LA Jury: OC's Richest Man Keeps All of His Fortune

• There needs to be a cap of 30k/ year per child unless there are specific needs that cost more... Other states have caps on child support... This comenserate with living the lifestyle of their parents is pure BS and a windfall profit to the custodial parent

• There needs to be a cap of 30k/ year per child unless there are specific needs that cost more... Other states have caps on child support... This comenserate with living the lifestyle of their parents is pure BS and a windfall profit to the custodial parent

• Son is a hottie. For a piece of the action, he can live with me while his dad puts him through college.

• I would like to weigh in here as a Family Law attorney. First, there is no guarantee that Bren would have had to pay $400,000 a month in child support. While the state of California uses a formula to calculate child support, under the ruling in Marriage of Estevez, payors may be found to be extraordinarily high income earners and, in such cases, the Court does not use the formula. Instead, what is determined is what are the needs of the children, keeping in mind that children are to share in the lifestyle of the parents and that BOTH parents are obligated to support their children. How much would Bren have had to pay if the issue - back when the children were actual minors - was presented to the court? Hard to say. However, as an example, I was involved in a case where the high-income earning parent had a yearly cash flow of approximately $10.5 million and was ordered to pay $14,000 each month for one child. I put this here to correct the statement by Calibambambum of "that's the LAW (emphasis original)." Keep in mind that the law is applied IF someone brings a case before a judge to adjudicate a conflict. There is a time and place for everything, especially child support. You cannot turn back the clock and seek something you had the opportunity to request from the Court after you chose a different route. That is part of what is meant by due process. This case was not in Family Court, instead was in Civil Court on the basis that the mother was fraudulently induced to accept an "out-of-court" settlement from Bren. A word about "out of court" settlements - it simply means that the issue was not litigated, that is, tried, in front of a judge. A majority of divorces and paternity cases are settled between the parties, rather than placed before a judge. The fact is, she chose to accept whatever terms he stated. She had access to lawyers, even if she was not as wealthy as he was (Family Code 2030 allows the Court to order one party to pay the other attorney fees based on disparity of income; while the Family Code was codified in 1992, in 1988 there was a similar statute in the Civil Code). She could have returned to court during the children's minority to seek more support. What about the fraud? I have not seen the evidence here, but it should be noted that one has to meet a lower standard - a preponderance of the evidence - to prove someone's income than to procve fraud, which requires the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. The kids did not meet that standard. It seems to me that their beef should be with Mom for her inaction or possibly with any attorneys advising her during the settlement for malpractice and failure to conduct proper discovery to determine Bren's real income, if that was indeed the case. Sadly, the Court cannot order someone to be a good parent. If Bren never wanted a relationship with his children, that is his perogative. Certainly, he won't want one now after this. It appears to me that this case was motivated more by greed and "Daddy-never-loved-me-so-I'll-make-him-pay-for-what-he-did-to-Mommy-and-us" than an actual legal complaint. May I suggest to all who are involved in such matters to (a) seek the advice of competent legal counsel; and (b) consider proper mediation rather than running to the Court. You may save yourself from being bankrupt financially and emotionally.

• What "young adult" (under 18) needs $400,000 a month to live on? The sum is as ridiculous as its parts, two illegitimate boys and a gold digger mother. Just because your father is a billionaire doesn't mean you have to live a lifestyle based on his, does it? How many apartments, cars, expensive bro-bashes, entourage-friends do you need to support so that $400,000 a month is appropriate?

• Nothing but using her kids as an attempt at thinly disguised palimony Now how will she pay her $600 an hour lawyer? Unlikely he took this on a contingency basis And she says she is living off her $200,000 home equity loan Look for her coming to a bar stool neat you in CDM on Thursdays Bren comes off as an emotionless SOB But thats not against the law Oh and its The Irvine Company Capital "T"

• Obviously, it didn't take the Jury long to see through all the crap and cut to the chase. As was noted by several others, it was undoubtly the "gold digger" mother who put the kids up to suing their father. Bad move on the part of the kids, assuming of course they would like to be remembered when Bren moves on to the big Lincoln Club in the sky. Now, unless Bren has a heart of gold, the kids are likely to join mom in the "cut the cord" club. Whether one likes Donald Bren or not, got to give the guy credit where credit is due. He was a genius of a businessman and he had excellent taste in women (looks that is). Glad you won the case Donald Bren.

• I hope he signs up to Warren Buffett's giving pledge http://givingpledge.org/ and leaves behind a better legacy than giving the money to the 3 human leeches.

• As most of us have learned, The only way to take something from the wealthy is by FORCE!

• "can't understand normal thinking". take the first letters of this phrase and that describes jennifer.

• Good ruling. The gold-digging hoochie mother put them up to it anyway.

• When one corrects another, one should be positive that they are using the proper correction in THEIR post :)

• calibamabum... learn how to spell... its THEIR mother....

• It's the third variation: THEIR "There" indicates a location. "They're" is the contraction for "they are." "Their" is the plural third person possessive.

• Torres, learn how to spell. THEY'RE mother might have put them up to it, but if he wasn't paying 25% of his income to their support, then he wasn't paying enough... and that's the LAW.

• That's what happens when you are GREEDY! There mother put them up to that Lawsuit becasue she is a broke A????? and she can not find anyone rich to marry her. Shame on you!

TotalComments: 16