe taxes plus a substantial penalty and that's why he wants to create a separate account for her. Either way, Mel doesn't have to give her a penny if he doesn't want to. No one can force him to leave her money. The case before the court right now concerns only the child's custody and support and everything else is pure greed on the mother's part. If she wants to ensure Lucia's economic future she should either give Mel custody or make some money herself. If she keeps Lucia away from Mel and he doesn't get to participate in her life he might be less inclined to leave her anything. People leave children out of their wills all the time and that's their choice and no one else's.

1362 days ago
1092.

SallySue    

@Mary Post #1111

Not ALL lawyers have such low ethics. I blame Hollywood. I personally do not plan on being a lawyer with low morals, and every attorney I know in my region (nowhere near the west coast or Hollywood) is nothing like what is being depicted here. However, I think it is very fitting that Oksana would hire lawyers/people just like her: greedy and money hungry. Karma? Why, yes, I think so!

1362 days ago
1093.

V    

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


Posted at 12:26 AM on Nov 1, 2010 by shyone
-----------------

SHYONE,

I am trying to find information about the CA cases. I listed the case numbers. This isn't the one against the publisher.

"Recently Martin Garbus and Horowitz had mixed results on a case involving author Terry McMillan ("How Stella Got Her Groove Back") who sued her ex-husband for $40 million[13]. The Court of Appeal ruled that McMillan could proceed in her lawsuit against her ex-husband for his alleged misconduct at the time of their divorce but could not proceed against his attorney who they alleged used television publicity to force a settlement of the divorce."

Here is the link -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Horowitz

If you notice the numbers of the cases I think the A before the case number means APPELLATE. The last info I have found has a date of MARCH 17, 2009, just last year and the case(s) are CALIFORNIA cases.

CALIFORNIA -

A120258 & A120260...
Terry McMillan,

v.

Jonathan Plummer;

Dolores S. Sargent.

Cause called and argued by Daniel Horowitz and Martin Garbus, counsel for appellant/respondent McMillan, Janice Vaughn-Mock, counsel for appellant/respondent Plummer, and Jennifer Anne Becker, counsel for respondent Sargent. Cause ordered submitted; within 10 days, the parties are to augment the record on appeal to clarify the disposition status of the first amended complaint of McMillan

HERE IS THE COURT INFO:

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO


Tuesday, March 17, 2009


WHEN I TRY to search the actual appellate court however, I can't find the case.

Hoping one of the legal eagles has more luck.

IF THE

Pro Hac Vice is ONE TIME --

Considering the length of time Mr. Garbus has been practicing,
and two high profile cases in less than two years,

HOW CAN HE BE ADMITTED to the Oksana Grigorieva case using that method?

1362 days ago
1094.

Demi    

Of course. I said this very thing all along. There must be something in it for the lawyers, and oksana. The good ole' contingency fee for these crooked lawyers. I'd say...you should fight on Mr. Gibson and let these lawyers work for nothing for awhile. Don't settle. You are under no obligation to give the same amounts to Lucia. You are under zero obligation to give anything to Oksana. Not the house, not a settlement. She is not deserved of it. Just reasonable child support minus the benefit of living in a free home, in other words, she pays RENT.

1362 days ago
1095.

Ellen    

I guess Mel shouldn't have pulled out his trouser snake in a world of conmen.

1361 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web