
As predicted yesterday on ProbateAttorneyblog.com then
confirmed by TMZ.com
her attorney plans to argue in probate court that per their pre nup Victoria Hopper should receive $250,000 and 25% of his estate since they had not divorced yet and she was living on the same property as his at the time of his death although in different houses.
As previously mentioned on probateattorneyblog.com there is a link to their prenup which provides that she gets nothing if they are not living together and married at the time of death.
It also said that if they have a child together which they did within 60 days of either party filing for divorce she had to move out. He filed for divorce in January and sought to get her out although she was allowed to stay for the time being but then he was awarded a restraining order as the judge ruled she was negatively impacting his health.
As TMZ reported February 11 other highlights of the prenup included
-- Dennis keeps all his property -- which includes a house and a condo in Venice, a building in New Mexico on 320 acres, land in Arizona and a number of other properties.
-- Dennis keeps his "separate property pension and retirement benefits."
-- Dennis keeps his huge collection of fine arts worth over $2.5 million, including a $350,000 painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat.
It also said she gets to keep her separate property -- including two computers, two bookcases full of books, a 1973 VW Karmann Ghia, and her grandma's furniture.
They additional indicate if she had been living with him and eligible for the 25% she would have received $6.25 million (as that also includes a portion of the value of his home).
The prenup litigation and whether she was "living with him" should be interesting. As it would seem clear that the point of the prenup and phrasing that she needs to move out in 60 days of filing as well as providing they would need to be living together was that if they were married and happy she would get a set amount but if not they would just go their separate ways. Therefore it would seem she will likely need to establish to the judge if this goes to trial or to the opposing counsel Attorney Joe Mannis that when he filed for divorce that he did not have mental capacity or that he was being unduly influenced.
Typically when parties are divorcing if it is not finished despite the fact one side dislikes the other at the time it will not matter although in this case as there is a prenup which clearly lays out the ground rules and pursuant to the terms of it she should not even have been still living on his property in a separate house but it is an interested and was an expected litigation argument her attorneys will make in probate court.