Dr. Dre, the founder and CEO of Aftermath Entertainment and Beats Electronics, has gotten notice from his wife Nicole Young that she's heading to Splitsville. She's asking for $2 million a month in spousal support in their divorce. Will she get it? How can she make her case? How should he make his case?
Family law attorneys Billie Tarascio and Darin Colburn dish on the big dollar divorce plays between a music icon and his attorney wife, who have already made mistakes by leaving their divorce details in the public record. In this podcast, Billie and Darin talk about what the couple could do to get through the split, and what their potential courtroom plays could be.
For those who are also divorcing (presumably with less money), you'll hear about some pro moves in this episode that could be used in any ugly divorce where money, privacy, and allegations of abuse are in play. This is especially important when dealing with the statute of limitations in your state and what that could mean for how money and property is split between parties.
Dr. Dre, the founder and CEO of Aftermath Entertainment and Beats Electronics, has gotten notice from his wife Nicole Young that she's heading to Splitsville. She's asking for $2 million a month in spousal support in their divorce. Will she get it? How can she make her case? How should he make his case?
Family law attorneys Billie Tarascio and Darin Colburn dish on the big dollar divorce plays between a music icon and his attorney wife, who have already made mistakes by leaving their divorce details in the public record. In this podcast, Billie and Darin talk about what the couple could do to get through the split, and what their potential courtroom plays could be.
For those who are also divorcing (presumably with less money), you'll hear about some pro moves in this episode that could be used in any ugly divorce where money, privacy, and allegations of abuse are in play. This is especially important when dealing with the statute of limitations in your state and what that could mean for how money and property is split between parties.
Billie Tarascio (00:30):
Hello everyone. And thank you for joining us today is going to be a super fun podcast, very different from what we have done in the past. And today I am joined by I'm an attorney at modern law. Darin Colburn. Thank you for joining us, Darin.
Darin Colburn (00:46):
My pleasure.
Billie Tarascio (00:47):
And today we are going to nosh on the Dr. Dre, Nicole Young divorce. It's public, it's messy, and there's a ton of legal issues for us to discuss. So you're going to get our legal analysis of the, the raunchy facts that are coming out about the Dre young divorce.
Darin Colburn (01:10):
Yep. And in case you are attorneys for either Ms. Young or Mr. Gray this is all speculative. We, we have no, you know, we're just going off of what we read on the internet. So don't Sue us.
Billie Tarascio (01:24):
The other thing we should mention is they're getting divorced in California, we're in Arizona, so we're not we're not California attorneys, but California is a community property. State. Arizona is a community property state. And largely what we're talking about is how would the facts in their case, how might they play out in California and how might they play out in here is in Arizona. So this is just simply for entertainment, not legal advice, everything is alleging everything, the legend. So Darren, what is the background information on Nicole and Dre?
Darin Colburn (01:58):
So Dr. Dre, I'm not a medical doctor in case you didn't know, although I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a medical card.
Billie Tarascio (02:07):
They don't need that in California.
Darin Colburn (02:10):
He's on as well. So l'chiam to those of you out there who imbibe they've been married for 24 years. They recently she filed for divorce in June of 2020 citing irreconcilable differences. I always see this whenever any celebrities getting divorced, like they, they make a point in the article or, or in the headline to say, you know, they're getting divorced for irreconcilable differences. Like that means anything
Billie Tarascio (02:41):
I'm so glad you brought this up. Yeah, you're totally right. Like they, they, they you're right. All of the articles seem to really highlight the term irreconcilable differences. Now explain like why that means nothing.
Darin Colburn (02:56):
Yeah. So like in Arizona we didn't, we don't have an irreconcilable difference standard. What we have is an irretrievably broken standard. And it's literally in the statute for divorce that if you'd like to get a divorce in Arizona and you don't have, what's called a covenant marriage. I won't go into that because we don't want to get into the weeds. But if you want to get a divorce, you have to say that you have that your marriage is irretrievably broken. So I'm assuming it's the same in California, where if you wanted a divorce in California, you got to tell the, the judge and the court that you have irreconcilable differences. All that means is that one of you wants to divorce, right? It doesn't really mean anything beyond that.
Billie Tarascio (03:37):
Absolutely. So this came out of the no fault movement. So it used to be that in order to get a divorce, you had to allege a fault and the fault might be adultery. It might be abuse, it might be abandonment. And then when the, when the States got rid of the requirement that you alleged fault, now, all you have to allege is irreconcilable differences.
Darin Colburn (04:00):
That that's really that's really interesting. I didn't, I didn't realize that that was the Genesis of it, but it kinda makes sense because in, in family court we tend to have hearings over everything as you'll see Dr. Dre and Ms. Young are are having lots of hearings so far and are gonna, you know, fight over a lot of issues, but you wouldn't see in family court in evidentiary hearing on whether or not there is in fact irreconcilable differences or marriage is irretrievably broken. Of course, it's going to take your word for it. Right. and that's interesting. So she, they got married after four months. She and this will come into play. She was an attorney. I'm not sure if she's still licensed to practice. Probably not. I, you know, let's be honest if I were married to Dr. Dre I probably wouldn't be practicing law. Yeah. but you never know. She, she could be, but that that's part of her past and part of her credentials. And she was also married to an NBA player for somebody I'm going to be honest, and I'm sorry if you're a good, not, not somebody I've ever heard of.
Billie Tarascio (05:14):
Not
Darin Colburn (05:15):
That I think is important because it's not, you know, they've led a very public life and not her first rodeo was celebrity. Right. Dr. Dre is one of the biggest celebrities
Billie Tarascio (05:26):
Dr. Jury produced M and M 50 cent Tupac. He's, he's one of the founders of hip hop and then went on to be a businessman and an entrepreneur made his own record label. And then of course, there's beats
Darin Colburn (05:41):
Beats by Dre, which my, which my wife has I just bought her a set for Christmas. So thank you. Oh, I guess it should have disclose that at the beginning. I I, I do and they are very great and I think I can remain unbiased, you know, take that. I'm not a shill for, for Dr. Gray, but yeah, he you know, an Apple bought beats in 2014 for, I think, $3 billion or $4 million or something like that. And he owned a 20% stake. So the man, according to Forbes in 2019 was worth over $800 million. So he's almost over that billion mark lots of assets lost the net worth which means there's a lot there. I mean, depends on how you look at it. Some people are going to say there's a lot to fight over. Other people are going to say, well, we ought to be able to get a deal done. And, and we can have that conversation around the the Jeff Bezos situation as well. But yeah, she filed for divorce in June, in January, he was hospitalized and was on bed rest for a while due to a brain aneurysm. That's something that's kind of interesting and the heat is really coming into play since she's filed.
Billie Tarascio (06:56):
Yeah, absolutely. So she filed for divorce. They don't have minor children, so I think Dre has eight children. And and two with Nicole as Darren said this is Nicole second marriage. Dr. Dre is on his first marriage. So this is his first divorce. The first major issue that came up was the prenuptial agreement. Was there a prenup? And what did it say? So when Nicole filed,
Darin Colburn (07:22):
Well, hold on real quick, for those of you at home, I didn't know this until like five minutes ago. So I'm going to give you my raw reaction to whatever's in this prenup and the circumstances around it.
Billie Tarascio (07:35):
Okay. Sounds good. So when she originally filed, she asked for spousal maintenance of $2 million a month, $2 million a month, plus division of property. Now Dre came forward and said, what? We have a prenup. And she said, no, we don't have a prenup. I was number one. I was forced to sign the prenup. Even though I saw a lawyer beforehand had, even though I'm an attorney myself and number two, he ripped that thing up as a show of love for me. And so it is no and void. These are the words that are coming out of the paperwork filed by Nicole. And before we analyze that, can we talk for a little bit about how much information is coming out of this divorce and what they could have done to make it a little bit more private?
Darin Colburn (08:20):
Yeah, I mean, that's something that's been shocking to me because if I had $800 million, I would be doing everything I can to get this resolved privately because they both have the resources to hire great mediators, great attorneys, great experts, whatever they need to get everything resolved. And, and if all of the talent that they could afford to purchase can get this done privately and fairly that, that would really surprise me. So I get the sense that there's a lot of emotion behind everything. And, and honestly, I'm not from California, but I'm always a little skeptical if, if, if, you know, because of things like the Kardashians, if maybe they're playing it up a little bit for publicity purposes I don't know if that's going on here, that's complete speculation, but it is surprising to me that it's so public,
Billie Tarascio (09:14):
A couple of things you can do to keep it private. Number one, a lawyer can file to have the record sealed. And I feel like I don't know how hard that is to do in California, but here we could file to have the records sealed. And it would undoubtedly be sealed because what's happening is TMZ. And page six is getting a hold of every single thing that the, that is filed by either party and then writing about it. And then the second thing you can do is you, if he, and that's what you can do, if you, as a couple can't agree on anything, which is what's going on with these two, but the other thing you can do as the two of you can agree to keep it private, which is what you were talking about. And then you either take it to mediators or you take it to arbitrators. And one of the, if you can agree on nothing else, agree on the fact that you want to keep your private life private, but they have not done that. So we have a lot to talk about. So she claimed that the prenup was null and void ripped up. Doesn't count. He filed it.
Darin Colburn (10:13):
Okay.
Billie Tarascio (10:14):
Prenup says that they are keeping their property separate. This is important because when you get married in a community property state like Arizona, or like California, you are opting into the community property laws. So whether you get a prenup or you don't get a prenup, you are opting into some construct on the event that you get divorced. Now, Darren, take a second and just kind of explain the difference between everybody keeps their own and opting into community property,
Darin Colburn (10:43):
Well, community property, generally. And again, we don't practice in California, but I'm assuming it's the same. There's a presumption. So the general rule would be that anything acquired or incurred during the marriage is community property, subject to technically equitable division, but in practice, that means an equal division. So, you know, if something, the question becomes when was something acquired and if it was during the marriage, it's presumed to be community property and each could have now there's lots of different ways to slice the pie, so to speak, but that there'll would be the general analysis exceptions to that would be like inheritance, or if you're purchasing something during the marriage with funds that, that you had prior to the marriage, which would certainly be relevant here because Dr. Dre had some degree of fame and wealth before he got married.
Darin Colburn (11:33):
So he would have had the resources to to purchase property, you know there's also, you know, there's, there's fights in this case about trademarks and, and, and in that kind of stuff. So some of it's gonna be premarital. Some of it's going to be marital. That's kind of the question, the things that are marital that belong to the community, those get cut in half. The things that are separate gets a little more complicated. So if it's if it's separate drain, these attorneys are going to say, I want a hundred percent of it. It's mine. You get no claim. There's probably a more nuanced claim on, on her attorney's side where they can say, okay, that's your property, but it grew in value during the marriage in part, because of your labor. Right. and you know, he's, he's spinning those beets, right. And in California, I'm sure as an Arizona labor actually going to work, working, participating that is considered community property. So you know, the question becomes is the growth related to his passive his passive activities, or has he been actively managing these things during the marriage? And that is attributable to the increase. So whereas if you have a prenup that just says, we keeping every thing, separate period, then none of this matters and that she's going to be out of a whole lot of money.
Billie Tarascio (12:53):
And that's what the judge has said. The judge has said, we're going to accept this prenup is valid and you're still eligible for spousal maintenance. Now, I don't know, they own, I think, four pieces of property. And I don't know how those are titled and how those are titled are going to impact whether or not that's property that's divisible or not. And that's the case for all of the property, just because you have a prenup that says we're going to keep our property separate, that's fine and well, and dandy. But if you start co titling property owning property together, then of course we still have something to fight about. So a prenup is not like, it's not like there's nothing to discuss after you have the prenup. There's still a lot to look at.
Darin Colburn (13:33):
Right. And I, I encourage everyone out there. If you're having any major transactions early on in a marriage, or even, you know, maybe later in the marriage that involve things that you owned prior prior to the marriage, like, for example, before you cash out your 401k to put on a down payment for your new house, with your new wife consultant attorney, then rather than, you know, 15 years later when you're going through divorce because you're, you're allowed to make stupid decisions during the marriage when, when everything's good and dandy and it's all peace and love. And then I can't tell you how many people, you know, take a house that they own prior to the marriage, right there, their spouse has a no or minimal claim to it. And then they, they put their spouse on the title. They just gave her a claim to house to have, and almost, always, not always, but almost always people regret that when they're going through divorce. And it, people really should see a divorce attorney before they get married. Unless you're starting with absolutely nothing. You know, and you're not interested in a prenup, but
Billie Tarascio (14:42):
Yeah, I totally agree with you. And also I think that this is something that you should be talking with your estate planning attorney about as well. Like if you are somebody of high wealth, then you're probably buying houses in trusts anyway, and how those are titled and how you set these up will impact ownership. Even if you have a prenup, right? So the business of your marriage can be a big deal. It's probably the biggest business partner you've ever had and that you will ever have, have. And you know, they've been married for 24 years. So a lot has happened in 24 years. They probably built a lot together. So a prenup is something that you should sort of like revisit early and often I think.
Darin Colburn (15:24):
Yeah, I agree. And you know, the other thing about a marriage of long duration is for, for 24 years if you really had to go back to all the banks and get all the documentation to prove all the transactions, and there's been quite a high volume of transactions, these institutions may not even have the records anymore. Right. most, most banks keep records for seven years now. I'm sure Drai's got a team that keeps these things, but it is another challenge. You know, you see that a lot with retirement accounts and you really want to be proactively managing and paying attention to these things during the marriage, rather than just at the end of it and trying to work backwards.
Billie Tarascio (16:06):
Yeah. I couldn't agree more. Now, one other issue that's coming up is Nicole is alleging that Dr. Dre has had many, many mistresses and she is looking to contact them and depose them. What are your thoughts on that?
Darin Colburn (16:24):
All right. So here's his thing. First of all I'm a married man. I don't personally believe in adultery. You know so I'm not co-signing anything. And like I said, everything is speculative here, but I would be surprised if she didn't know about it and invited his attorney. That makes a difference to me because it's one thing, if you're, first of all, I think California is also a no fault divorce state like Arizona. What that means like Billy said is, you know, we don't have to prove adultery. Usually it also means that marital misconduct and adultery would fall under that category. Doesn't have an impact on property division. Generally speaking the exception, that would be like, if it actually has an, a direct tie to finances, as in you took a hundred thousand dollars from a joint account and you gave it to your mistrust, that is community funds that you now have taken out of the community and she would have a claim for reimbursement of half or more potentially.
Darin Colburn (17:24):
Right. So it becomes a financial question. Essentially that's really what matters, but these things are always emotional. I would say, but again, if she knew he had mistresses and that was to each their own celebrities are kind of in their own little echelon of how they do things, right. If she knew he had side pieces, I think is what the colloquial term, she's not going to prevail on a claim for waste. If she, if she knows that he has this pattern of behavior, now, if he's doing this without her knowledge, or maybe she knows that he has affairs, but she doesn't know that he's buying his side pieces you know, Bugattis and you know, all this kind of stuff that would also give rise to a potential claim. But again, to me, it kind of feels like the low hanging fruit, because this is a man who is worth almost a billion dollars. So why are we going to fight over, you know, half a million here when we could go after like 400 million over here? You know, that's kinda how I feel about it.
Billie Tarascio (18:35):
Really good question. It's a really good question. You've got an attorney who I feel like should know the prenuptial agreement is going to be enforceable. You're an attorney, you signed it with the advice of an attorney, you know, that like, that, that means you're bound by it. You've been divorced before, so, but one of the other things she asked for was $5 million for attorney's fees. Yeah.
Darin Colburn (19:04):
Yeah, I do. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't mean, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I I often tell clients that, you know, there's no end to what you could spend, but I don't, I think I would be hard pressed to spend $5 million. Although I've never I've never worked with a client who's worth a billion. So that may be that may be different, but that, that just kind of makes me cringe because again, I don't unders within that $5 million that she wants to litigate this matter, you could put that towards getting the right, if she's getting good advice and not just kind of fanning the flame of conflict which always happens in divorce. You could put those resources to getting a good outcome and to being strategically cost-effective. I think I get the sense that they are to some degree fighting because they can, and they they're fortunate to have the resources to, to fight. So, you know, if I'm talking to a client who has $2,000 in the bank and, and she had, you know, her husband has an airtight prenup based on the facts after we do a, an analysis, I may say, yeah, we could try to challenge it, but it's just going to be wasting your money. But if I'm talking to her and she has millions of dollars to spend, it might, Hey, we can try to challenge it. It's a very uphill battle, but the cost benefit analysis is potentially different there. Right?
Billie Tarascio (20:31):
I totally agree with you. So challenging the prenup from a legal perspective makes perfect sense. If he's got a billion dollars that you potentially get a claim to, or don't get a claim to, you got to challenge the prenup, you have to fight it with everything you heck. Yeah, you can. But if you find out that the prenup is then valid, which the judge has said it is, and now you're chasing down lovers. This is where this seems to me to be a legal move that I don't quite understand. And now we don't have all the facts, but if the only reason you go chase down lovers, well, actually there's two reasons. Number one, embarrassment and punishment.
Darin Colburn (21:08):
That's how it feels to me,
Billie Tarascio (21:10):
Embarrassment and punishment. You want to embarrass your spouse and you want to punish them. Or number two, you want to find money that they spent that you can recoup. But if community property is gone, if you, if everybody's keeping their property separate, then chasing down, mistresses can really only have one purpose. The lawyer gets paid and punishments and embarrassment.
Darin Colburn (21:31):
Well, and she, the client will feel good. And I think you're probably right, because when you go through a divorce, right, you're kind of stuck on a, on a plane with somebody or, or a boat. And it can either, you know, you got two people, it can be a smooth ride if everyone's kind of sitting tight and the upright position with their seatbelts locked, or it can be a really bumpy ride. And you can like, you know, drown in the ocean and it takes two people. It only takes one person to be to rock the boat in order for it to be a turbulent experience and a message strategically that they could be trying to send a Dr. Dre is, look I am going to run your name through the mud. And again, this is all speculative, right? Run your name through the mud, but if you want off this ride, you can just cut me a check and we'll be done tomorrow.
Billie Tarascio (22:23):
Absolutely. It's a strategy. I mean, she has, she doesn't have a lot to lose. Yeah. All right. So the, so we've, we've talked about the mistresses, we've talked about the prenup. The next issue is the $2 million in monthly support. Darren, what do you think about that?
Darin Colburn (22:42):
Well, I don't know what their lifestyle is, but I would say that that's a very high number even if they had a high lifestyle. And I really need to know more about the landscape in California in terms of how they consider things. My understanding is that they have a calculator, which makes it really easy to kind of get a baseline. Right. But anytime. And when I say calculator, I mean, you plug in things like how long had they been married? What is his income? What is her income? You know, what are maybe certain variable expenses. There's going to be some kind of mechanism for that which is in Arizona, there's no calculator. And then almost entirely discretionary, right? The court considers a number of statutory factors, but none of them are really quantitative. So the judge can, in a sense, do what they want, but in California, it's, it's less like that.
Darin Colburn (23:31):
My understanding is if you put in the numbers you wouldn't get $2 million per month. And that begs the question, and this is, this is true of child support in Arizona is you can always, you know, there's always room, a creative attorney to make arguments about why the calculator, which applies to the masses shouldn't apply in this particular case. And that certainly seems like a situation where it's worth exploring, but $2 million a month seems like a stretch. I think if she were going, if I were a judge and she were going to, to win that she would have to have a lot of definitive proof about how much they were spending per month and the lifestyle that they became accustomed to. And then I might kind of consider her claim, but a starting point, I think for most judges is what do you need? What do you need based on the lifestyle, right. But I think 2 million a month is going to turn a lot of people. A lot of people off, right
Billie Tarascio (24:28):
At this point, both Dr. Dre and Ms. Young have hired accountants and it looks like her annual, her monthly spend that he was paying was just under $300,000. So it seems like her cost of living has been roughly $300,000. Although another factor and a separate ask that she has is for private security. Now, what do we know about that?
Darin Colburn (24:54):
So like, this is like her personal security detail, like so security in terms of like my, my body guards, my teams that keep me safe. So my understanding, she asked for $1.5 million for that as like an advance on her expenses, she wanted him to pay for it. He she lost that. She lost her bid because he was in fact paying for her security detail. And she fired them because she didn't like the people that he had hired. So he was willing to hire a team, but he already had a team in place. She fired him. So just said, look, he was paying for it. You fire them. You don't, you don't get that her counterpoint, you know, and again, this is coming out through the media, not through the, the legal documents, but her counterpoint in our messaging is, you know, that he's being controlling because he's willing to pay for it. But only if you use my people and, you know, there's privacy concerns, maybe that's true. Maybe it's not true. But I, I think when you're going for, for most people, when you're going through a divorce, you've got to look at the bigger picture. And she, she just screwed herself out of a free security detail.
Billie Tarascio (26:05):
I mean, it'd be worth it. I mean, if you've got somebody, I mean, think about that. They're very close to you. And if you are trying, if you're in an embroiled in a terrible divorce, the last thing you want is somebody on the other side, listening to every word you say, potentially, we're hearing your conversations with your attorney so I can understand why she went that way. Now. I think that they settled on a $2 million temporary support number total so that he is no longer paying her monthly fees and she's got $2 million to do with what she wants.
Darin Colburn (26:39):
Yeah. And I don't know if it, I don't know the couch, it is temporary support. It was, I read it as like a $2 million advance. And maybe we're splitting hairs here, but the, to keep things in place until they get in front of the judge and in April yeah, she's going to get some money obviously from, from the divorce. So paying her in advance, like even if the court were to award her $300,000 a month on a 24 year marriage you know, that's, my understanding is in California. There's going to be a a pretty, I mean, basically an indefinite duration at that point, always subject to modification, of course, but you know, $300,000 a month is $3.6 million a year. So advancing her 2 million from his, I mean, he's going to spend that at, at some point, is what I'm saying.
Billie Tarascio (27:37):
And from her perspective that allows her to spend that money as she wants to, as opposed to having him pay her expenses and therefore see her expenses.
Darin Colburn (27:44):
Yeah. And I, I sincerely hope that somebody that she's asking for 2 million a month because she wants to be aggressive and not because like, but she's not building her lifestyle off of that right now, because it's a quick way to go go, bro.
Billie Tarascio (28:01):
I dunno how you spend $2 million a month.
Darin Colburn (28:04):
Yeah, I don't, I don't either, but I, I don't, I mean, I don't think she'll get that
Billie Tarascio (28:08):
One point that you made earlier that I just want to emphasize is that the rules and the statutes were not written for people that have this type of money. And so one mistake that a lot of high income individuals make is thinking they can only get what's in the calculator and that's simply not true. The calculator is always a guideline that was built for the masses that was not built for super high income people. And this is something that I think a lot of attorneys miss, and a lot of people miss,
Darin Colburn (28:41):
But 2 million, but
Billie Tarascio (28:43):
2 million.
Darin Colburn (28:46):
I mean, he is a billionaire, but yeah, if she, if she was really only spending $300,000 per month during the marriage, how on earth would she have a claim for 2 million after marriage?
Billie Tarascio (28:57):
I think that was after sh after they separated, when he was paying her expenses. So I don't know that that was during the marriage. He's been spending lots during the marriage. These past few years, things have been very good to him. Apple stock's been very good to him. So I think that's why she went super aggressive. Now, one of the most interesting issues to me is the claims and the issue of domestic violence during a marriage and whether or not you can get damages for domestic violence, either in terms of a private civil lawsuit, or as part of your spousal maintenance number. Now, Arizona spousal maintenance statute does allow for factoring in domestic violence damages. And anyone can always Sue civilly for domestic violence.
Darin Colburn (29:50):
Right. And in Arizona though it's based on a con a criminal conviction or, or, you know I think it is, it just, it think it's just crazy
Billie Tarascio (30:01):
Damages related to a criminal conviction. That's what the Arizona statute says. And to me that's pretty limited.
Darin Colburn (30:10):
Cause you actually have to have a conviction, which in this case we don't. So she's really probably looking at if California, she's probably looking at a civil complaint, right?
Billie Tarascio (30:20):
Yes. And the other thing is in Arizona and probably in California as well, you have the ability to join civil complaints with divorces, but it doesn't happen a lot. And many, many times people who are victims of domestic violence do not Sue for damages either it's not financially feasible to do so, or there's another legal impediment. But I think this theory is, is extremely interesting because if you are the victim of battery, you have damages. If somebody hits you in the face, you're allowed to Sue them, you are allowed to get damages. And there's a couple issues that make it very, very difficult for victims of domestic violence inside of marriage to collect money. Number one is damages. Number two is statute of limitations.
Darin Colburn (31:11):
Yeah. So a statute of limitations is how long after an event occurs that you have to bring a claim. So after a certain period of time even if everything that you're saying occurred actually happened, and there's no factual dispute about that, you may be prohibited from seeking court relief just because of the amount of time that has passed. And that that's more of a public policy time. I don't know, it's such a limitations would be in, in California, but then it becomes not just important what occurred, but also when it occurred. And I think from our prior discussions you had mentioned that she had called the police maybe very early on in their marriage, but that was 24 years ago. So I imagine the statute on that incident has told from one of the other challenges with domestic violence in general, is that the we all know that victims of domestic violence often don't report it to the police.
Darin Colburn (32:11):
They often stay with their you know, they often stay with their abusers because it's a very difficult situation to be in. It's a difficult dynamic. Oftentimes not only is it physical abuse, but also emotional and financial abuse in terms of like you know, okay, my, my spouse hit me, but they also pay my bills and I haven't had a job for 15 years. So it's a very diff these are difficult decisions for people to make. And, and we all know that, but the court gives a lot of deference to whether a police report was filed, whether or not there's medical evidence of the abuse whether or not, you know, somebody tells other people about it. And unfortunately a lot of those things don't happen, which makes it difficult to, to prove Dre is kind of different because I think it's kind of interesting, I would say because I don't, I don't know if there's a lot of those types of records, but he's also a very public figure. And from what I've heard, he has a certain reputation, so it wouldn't necessarily be surprising. And I, I'm not exactly sure how that would, you know, in, in a case like this, you've got kind of the court of law and you also got the court of public opinion. And I don't think that would really help him out very much,
Billie Tarascio (33:32):
Right. There are at least two previous women who have alleged that he was extremely physically abusive. And now you have Nicole coming out and giving very specific instances of abuse, including an allegation that he held a gun to her head. Now when you have a civil case, you get a jury and the question is, does the jury believe that does the, who does the jury believe? Right? And then how much is that worth? And if you, Dr. Dre have a billion dollars and Nicole is able to show that, you know, or, or convince a jury that, you know, her version, that she was really tortured and battered throughout a lot of her marriage, how does that affect, you know, will a jury pay her for that? And one very interesting thing that's happening with regards to domestic violence. And these claims is it goes to the issue of statute of limitations.
Billie Tarascio (34:41):
And there's some legislation in some States that say, if an act of domestic violence battery occurred within your two year limit of statute of limitations, then everything that happened before that gets in. And then there's some other statutes that are proposed that say the statute of limitations on domestic battery begins on the date of the divorce. Now, if that were to happen, it were, it would open up a massive amount of potential litigation, because I think that we watch people get divorced all the time and, and, and the way that a marriage breaks down is slowly with repeated events. And it's, it's true for domestic violence. It's true for any other type of like relationship damage. It doesn't happen. It's not like a one and done thing. Everybody has a different breaking point. Everybody has a different point where they're like, Oh, this is the last they'll go, you know, and you fill in the blank, spend money without my knowledge, cheat on me. Call me bad names, hit my kid, whatever it might be. People don't just leave a relationship because they've gotten great usually.
Darin Colburn (35:53):
And, and the person when you're representing somebody who's been accused of something, whether it's in a criminal proceeding or you know, in a divorce proceeding it's very easy. Like there's a playbook you go by, right? You asked, why didn't you call the police? Why did you stay if it was so bad? A part of me always cringes, when, when I have to ask those questions, they're fair questions. You have to do your job, right. But it's not it's not always definitive. Right? And you also see that in a lot of sex assault cases, too outside of the context of divorce types of questions, it is possible for two things to be true at once. It's possible to stay in a marriage for any number of reasons. And you were still, and you were still you know, abused whether emotionally, physically, financially, whatever.
Darin Colburn (36:45):
And you know, that's more of like a human analysis, but the playbook is very very, very standard and straightforward on the defense side of it. Right. I think the thing, and it's one of these interesting things where there are, I think a lot more, I think there are a lot of people that are abused or have been abused that have been silent. Right. and so that, that statute, or that change that changing the rules would allow those people an opportunity to speak. I think there are a much smaller number of people that will absolutely take advantage of that for the wrong reasons. And, and, you know, I, I know that I'm sure we've all experienced cases as attorneys where the other side is lying and making stuff up, or we're about as, about as confident in that as we can be. So there are going, and I think it's interesting because I think we tend to focus on when we have these discussions, the the potential for people to abuse those systems. Cause I guarantee you, if they change that law, we'll get an increase in in those types of claims, which is and there will be people that lie about it, but I mean, what is it you think that makes us focus on that rather than all the people that now have an opportunity?
Billie Tarascio (38:06):
I mean, you're bringing a great point and this is so relevant because we've watched what just happened with the me too movement. And it was just a cultural shift for years. Women had been saying that there were people like Epstein or Weinstein or, you know, name, the powerful man, Matt Lauer. Like these people had been accused for years and years and years, but there was a cultural shift that said, wait a minute, we don't think this is okay. And yes, it is possible that people come forward with false allegations, but that's why we have a criminal system or, or a civil system. That's why we have juries. That's why we have lawyers that get to present evidence. And I think that we are headed to a time when people will recognize that there is a line even within a marriage where you've crossed it and you've done criminal acts and you should be held responsible. And I think it's a good thing.
Darin Colburn (39:05):
Yeah. And, and I think we have to make a decision as a society. Would we rather open the door for more people to come make it easier for victims come forward at the potential risk of, of making a few small, you know, a very small number of bad actors, giving them an additional opportunity to take advantage of the system, or would we rather keep the system closed in order to prevent, you know, a small number of bad actors. And, and I, you know, I think we want to live in a society where there's more opportunity for people victims come forward. You know,
Billie Tarascio (39:42):
It does change behavior. You know, when people, there is a deterrent effect right now happening against sexual harassment in the workplaces because liability changes behavior. And so the whole, the whole movement of making it harder to Sue is, is I think really backwards because it's not easy to Sue you. And I know this coming up with the money to put together a lawsuit and the time and the evidence it's not easy at all, but it really does change, especially institutional behavior. When I, as an employer face potential liability for allowing people within my organization to be abusive or allowing an environment of sexual harassment, employers start changing their tune real fast. And that's a good thing. It makes society better.
Darin Colburn (40:26):
Yeah. And I think that's why we've seen an increase in, you know, people haven't been getting what they need from the legal system to a degree. So they get on Twitter, you know, social media because you know whether or not you can win a case in court, you can, you can really take, you know, have keep people accountable in the, again in the court of public opinion. So to speak.
Billie Tarascio (40:53):
It is real interesting, isn't it? The consequences that happen now and the ability to like for people to stake their claim. It's just, it's, it's insane. So we've gotten off topic on Dr. Dre, but I think these are important topics and, and big cases highlight these types of things. And I'm sure we're going to hear more about what happens to Dr. Dre and Ms. Young, one thing we didn't hit on is his aneurysm. I think you did mention that he had had an aneurysm, but he is now out of the hospital and I think doing better. And, and of course we, we wish him health and well wellness.
Darin Colburn (41:30):
You know, one of the things that is difficult with violence too, is it's you know, it's difficult for victims to relive their experiences, which is necessary in order to, to prove a claim. And I, you know, I don't know how we get around that from a legal perspective because you know, you have a constitutional right to due process with these types of things. But it is in practice very, very difficult to, and it can, retraumatize people, I know we're off topic, but I also think it's on a, you know,
Billie Tarascio (42:03):
Important, this idea that people are Sue happy is wrong.
Darin Colburn (42:09):
Yeah. I think the other thing too relevant to the Dre situation, how are her claims more or less credible? And this is a question I'd like to get your opinion, because I think we may have to cut this maybe controversial, right. But are her claims more or less credible because she's asking for $2 million a month, do they have any impact on it? Right. Because I think for most people it's easier to push it to the side and believe maybe she's just making stuff up or overstaying stuff because she's being so aggressive. But if it's all true, maybe that's part of why she's reacting the way that she is from a, from a, you know, strategic and spousal maintenance, same point.
Billie Tarascio (43:00):
I'm really glad you brought this up. If I were Nicole's attorney and this was, and I was coming up with how much to ask for and why if I'm being very aggressive in a claim for spousal maintenance, I want to have a reason. And if the reason isn't justified with expenses, then there are other reasons why you can justify a higher than normal spousal maintenance ask. And so if I were representing Nicole and I knew, and Nicole was talking to me and she was saying, you know, that I was put through years of, of trauma, I would want to talk to her psychologist. I would want to see their medical records. I would want to see, like, how can we quantify the damage and the treatment you're going to need? And the, and the hit to your earning capacity because of the abuse that you have suffered. And that is what I would use to justify a higher than normal ask. And maybe 2 million wouldn't be the number, but you want to have, I want to have an analysis that goes into the number that I'm asking for that it can be tied back to something concrete,
Darin Colburn (44:06):
Right. And I think that's a good, you make a great point. And part of this is probably because we're hearing all this information through diluted channels and the grapevine, so to speak, but like, that's a really good point because I think that a lot of, you know, we're getting all this information to the grapevine kind of through diluted channels. And so one of the reasons why maybe the $2 million per month feels arbitrary or maybe aggressive is because her people to date having done a real good job of explaining the foundation for that. And if you're going to ask for a large number like that, you gotta have a good reason. And I'm not seeing any of that in the articles in, in the P and to be fair, sometimes you got to get stuff, you know, filed. But again, these are people that have millions of dollars to spend money on attorney's fees. Like you have to be able to prove the numbers. You can't just ask for 2 million because he has 800 billion. You gotta tie it to your expenses. And I don't think her team's done a good job of, of laying that out. So far, $800 million goes pretty quickly. If you're spending $2 million a month,
Billie Tarascio (45:11):
It does. It does. And, and you know, she wasn't attorney now, she's not working like there's ways that you can increase and justify a spousal maintenance claim when the other person can afford it. That goes beyond your expenses, but you need to get creative and you need to get some, some, some oomph behind you in terms of experts or calculations or theory.
Darin Colburn (45:33):
And I would just like to say, I'm pretty sure she's probably going to make way more in spousal than she ever did or would or could have true so young in my career. But I don't, I don't particularly feel bad for her
Billie Tarascio (45:47):
300,000 a month. I know, different world,
Darin Colburn (45:51):
You know? So yeah, I think that was you know and that's not a commentary on their marriage, and if she did go through abuse, you know, I certainly feel empathy for that, but financially she's going to be okay.
Billie Tarascio (46:04):
Yes. Well, Darin, thank you so much. This has been a really fun, different episode of the Modern Divorce podcast. And I, there are a lot more celebrity divorces that you and I need to talk about, so we will schedule it and we will get it done here pretty soon. Bye.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
Thanks so much for listening to the Modern Divorce podcast. Remember anything you've heard today or anything you read online is not the replacement for actual consultation with an attorney and does not create an attorney client relationship, even if you called in and we spoke to you, you were anonymous and we don't have your details, and you've not become a client of modern law. However, we would love to speak with you, or you should seek out the advice of legal counsel or counseling or any other expert near you. And if you have an idea for a show topic, or you need to speak with an attorney in Arizona, you can reach me at info@mymodernlaw.com.