Donald Sterling’s companion must return millions to his wife
By Marisa Kendall, from The Recorder
SAN FRANCISCO — A woman who received some $2.6 million in gifts from L.A. real estate mogul Donald Sterling must turn them over to his wife, a judge ruled Tuesday in a rare interpretation of California family law.
Stiviano, who often was seen in public with Sterling but denied their relationship was sexual, received lavish gifts from the former Los Angeles Clippers owner between 2011 and 2014. Following a three-day bench trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Richard Fruin Jr. on Tuesday tentatively ruled Sterling’s wife should have been consulted before he used their joint funds to buy the presents.
The judge ordered Stiviano to reimburse Rochelle Sterling for $400,000 in cars (a Ferrari, a Bentley and a Range Rover), a $1.8 million house and $430,000 in cash gifts. Both sides have 15 days to suggest modifications before the ruling becomes final.
Stiviano landed in the public eye in 2014 after a recording surfaced of Sterling telling her not to bring African-Americans to Clipper basketball games. The remark prompted an outcry and led the National Basketball Association to fine Sterling and ban him for life. Rochelle Sterling ousted her husband and sold the team to Microsoft Corp. executive Steve Ballmer for $2 billion.
Donald Sterling is worth $2.9 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
Rochelle Sterling sued Stiviano in March 2014 under a California Family Code provision that states a spouse can’t give away or dispose of the couple’s communal property without written consent from his or her partner. Her lawyer, Pierce O’Donnell of Greenberg Glusker Fields Clamen & Machtinger, said in a phone interview Wednesday that means: “In California you can have a mistress, but you can’t give her family wealth.”
Stiviano’s counsel, Calabasas lawyer Mac Nehoray, said spouses typically use the law to go after each other for more money during a divorce. It’s unprecedented and wrong, he said, to use the law to attack someone outside the marriage.
“Basically what the ruling does, it gives any spouse authority to go after any third party if one of the spouses without written consent gives a gift,” Nehoray said. “So basically if I buy a pack of gum for one of my friends without written consent from my wife, my wife can go after [my friend].”
Nehoray said he’ll consider appealing Tuesday’s ruling if Stiviano consents.
O’Donnell agreed the case is unprecedented—he’s never seen anything like it in his 40 years as a trial lawyer. Extramarital gifts are rarely expensive enough to go to court over, he said. This case had the rare combination of millions of dollars at stake, and a plaintiff with the resources and willingness to sue.
Rochelle Sterling’s legal team originally had demanded $3.6 million, but her lawyers decided they’d have an easier time proving $2.86 million. The judge granted the demand, with the exception of $200,000 in credit card charges. He ruled he could not verify that Stiviano charged that amount to Donald Sterling’s cards.
Stiviano’s lawyers argued Donald and Rochelle Sterling had lived apart during periods between 2011 and 2014, so Donald’s assets were his own. Their marriage was rocky, the judge wrote, and Rochelle said she was estranged from her husband during an interview with Barbara Walters that aired in May. But the court found no evidence the two ever lived apart.
“The parties continued to live together, to travel together, to hold parties together and to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries together,” he wrote. “The record includes birthday and anniversary cards that contain hand-written love notes from Donald Sterling to his wife.”
O’Donnell said Tuesday’s ruling could act as a deterrent for spouses spending communal money on their affairs.
“Maybe men and women who are doing this will think twice about doing it,” he said. “Because we caught them.”
IMAGE: V. Stiviano, leaves court in Los Angeles – Lucy Nicholson
For more on this story go to: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202723646868/Donald-Sterlings-Companion-Must-Return-Millions-to-His-Wife#ixzz3XUZeXrXf