Is Jennifer McKay Gold a greedy ex-girlfriend trying to shake down billionaire Donald Bren for retroactive child support?

Donald Bren’s back child support case is going to court today, for trial. The case has been on the court’s dockets since 2003. Bren’s two adult kids with an ex girlfriend are suing him because they feel he should have paid them $400k per month as we discussed in prior posts.
This altercation is predicated on an oral agreement that Bren allegedly reached with the children’s mother, Jennifer McKay Gold to pay $10,000 per month.
Bren, by all accounts is a major philanthropist. On his website donald-bren.com, his bio says in part: “In 2008, Business Week magazine ranked Mr. Bren 9th on its annual list of ‘The 50 Most Generous Philanthropists‘ in the country, estimating that he has given more than $1.3 billion during his lifetime.”
So it is puzzling how a guy who has given so much to other children has found himself in this situation with his own children. Are his children and their mother being greedy? $400,000 per month per child is a lot. On the other hand, if he only paid $10k per month, that seems low as well.
Some highly affluent people don’t like to spoil their children by giving them too much money. Bren may be one of those people. Still, I think he’s going to have to cough up some more money on this one. He seems like a really nice and upstanding guy. But given the child support statutes in California, I think he may have to cough up some more. Not as much as they want. But more.
But then again….usually a person can’t get back child support UNLESS there was an outstanding order that went unpaid. In other words, if McKay Gold had sued him when the children were still minors and obtained a court order for the $400K and he didn’t pay it, then I can totally see her getting the retroactive support. This case was filed seven years ago. How old are the children now? I read that they are 18 and 22 but I cannot be sure of that.
If, in fact, they are 18 and 22 as reported, then when this case was commenced in 2003 they were clearly minors and so this retroactive case is totally legit. She should get retroactive support to the date of the filing of the case in 2003. (I don’t think she will get anything past that date) But, wow. I think he’s cooked with this one. He’s going to have to cough up a lot more money than $10,000 per month. He should try to reach a fair settlement before the judge orders him to pay something huge.
Follow us on twitter for updates on this throughout the day at www.twitter.com/divorcesaloon