Someone earning $700,000 over a 6-year period seeks alimony from a spinal surgeon spouse earning substantially more over the same period ($3 million in one year alone). For purposes of calculating alimony, does the court assume that $700,000 will be earned over the next 6 years by the lower-income spouse? The U.S. Sun raises what is perhaps a novel question. (Thanks to four separate readers who emailed this to me!)
Kim claimed in the documents for years he didn’t know that Turner was working as a high-priced call girl.
The divorce papers, which were filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in July, reportedly allege that Turner earned nearly $700,000 in cash from her clients.
They go on to claim that Turner had clients including a New Jersey-based real estate executive and an award-winning lighting designer, New York Daily News reported.
Dr. Kim only first became aware of his wife’s double life in December 2020 when he came across an explicit iMessage intended for Turner, which detailed a sexual encounter between her and another man, the court papers reportedly state.
“Not to belabor the obvious but the defendant clearly committed material fraud upon Dr. Kim by concealing her sale of sexual services in exchange for money prior to the marriage,” Dr. Kim reportedly states in the court documents.
This particular case was settled so we’ll never find out, but it would be interesting to see if a court would allow expert testimony on the question of what the future earnings of a prostitute might be.
It is a an interesting business idea, Phil, maybe better than the Plexiglas one, for you to hold yourself out as an “expert” on a prostitute’s expected life time earnings though as you know you would need to be “qualified” by the court in order to offer expert (opinion) evidence. You could be qualified based on academic expertise, personal experience or a combination of the two. My guess is the number would be fairly low — substantial earnings in the early years but likely a short career due to violence, substance abuse, aging. As an aside, In considering this business opportunity you might also want to consider how this line of business might affect your opportunities as an expert in the patent area since it would open you up to attacks on your character & that might make you less attractive to potential patent litigants.
Note that the plaintiff’s first name is “Regina”, which to Seinfeld fans, rhymes with “Doris”. Given her lack of marital integrity, I wonder if she used the Tourist Board of Saskatchewan’s classic jingle without attribution or royalties?