[ad_1]
On The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills‘ most recent episodes, Erika Jayne has been a source of levity.
In real life, unfortunately, things remain very dire.
An attorney has demanded that Erika turn over a pair of diamond earrings, calling them “fruit of the embezzlement.”
Erika is firing back, saying that the earrings were a legitimate gift — and the statute of limitations has run out, anyway.
Radar Online obtained new documents related to Erika Jayne’s ongoing crisis.
The trustee who is presiding over the Girardi Keese embezzlement case is gunning for her.
The goal is to auction off $1.4 million diamond earrings to pay back Tom’s creditors and alleged victims.
The auction would likely only put a dent in the $5.4 million lawsuit.
However, Erika has refused in the past.
She has explained through her attorney that she accepted a gift from her husband in good faith.
To be fair, there is no evidence that she had any reason to suspect that the earrings were ill-gotten gains.
She married a very rich attorney. Why would she be suspicious of expensive gifts?
Erika’s attorneys, doing their jobs by advocating for their client, noted that Erika cannot be charged for receiving the earrings.
The statute of limitations has run out on the trustee’s claims. It’s been 15 years.
Because of that, there can be no “new case” against Erika … provided that the court doesn’t find a workaround.
Obviously, one major incentive for Erika to hold onto her jewelry is because her life is in turmoil.
Simply put, she may need to sell various possessions in order to support herself.
But anyone concerned that she might sell the ring ahead of the court siding with (or against) her need not worry.
Erika’s earrings are currently under lock and key in a safety deposit box.
Her attorney has announced that they will remain there until the court resolves this dispute.
Erika may not have liked surrendering her earrings and placing them in escrow, but it was an appropriate move.
The trustee does not think that any delay is reasonable.
In court documents, they argue that the court cannot allow Erika to “keep the fruits of her husband’s poisonous tree.”
Even within the document, however, there is an acknowledgment that the statute of limitations has passed.
The trustee does more than simply argue that Erika had an obligation to return the earrings.
The motion claimed that simply withholding the property could land Erika in prison for up to a year.
Of course, the wording of the law says that she would have to have knowingly received stolen goods.
Receiving a gift of jewelry from your apparently rich husband isn’t exactly a red flag.
Additionally, Tom didn’t steal the jewelry, he purchased it. Even if he embezzled the funds … allegedly.
The trustee argues that Erika’s refusal to fork over the earrings is a “new crime,” but it’s unclear if this will hold up.
For the record, Erika received the earrings in 2007.
Her attorney notes that 15 years is a long time to go with a piece of jewelry before someone claims that it’s not theirs.
That is why these statute of limitations laws exist, after all.
Erika’s attorney also explains that Erika’s earrings are in escrow.
This shows complete compliance with the court and anticipation of the court’s decision.
The argument here is simple: Erika is cooperating. There is no “new crime.”
And, if there was an “old crime,” Erika is not the culprit.
Erika’s attorney also questioned why she is the focus, and not so many of the people who worked with Tom.
The implication here is that going after Erika is more sensational.
Whether she’s guilty or innocent or somewhere in between, Erika makes a tempting target.
[ad_2]
Source link
