Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

Finally, someone got the anullment part correct.

I'll only add that P took the papers she signed with him.

Now, I'm gonna guess he might've thought he'd simply use that document to prove she had agreed to an anullment, but since the documents were legally worthless he was left still married and had effed up the situation.

On her part, also probably not aware of the law, Mayte signs and when he leaves she assumes it's a done deal and he's got his anullment. She's sad and depressed with alot of things to organize to rearrange her life so she just takes his word. Dumb, but not as dumb as someone I know personally whose ex told her they were divorced and it wasn't until years later that she found out that her ex had lied and there was no divorce. It's a good thing my friend didn't try to get married again.

Here's one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. If you didn't read the documents, how do you know they were legally worthless or not? And in "taking his word" did her divorce lawyer not read it as well?

That's what I'm wondering. How did she know that they were worthless if she didn't read them?

He disappeared by the morning with the documents. There must have been an issue with it or they didn't meet the criteria because it sounds like there was a divorce. Where is the paperwork to that?

[Edited 4/9/17 18:48pm]

purplegirl00 said:

Misslink88 said:

Here's one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. If you didn't read the documents, how do you know they were legally worthless or not? And in "taking his word" did her divorce lawyer not read it as well?

That's what I'm wondering. How did she know that they were worthless if she didn't read them?

He disappeared by the morning with the documents.

She knew they weren't legal because...

NO ANULLMENT WAS GRANTED WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY P and Mayte HAD TO BE DIVORCED.

She compares it to someone simply taking off thier wedding ring and thinking they're not married. That would not LEGALLY make you unmarried.

LBrent said:

purplegirl00 said:

That's what I'm wondering. How did she know that they were worthless if she didn't read them?

He disappeared by the morning with the documents.

She knew they weren't legal because...

NO ANULLMENT WAS GRANTED WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY P and Mayte HAD TO BE DIVORCED.

She compares it to someone simply taking off thier wedding ring and thinking they're not married. That would not LEGALLY make you unmarried.

I edited because I hit post before my thought was complete. I essentially said the same as you just did^. Where is the evidence of the divorce because in the book it sound like a deal struck over the phone? How come the media wasn't diggin for that when they were on the hunt for his divorce documents with Mani?

[Edited 4/9/17 18:54pm]

LBrent said:

purplegirl00 said:

That's what I'm wondering. How did she know that they were worthless if she didn't read them?

He disappeared by the morning with the documents.

She knew they weren't legal because...

NO ANULLMENT WAS GRANTED WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY P and Mayte HAD TO BE DIVORCED.

She compares it to someone simply taking off thier wedding ring and thinking they're not married. That would not LEGALLY make you unmarried.

She would not know that if she did not read them. She is telling a non-truth.

To say they were worthless she had read them.

purplegirl00 said:

LBrent said:

She knew they weren't legal because...

NO ANULLMENT WAS GRANTED WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY P and Mayte HAD TO BE DIVORCED.

She compares it to someone simply taking off thier wedding ring and thinking they're not married. That would not LEGALLY make you unmarried.

I edited because I hit post before my thought was complete. I essentially said the same as you just did^. Where is the evidence of the divorce because in the book it sound like a deal struck over the phone? How come the media wasn't diggin for that when they were on the hunt for his divorce documents with Mani?

[Edited 4/9/17 18:54pm]

I'd imagine the "evidence" is filed in whichever state the divorce was granted. Fans have looked in Minnesota and haven't found them, but they could be in any state where P had legal residence since he most likely filed them.

I'm gonna guess because he couldn't be legally married to M2 if he hadn't been legally divorced from Mayte. And Mani is the one who caused the media attention regarding her divorce.

Vashtix said:

LBrent said:

She knew they weren't legal because...

NO ANULLMENT WAS GRANTED WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY P and Mayte HAD TO BE DIVORCED.

She compares it to someone simply taking off thier wedding ring and thinking they're not married. That would not LEGALLY make you unmarried.

She would not know that if she did not read them. She is telling a non-truth.

To say they were worthless she had read them.

How would you know, if she's telling the truth or not? ARe you in her head?

.

They were worthless. An annullment wasn't and couldn't be granted. Just like LBrent said, that' why they had to get a D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

.

You haven't read the book Vashtix...you are just going with what the posse has to say. Seriously how can you even commnet??

Vashtix said:

LBrent said:

She knew they weren't legal because...

NO ANULLMENT WAS GRANTED WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHY P and Mayte HAD TO BE DIVORCED.

She compares it to someone simply taking off thier wedding ring and thinking they're not married. That would not LEGALLY make you unmarried.

She would not know that if she did not read them. She is telling a non-truth.

To say they were worthless she had read them.

What is it about this that you aren't getting?

I never saw the papers either but I know they were worthless and I din't even know Mayte.

How do I know the pepers she signed were worthless?

CUZ P WASN"T GRANTED AN ANULLMENT USING THEM

See how that works?

If I give you a $100 from a Monopoly set and you don't look at but try to spend it, guess what? It won't spend cuz it's LEGALLY WORthless.

LBrent said:

Misslink88 said:

Here's one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. If you didn't read the documents, how do you know they were legally worthless or not? And in "taking his word" did her divorce lawyer not read it as well?

Ok, let's try this again...

1) They went to the press conference where P announces they are getting an anullment (She had no idea what he was talking about)

2)They get back to the Spanish house where P tries to convince her to sign a paper that was supposedly an anullment (She refuses for the hours they argue)

3) She finally is exhausted and signs and assumes it's an anullment but she hadn't read the paper (He leaves and doesn't say anything else)

4) Finally, after waiting to hear from him, hoping to reconcile, she writes him a letter saying she feels he doesn't love her and it's over and she wants a divorce. She packs up the house, puts the stuff in storage and goes to stay in the US with her family.

Months later, after he still doesn't respond, she contacts a lawyer who prepares divorce documents and sends them to P's lawyer. The lawyer responds that she can keep the house but will not get much cash. (She's too emotionally ehausted to fight so she agrees despite her lawyer advising er to negotiate a better deal, but she just wants the divorce at this point so it'll all end)

P NEVER GOT AN ANULLMENT CUZ THE PAPERS SHE SIGNED WEREN'T LEGAL TO USE THAT WAY> THEY WERE WORTHLESS> He might've thought he could do it that way, but it's NOT LEGAL. Heck, the papers weren't even notarized and witnessed like a legal document.

NO LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER SHE SIGNED. IT WASN'T A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

It's all in the book.

Sheesh

[Edited 4/9/17 18:44pm]

Okay, here's the sequence of events from her book:

• He tells her in the car, on the way to the press conference about the annulment and then announces it there on December 20/98.

• They argue; she signs; he leaves.

• They go on for another year.

• March 20, 2000, she writes a letter asking what he suggests they do and moves out of the house in Spain.

• P responds with an offer – she can keep the house in Spain.

• In May, 2000, final papers are signed.

• Six weeks from the offer to final papers would indicate some kind of document existed prior to her letter of May 2000 to be settled so quickly.

As for signing a "legal" document, if your signature is on something, it's legal.

As for an annulment in MN:

The Courts do not publish forms for annulment. If you believe you qualify for an annulment, you should talk to a lawyer to get legal advice immediately, as there are time limits for filing for annulment. (See MN Statutes § 518.05.)

If she was offered the house in Spain, and then took his clothing as well as the other things that were hers, this would be his legal standing for sueing the Auction house and her as quoted in the article excerpt I posted earlier.

LOL

LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said:

Prince had lots of auctions pulled over the years. He used trademark infringement saying the auction houses did not have the right to use his name or symbol to advertise, and if they could not legally say the stuff was princes it was over.

Yep...and in this case, he was specific: Second, Prince sued us and Mayte, claiming that she did not have legal possession of the Prince stage worn costume lots.

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

Ok, let's try this again...

1) They went to the press conference where P announces they are getting an anullment (She had no idea what he was talking about)

2)They get back to the Spanish house where P tries to convince her to sign a paper that was supposedly an anullment (She refuses for the hours they argue)

3) She finally is exhausted and signs and assumes it's an anullment but she hadn't read the paper (He leaves and doesn't say anything else)

4) Finally, after waiting to hear from him, hoping to reconcile, she writes him a letter saying she feels he doesn't love her and it's over and she wants a divorce. She packs up the house, puts the stuff in storage and goes to stay in the US with her family.

Months later, after he still doesn't respond, she contacts a lawyer who prepares divorce documents and sends them to P's lawyer. The lawyer responds that she can keep the house but will not get much cash. (She's too emotionally ehausted to fight so she agrees despite her lawyer advising er to negotiate a better deal, but she just wants the divorce at this point so it'll all end)

P NEVER GOT AN ANULLMENT CUZ THE PAPERS SHE SIGNED WEREN'T LEGAL TO USE THAT WAY> THEY WERE WORTHLESS> He might've thought he could do it that way, but it's NOT LEGAL. Heck, the papers weren't even notarized and witnessed like a legal document.

NO LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER SHE SIGNED. IT WASN'T A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

It's all in the book.

Sheesh

[Edited 4/9/17 18:44pm]

Okay, here's the sequence of events from her book:

• He tells her in the car, on the way to the press conference about the annulment and then announces it there on December 20/98.

• They argue; she signs; he leaves.

• They go on for another year.

• March 20, 2000, she writes a letter asking what he suggests they do and moves out of the house in Spain.

• P responds with an offer – she can keep the house in Spain.

• In May, 2000, final papers are signed.

• Six weeks from the offer to final papers would indicate some kind of document existed prior to her letter of May 2000 to be settled so quickly.

As for signing a "legal" document, if your signature is on something, it's legal.

As for an annulment in MN:

The Courts do not publish forms for annulment. If you believe you qualify for an annulment, you should talk to a lawyer to get legal advice immediately, as there are time limits for filing for annulment. (See MN Statutes § 518.05.)

You aren't telling the entire story.

I don't know if it's deliberate or because you didn't read the book, but that's NOT what she, who went through it and documents it, tells as the course of events.

After he signs and leaves and she doesn't hear from him, she writes to find out what to do, BUT she also wants to find out specifically about if the marraige is over.

She doesn't "get an offer from P" until after she moves back to the US and her sister suggests a lawyer in NJ to help her. The lawyer helps her draft the divrce papers and sends them to P's lawyer. P's lawyer sends an offer of the house and all it's contents and that's how she ended up witht the china and P's clothes and stuff cuz it was abandoned IN THE HOUSE by P when he left and never came back or communicated with her about getting them back.

As for your comment about if your signature is on something that automatically makes it legal, that isn't necessarily true.

To give you context, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a retired nurse. Nurse chart. The patient's chart is a legal document and nurses take law as a part of our studies so I know a bit about legal documents.

Since you managed to look up the Minnesota laws regarding anullment then you already know that P & Mayte's situation did NOT fit the criteria for an anullment to be granted in Minnesota . THAT'S WHY AN ANULLMENT OF P & MATE'S MARRAIGE WASN'T GRANTED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. That's why no record of an anullment of P & Mayte's marraige was ever found. Because no legal annullment exists for P & Mayte's marraige in the state of Minnesota.

Until someone can produce the receipts...IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Sorry, not sorry.

LBrent said:

BillieBalloon said:

LBrent said:

Ok, let's try this again...

1) They went to the press conference where P announces they are getting an anullment (She had no idea what he was talking about)

2)They get back to the Spanish house where P tries to convince her to sign a paper that was supposedly an anullment (She refuses for the hours they argue)

3) She finally is exhausted and signs and assumes it's an anullment but she hadn't read the paper (He leaves and doesn't say anything else)

4) Finally, after waiting to hear from him, hoping to reconcile, she writes him a letter saying she feels he doesn't love her and it's over and she wants a divorce. She packs up the house, puts the stuff in storage and goes to stay in the US with her family.

Months later, after he still doesn't respond, she contacts a lawyer who prepares divorce documents and sends them to P's lawyer. The lawyer responds that she can keep the house but will not get much cash. (She's too emotionally ehausted to fight so she agrees despite her lawyer advising er to negotiate a better deal, but she just wants the divorce at this point so it'll all end)

P NEVER GOT AN ANULLMENT CUZ THE PAPERS SHE SIGNED WEREN'T LEGAL TO USE THAT WAY> THEY WERE WORTHLESS> He might've thought he could do it that way, but it's NOT LEGAL. Heck, the papers weren't even notarized and witnessed like a legal document.

NO LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER SHE SIGNED. IT WASN'T A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

It's all in the book.

Sheesh

[Edited 4/9/17 18:44pm]

She says 60 days from the letter to being officially divorced. Thats very quick isnt it? . [Edited 4/10/17 4:01am] [Edited 4/10/17 4:05am]

Neither party was contesting anything.

Divorces drag on when folks go bacl and forth arguing over the details.

She didn't argue and neither did he so it was simply a matter of the lawyers creating the correct paperwork, both parties (P & Mayte) signing the documents (the lawyers would notarize the documents, making them LEGAL) and filing to satisfy whichever state the divorce was filed in.

LBrent said:

Misslink88 said:

Okay, here's the sequence of events from her book:

• He tells her in the car, on the way to the press conference about the annulment and then announces it there on December 20/98.

• They argue; she signs; he leaves.

• They go on for another year.

• March 20, 2000, she writes a letter asking what he suggests they do and moves out of the house in Spain.

• P responds with an offer – she can keep the house in Spain.

• In May, 2000, final papers are signed.

• Six weeks from the offer to final papers would indicate some kind of document existed prior to her letter of May 2000 to be settled so quickly.

As for signing a "legal" document, if your signature is on something, it's legal.

As for an annulment in MN:

The Courts do not publish forms for annulment. If you believe you qualify for an annulment, you should talk to a lawyer to get legal advice immediately, as there are time limits for filing for annulment. (See MN Statutes § 518.05.)

You aren't telling the entire story.

I don't know if it's deliberate or because you didn't read the book, but that's NOT what she, who went through it and documents it, tells as the course of events.

After he signs and leaves and she doesn't hear from him, she writes to find out what to do, BUT she also wants to find out specifically about if the marraige is over.

She doesn't "get an offer from P" until after she moves back to the US and her sister suggests a lawyer in NJ to help her. The lawyer helps her draft the divrce papers and sends them to P's lawyer. P's lawyer sends an offer of the house and all it's contents and that's how she ended up witht the china and P's clothes and stuff cuz it was abandoned IN THE HOUSE by P when he left and never came back or communicated with her about getting them back.

As for your comment about if your signature is on something that automatically makes it legal, that isn't necessarily true.

To give you context, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a retired nurse. Nurse chart. The patient's chart is a legal document and nurses take law as a part of our studies so I know a bit about legal documents.

Since you managed to look up the Minnesota laws regarding anullment then you already know that P & Mayte's situation did NOT fit the criteria for an anullment to be granted in Minnesota . THAT'S WHY AN ANULLMENT OF P & MATE'S MARRAIGE WASN'T GRANTED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. That's why no record of an anullment of P & Mayte's marraige was ever found. Because no legal annullment exists for P & Mayte's marraige in the state of Minnesota.

Until someone can produce the receipts...IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Sorry, not sorry.

The whole story is, as I said, taken from the book in synopsis form. More importantly, if she wanted to quash the annulment rumors, why did she include "I signed annulment papers that weren't legal but I didn't read them and also, I signed under duress"?? One of the auction items was the blue outfit he wore for Rave on the pay-per-view end of '99. How she got that in the house in Spain we'll never know. How she managed to get divorced in under 60 days is another mystery -it's Family Court, not Traffic Court. She writes P offered BEFORE her "lawyer" responded. She'd been in NY for all of maybe 4 weeks, which doesn't meet the residency requirements for filing. What I don't understand is this - she has her own fan base, why not sell her own costumes at auction? No P lawsuit there

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

You aren't telling the entire story.

I don't know if it's deliberate or because you didn't read the book, but that's NOT what she, who went through it and documents it, tells as the course of events.

After he signs and leaves and she doesn't hear from him, she writes to find out what to do, BUT she also wants to find out specifically about if the marraige is over.

She doesn't "get an offer from P" until after she moves back to the US and her sister suggests a lawyer in NJ to help her. The lawyer helps her draft the divrce papers and sends them to P's lawyer. P's lawyer sends an offer of the house and all it's contents and that's how she ended up witht the china and P's clothes and stuff cuz it was abandoned IN THE HOUSE by P when he left and never came back or communicated with her about getting them back.

As for your comment about if your signature is on something that automatically makes it legal, that isn't necessarily true.

To give you context, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a retired nurse. Nurse chart. The patient's chart is a legal document and nurses take law as a part of our studies so I know a bit about legal documents.

Since you managed to look up the Minnesota laws regarding anullment then you already know that P & Mayte's situation did NOT fit the criteria for an anullment to be granted in Minnesota . THAT'S WHY AN ANULLMENT OF P & MATE'S MARRAIGE WASN'T GRANTED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. That's why no record of an anullment of P & Mayte's marraige was ever found. Because no legal annullment exists for P & Mayte's marraige in the state of Minnesota.

Until someone can produce the receipts...IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Sorry, not sorry.

The whole story is, as I said, taken from the book in synopsis form. More importantly, if she wanted to quash the annulment rumors, why did she include "I signed annulment papers that weren't legal but I didn't read them and also, I signed under duress"?? One of the auction items was the blue outfit he wore for Rave on the pay-per-view end of '99. How she got that in the house in Spain we'll never know. How she managed to get divorced in under 60 days is another mystery -it's Family Court, not Traffic Court. She writes P offered BEFORE her "lawyer" responded. She'd been in NY for all of maybe 4 weeks, which doesn't meet the residency requirements for filing. What I don't understand is this - she has her own fan base, why not sell her own costumes at auction? No P lawsuit there

I live in NY. Doesn't seem fast to me. So only mysterious to you I guess.

She was given the house and it's contents. P's clothing was part of the contents the abandoned, presumably to go f*ck Manuela. Mayte was owner of P's clothing that was in the house at the time of him agreeing to the divorce. She had every right to dispose of them as she saw fit, including selling them...or dipping them in butterscotch pudding if that whim had crossed her mind...and may I say, in that moment of him being a clueless azz, EFF him.

LBrent said:

Misslink88 said:

The whole story is, as I said, taken from the book in synopsis form. More importantly, if she wanted to quash the annulment rumors, why did she include "I signed annulment papers that weren't legal but I didn't read them and also, I signed under duress"?? One of the auction items was the blue outfit he wore for Rave on the pay-per-view end of '99. How she got that in the house in Spain we'll never know. How she managed to get divorced in under 60 days is another mystery -it's Family Court, not Traffic Court. She writes P offered BEFORE her "lawyer" responded. She'd been in NY for all of maybe 4 weeks, which doesn't meet the residency requirements for filing. What I don't understand is this - she has her own fan base, why not sell her own costumes at auction? No P lawsuit there

I live in NY. Doesn't seem fast to me. So only mysterious to you I guess.

She was given the house and it's contents. P's clothing was part of the contents the abandoned, presumably to go f*ck Manuela. Mayte was owner of P's clothing that was in the house at the time of him agreeing to the divorce. She had every right to dispose of them as she saw fit, including selling them...or dipping them in butterscotch pudding if that whim had crossed her mind...and may I say, in that moment of him being a clueless azz, EFF him.

You obviously don't know how the internet works.

• If you were married in another state, either you or your spouse must have lived in New York for at least two continuous years before the filing date of your divorce.
• You must have lived in New York for at least one continuous year if you were married in New York state or you and your spouse lived together in the state as a married couple.
• If you will be alleging grounds other than "irretrievable breakdown" (no-fault divorce,) you and your spouse must be able to show one continuous year of residence and that the grounds occurred in New York state. For example, if you are alleging adultery, you must be able to show that the affair was consummated inside state lines.

I guess Prince was lying when he lauched that lawsuit saying she had no legal right to his clothing.

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

I live in NY. Doesn't seem fast to me. So only mysterious to you I guess.

She was given the house and it's contents. P's clothing was part of the contents the abandoned, presumably to go f*ck Manuela. Mayte was owner of P's clothing that was in the house at the time of him agreeing to the divorce. She had every right to dispose of them as she saw fit, including selling them...or dipping them in butterscotch pudding if that whim had crossed her mind...and may I say, in that moment of him being a clueless azz, EFF him.

You obviously don't know how the internet works.

• If you were married in another state, either you or your spouse must have lived in New York for at least two continuous years before the filing date of your divorce.
• You must have lived in New York for at least one continuous year if you were married in New York state or you and your spouse lived together in the state as a married couple.
• If you will be alleging grounds other than "irretrievable breakdown" (no-fault divorce,) you and your spouse must be able to show one continuous year of residence and that the grounds occurred in New York state. For example, if you are alleging adultery, you must be able to show that the affair was consummated inside state lines.

Lol

I'm an old broad and have lived to see many things...

You clearly don't know how money works.

Heck, even I have "legal residency" in more than one place. It's not rocket science to accomplish. Anyone can do it easily...more easily with oodles of money.

It's naive to think that a person with money can't do exactly what they want.

Misslink88 said:

I guess Prince was lying when he lauched that lawsuit saying she had no legal right to his clothing.

Well, she has legal rights to them now though.

[Edited 4/10/17 10:27am]

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

I live in NY. Doesn't seem fast to me. So only mysterious to you I guess.

She was given the house and it's contents. P's clothing was part of the contents the abandoned, presumably to go f*ck Manuela. Mayte was owner of P's clothing that was in the house at the time of him agreeing to the divorce. She had every right to dispose of them as she saw fit, including selling them...or dipping them in butterscotch pudding if that whim had crossed her mind...and may I say, in that moment of him being a clueless azz, EFF him.

You obviously don't know how the internet works.

• If you were married in another state, either you or your spouse must have lived in New York for at least two continuous years before the filing date of your divorce.
• You must have lived in New York for at least one continuous year if you were married in New York state or you and your spouse lived together in the state as a married couple.
• If you will be alleging grounds other than "irretrievable breakdown" (no-fault divorce,) you and your spouse must be able to show one continuous year of residence and that the grounds occurred in New York state. For example, if you are alleging adultery, you must be able to show that the affair was consummated inside state lines.

Residing "continuously" in the state does not mean that the party can not have left the state during the period of residency nor does it mean that the party does not have another residence elsewhere outside New York. source wiki

He might have had an apt in NYC. She doesn't give us a lot of detail about he divorce exactly.

heck, maybe she stayed with a friend, used the Friend's address an no one questioned it.

We don't really know, as with almost everything else on threads, we are speculating about certain things, and trying to find anwers to quesitons.

Maybe an interviewer will ask her that quesiton, then we will know the answer.

LBrent said:

DD55 said:

Misslink88 said:

You obviously don't know how the internet works.

• If you were married in another state, either you or your spouse must have lived in New York for at least two continuous years before the filing date of your divorce.
• You must have lived in New York for at least one continuous year if you were married in New York state or you and your spouse lived together in the state as a married couple.
• If you will be alleging grounds other than "irretrievable breakdown" (no-fault divorce,) you and your spouse must be able to show one continuous year of residence and that the grounds occurred in New York state. For example, if you are alleging adultery, you must be able to show that the affair was consummated inside state lines.

Residing "continuously" in the state does not mean that the party can not have left the state during the period of residency nor does it mean that the party does not have another residence elsewhere outside New York. source wiki

He might have had an apt in NYC. She doesn't give us a lot of detail about he divorce exactly.

heck, maybe she stayed with a friend, used the Friend's address an no one questioned it.

We don't really know, as with almost everything else on threads, we are speculating about certain things, and trying to find anwers to quesitons.

Maybe an interviewer will ask her that quesiton, then we will know the answer.

Exactly.

In the book she says she left Spain and went to sleep on her sister's couch in Harlem.

BillieBalloon said:

LBrent said:

Neither party was contesting anything.

Divorces drag on when folks go bacl and forth arguing over the details.

She didn't argue and neither did he so it was simply a matter of the lawyers creating the correct paperwork, both parties (P & Mayte) signing the documents (the lawyers would notarize the documents, making them LEGAL) and filing to satisfy whichever state the divorce was filed in.

She said that day the divorce was final snd was handed a wad of papers. If she is saying that was the decree absolute, its impossible. Dont forget shave off at least a couple of weeks waiting for P to respond to her letter. So that makes 6 weeks. Divorce is not possible in six weeks no matter where in the world you live.

In over 50 years on Planet Earth the one thing I know to be fact is,

when folks say something is "impossibe" it's usually because they either haven't done it or don't know how to do it.

It very rarely means that it's truly impossible to do.

LBrent said:

DD55 said:

She said that day the divorce was final snd was handed a wad of papers. If she is saying that was the decree absolute, its impossible. Dont forget shave off at least a couple of weeks waiting for P to respond to her letter. So that makes 6 weeks. Divorce is not possible in six weeks no matter where in the world you live.

In over 50 years on Planet Earth the one thing I know to be fact is,

when folks say something is "impossibe" it's usually because they either haven't done it or don't know how to do it.

It very rarely means that it's truly impossible to do.

He left with his annulment papers in hand. Something happened that caused him to leave her in Spain and start living apart from then on. During that time, he took her to functions because he really couldn't show up with someone else, could he? Then he takes measures to completely erase her from his life – remarries, burns all her stuff and stops speaking to her. He must have loved her at some point because he was never moved to burn someone's things before or since, so she must have really hurt him or he must have really wanted to forget or a variety of other reasons we'll never know.

But let's get back to the auction. Let's say she got his items legit. She goes to her little divorce document, pulls out the paragraph granting her legal possession of his stuff (which the Auction house should have asked for in the first place for provenance) and ta-da...the auction goes ahead. Instead, she pulls the items. Why would she do that if she had gotten them in the settlement? His lawsuit wasn't based on use of his symbol, but on not being granted the right to physical ownership. It's also quite possible, since he's done that before, that he “bought” his items back from her before he passed.

BillieBalloon said:

LBrent said:

Neither party was contesting anything.

Divorces drag on when folks go bacl and forth arguing over the details.

She didn't argue and neither did he so it was simply a matter of the lawyers creating the correct paperwork, both parties (P & Mayte) signing the documents (the lawyers would notarize the documents, making them LEGAL) and filing to satisfy whichever state the divorce was filed in.

She said that day the divorce was final snd was handed a wad of papers. If she is saying that was the decree absolute, its impossible. Dont forget shave off at least a couple of weeks waiting for P to respond to her letter. So that makes 6 weeks. Divorce is not possible in six weeks no matter where in the world you live.

You're right but some people really, really, really want to believe her story no matter what factual information is brought up. That's their perogative and if they have to stretch to the Moon to find some plausible - if extremely unlikely and impossible (go jump off a building and defy gravity and tell me how you "figured out" how to do it) - they will.

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

In over 50 years on Planet Earth the one thing I know to be fact is,

when folks say something is "impossibe" it's usually because they either haven't done it or don't know how to do it.

It very rarely means that it's truly impossible to do.

He left with his annulment papers in hand. Something happened that caused him to leave her in Spain and start living apart from then on. During that time, he took her to functions because he really couldn't show up with someone else, could he? Then he takes measures to completely erase her from his life – remarries, burns all her stuff and stops speaking to her. He must have loved her at some point because he was never moved to burn someone's things before or since, so she must have really hurt him or he must have really wanted to forget or a variety of other reasons we'll never know.

But let's get back to the auction. Let's say she got his items legit. She goes to her little divorce document, pulls out the paragraph granting her legal possession of his stuff (which the Auction house should have asked for in the first place for provenance) and ta-da...the auction goes ahead. Instead, she pulls the items. Why would she do that if she had gotten them in the settlement? His lawsuit wasn't based on use of his symbol, but on not being granted the right to physical ownership. It's also quite possible, since he's done that before, that he “bought” his items back from her before he passed.

DD55 said:

I thought it was said (somewhere) that she did have the legal right but once P threatened to sue, the auction house weighed the pros and cons and concluded that they didn’t think it was worth the legal cost of fighting the case.

Especially against Prince.

I could be wrong.

See Reply #332 on page 11 of this thread.

Misslink88 said:

The simple fact is he announced the annulment to the press so these cross-continent residency acrobatics around a divorce weren't necessary. It was over, it was in the press so why go through all that when you can simply file down the street, have the docs sealed and be done with it? The whole “secrecy” of where they/he/she/it filed just isn't required.

As for the auction house:

Common clauses in sale agreements cover the commission charged, other costs (such as pick-up costs and taxes) and an assurance from you that you are legally entitled to sell the goods (that is, they are not stolen or security for a loan).

In the book she said he offered to buy the stuff back. It doesn't go into whether he did.