Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SanchoP

Can’t figure out why they don’t buy this woman off.


8 posted on 12/23/2019 4:46:38 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: RummyChick

She probably wanted a bigger payday. I’m guessing lawyers got involved.


9 posted on 12/23/2019 5:02:02 PM PST by SanchoP (Yippy,the next generation search engine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: RummyChick

She is a professional gold digger and she hit the jackpot.


11 posted on 12/23/2019 5:13:19 PM PST by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: RummyChick
Can’t figure out why they don’t buy this woman off.

Can the mother stop the court from demanding the financial documents needed to determine Hunter's child support? If she can't, then a bribe will not help Hunter, unless it is paid to the judge.

13 posted on 12/23/2019 5:18:57 PM PST by TChad (The MSM, having nuked its own credibility, is now bombing the rubble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: RummyChick

The “they” in this case are Bidens. They are idiots.


14 posted on 12/23/2019 5:22:12 PM PST by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust the Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: RummyChick
...Can’t figure out why they don’t buy this woman off...

Possibly Hunter can not afford what she thinks is a just settlement.

Hunter was "earning" well over $1 Million per year. Both Lunden and her lawyer can do basic math. 20% to 25% of this, just for instance, is $200k - $250k per year. Until the child is 18 or 19.

I have no experience with Arkansas divorce law, but I know that in CA the attitude of the court is "Lost your job? That's tough noogies, we are still ordering support based on the rate you were earning. This will encourage you to get another job."

And, if Hunter doesn't come up with an income statement pretty soon, the court is liable to just take a guess, based on what we know right now, and order that. I am sort of surprised they haven't done that already. The welfare of the child is supposed to be the primary concern, and living on very little income is not in the child's best interest.

27 posted on 12/23/2019 11:57:31 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson