SAN FRANCISCO: The Getty Divorce papers – Jaqueline Getty alleges "choking" "death threats" and "broken arm" by husband Gordon Getty Jr. in her affidavit

[GSMITHBOOK] Radaronline is reporting, exclusively, that Jackie Getty is alleging that Gordon Getty Jr has choked her, broken her arm, threatened to kill her and that she is afraid of him and needs a restraining order. She is also seeking attorney’s fees and support for her 23 year old daughter, Gia, who is not Gordon’s biological child.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence knows no class, socio economic group, race or ethnicity. It is an equal opportunity menace. At the same time, we should say that these are just the allegations of one spouse and so far these allegations have not been proven. So we can’t come out and brand Gordon Getty Jr a domestic abuser just yet. But his wife’s claims are pretty inflammatory and if true, pretty gross. She claims in the 15 page affidavit which is available on Radaronline that he has an “explosive temper” and that she is afraid to be in his presence without her attorney or a third party present.
SUPPORT FOR 23 YEAR OLD GIA
Whaaaat? Why should Mr. Getty support a child who is not even his biological child and who is over the age of 23? Unless GIA is a quadriplegic or something, I don’t know where Jacqueline gets off asking for support for a 23 year old. I am pretty sure that there is no state in the Union who would give her support for a child who is emancipated and no longer subject to child support laws. Now, as far as inheritance rights, that is something else. That I don’t know much about. I am not sure that a parent has to leave anything to an emancipated child. I have seen and heard too many cases where kids were disinherited. And it’s not even his biological kid. Sure, he probably was the only father she knew, as Jacqueline has said in her papers that Gia’s dad died while Jacks was pregnant. That is sad and tragic. And she hooked up with Gordon when little Gia was four. So he is her dad for all practical purposes. And Jacks claims that Gordon promised to “support GIA for the rest of her life.” Okay. Whatever. Maybe. But how enforceable is such an oral contract? Left to be seen. I think Jacks is reaching on this one. I don’t think the court, under normal circumstances, can compel Gordon to leave anything to GIA. It’s not as if Jacks is claiming he adopted the girl.
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND ADDITIONAL SPOUSAL SUPPORT
One of the fascinating things in Jacqueline’s affidavit is that she makes a huge effort to delineate to the court exactly when she got separated from Gordon. She seems deathly afraid the court will use a 2008 date as opposed to a 2009 date. Seems they’ve been apart (permanently) since May 2009. But there was another separation in 2008. She apparently filed papers but he sweet-talked her into pulling them back. The extra year must be relevant. Nine years of marriage vs. Ten years of marriage. I am sure there is some relevance there and it comes down to money no doubt. She claims he’s been voluntarily giving her $100,000 per month and she obviously can’t survive on that pittance. She needs three times that much just to make ends meet. Hey, as I said with Countess Marie Douglas David, it is not for us poor folks to understand this or like it. If she is used to a certain standard of living, then that is what the court should order during the pendency of the divorce action. As far as her attorney’s fees, well, Trope and Trope aren’t cheap…Although I have no idea who she retained for this gig. I will say this: She should get attorney’s fees that are comparable to the pit bulls Gordon will likely get to protect his $2 billion dollar empire. One must always be concerned with balancing the equities between the parties in a situation like this.
JACQUELINE INVOKES “FOR PRIVACY REASONS” QUITE A BIT
The Gettys’ are notoriously private, I’ve read. It is telling that there is so little about Gordon Getty on Google. I am not sure if there is a Gordon Getty Senior (who is alive) and a Gordon Getty Jr. Sometimes it seems they are one in the same. In any event, Jacqueline refuses to get into too much detail in her papers in a number of paragraphs. She cites “privacy reasons.” She says things like “I don’t want to embarass the Getty family.”
Why does that sound like a veiled threat? It is almost as if she and her lawyers are sending Gordon a message: Play nice, and I keep my mouth shut, push me and I tell the world what an ogre you and your family are and I spill all your dirty laundry, and (as Countess Marie Douglas reportedly threatened during her divorce) we will have a real “mud fight.”
Stay tuned. This one seems to just be heating up.
Image credit