Fake Mistress...?*



Two principles of California law...... , a spouse can't give away community property without the written consent of the other spouse. And anything a spouse earns while he is living "separate and apart from the other spouse" is the spouse's separate property, not community property, and he is free to do what he wants with it.  

The key finding that Judge Richard Fruin
was that Shelly and Donald Sterling weren't living "separate and apart" while Mr. Sterling was funding an expensive lifestyle to which Ms. Stiviano became accustomed.

The couple was even at one point "estranged". But they "continued to live together, to travel together, to hold parties together and to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries together." There also was evidence of "birthday and anniversary cards that contain hand-written love notes from Donald Sterling to his wife."

By contrast, Ms. Viviano denied under oath that she and Mr. Sterling were ever in a romance or had sex. Instead, she testified that Mr. Sterling was a father figure and a lover, whatever that means. 
The judge found the evidence was "overwhelming" that Mr. Sterling funded the purchase of the home.  "she had no money and that she did not contribute money."

And in a nice "live by the tape, die by the tape" twist, a taped telephone conversation between Ms. Stiviano and Mr. Sterling in which Ms. Stiviano was heard telling Mr. Sterling: "I want Shelly to know you bought me the house.

Without Ms. Stiviano being the lover of Mr. Sterling she insisted she never was, it was going to be tough for her to establish that Mr. and Mrs. Sterling were living separate lives when he bought her all those gifts.  Then the prizes that Ms. Stiviano got from Mr. Sterling, weren't hers to keep. That left her with not much to show for.     

Just a thought.