Speaker 1: So I went on the Today's Show to promote money Court,
Speaker 1: and Rewives came up because Andy Cohen jumped into the
Speaker 1: Housewives pool, as many of you know, saying surprising and shocking,
Speaker 1: and I'm doing Rewives. She trashed the Housewives, which I
Speaker 1: actually have in and this whole story, and he's probably
Speaker 1: really regretting saying it because he has to be, you know,
Speaker 1: in the press for three weeks by his own design.
Speaker 1: I did not say one word about Andy and the press.
Speaker 1: I never knew I would never talk about something going
Speaker 1: on between us personally in the press. But he was
Speaker 1: asked a question on his show, which is rating, and
Speaker 1: I'm talking about it on my show, which is rating
Speaker 1: because I used to just go on his shows to
Speaker 1: talk about things so they'll rate, and that's why they
Speaker 1: want me to be on Watch What Happens Live next
Speaker 1: week because it's good for ratings. So on my show,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about it too. But I go on Today's
Speaker 1: show and the biggest moment that gets picked up everywhere
Speaker 1: is them asking me about the Andy. You know, you
Speaker 1: keep repurposing. You're making chicken broth, chicken soup, chicken stew,
Speaker 1: chicken burgers, chicken freaking meatballs, chicken roast, chicken, chicken liver.
Speaker 1: So this thing keeps living. So all Andy So has
Speaker 1: said was like I was shocked because she trashed the
Speaker 1: house was and then it gets picked up in the press,
Speaker 1: and then I respond to it, and it gets picked
Speaker 1: up in the press, and then my response to his
Speaker 1: response is getting picked up on the press, and then
Speaker 1: I go on Today's show, and then Jodah asks me
Speaker 1: about it, which I didn't mention. I would never mention it,
Speaker 1: and then it gets picked up on the press, and
Speaker 1: so he's been rolling. He doesn't really know exactly what
Speaker 1: it's like to be a housewife. Because now Andy's clumped
Speaker 1: in with two other housewives and about five articles about
Speaker 1: my podcast, which of course is soaring and thriving and
Speaker 1: killing it. So I should send them all edible arrangements
Speaker 1: because the press can't stop talking about it, which is
Speaker 1: why they've all gone noticeably silent. And I guess the
Speaker 1: lesson and the takeaway for people, including Andy, is not
Speaker 1: everything needs to be said, because if you say it,
Speaker 1: you're gonna be right through that recycle with me for
Speaker 1: weeks talking about my podcast and not yours. So and
Speaker 1: thank you because Andy is one of the people who
Speaker 1: told me to do a podcast, so it's a circular
Speaker 1: reference and surprising that he would air that on his
Speaker 1: radio show when he could just text me because we
Speaker 1: have a textual relationship. So it's all tea worthy. And
Speaker 1: I'm doing his show next week, and I'm sure he
Speaker 1: and his producers will have an arsenal of weapons for
Speaker 1: me to walk in there vetting, you know, Judy Moody's
Speaker 1: questions coming in about it, and I can't wait to
Speaker 1: go on and we can spill that to you the
Speaker 1: day after that, because that should be that should prove
Speaker 1: to be very fruitful. So and he got himself right
Speaker 1: into the Housewives seat unnecessarily, so would never admit that.
Speaker 1: But he's also very outspoken, which I appreciate. So I
Speaker 1: don't usually talk about any case anymore because I did
Speaker 1: a cleanse about things that I didn't think we're positive
Speaker 1: for me or for my daughter, or for the environment,
Speaker 1: the social environment. But I do talk about divorce because
Speaker 1: I have institutional knowledge, a decade's worth of institutional knowledge
Speaker 1: about divorce. And there was a big settlement where two
Speaker 1: hundred I think two hundred thousand dollars a month being
Speaker 1: paid in child support to what in this case is
Speaker 1: the moneyed spouse. So the moneyed spouses a term for
Speaker 1: the person who has more money. So it's interesting when
Speaker 1: the moneyed spouse has to be paid child support. And
Speaker 1: there are many ways that child support gets determined. First
Speaker 1: of all, it's different in each state. Uh, And there
Speaker 1: are different formulas. It's literally a formula. And sometimes here's
Speaker 1: what happens. So you go into court and you're trying
Speaker 1: to show the lifestyle that you've become accustomed to and
Speaker 1: that your children have become accustomed to nanny's jewelry vacations,
Speaker 1: whatever that is. That's part of the formula. In addition, um,
Speaker 1: your net worth is relevant. What you make is relevant.
Speaker 1: In that statement, sometimes people try to hide money, try
Speaker 1: to hid money that they make, try to hide their
Speaker 1: net worth. A lot of shady stuff goes on. Sometimes
Speaker 1: forensic accountants get involved. So it's and then there's a formula.
Speaker 1: So it's like one king, you know, I know somebody,
Speaker 1: one child. It's uh, let's say it could be crazy.
Speaker 1: I know that one child could be like fifteen thousand,
Speaker 1: another child we could be like twenty thousand. The whole
Speaker 1: combination could be fifty tho. I mean, I've heard of crazy,
Speaker 1: crazy numbers, and you think, is that really what they're
Speaker 1: spending on the child? And it's often just a formula
Speaker 1: based on the amount of money you have. And during
Speaker 1: pandemics sometimes people during the pandemic, people's salaries changed, their
Speaker 1: income changed, and if you're a wealthy person who has
Speaker 1: a high net worth, it's hard to go back into
Speaker 1: court and say, while I'm not making the money I
Speaker 1: was anymore. Sometimes something really abrupt happens, somebody loses a
Speaker 1: major gig or something really bad happens, and then they
Speaker 1: to go back to court try to get an adjustment.
Speaker 1: It's not that easy with matters of court to have
Speaker 1: things undone. I have intimate experience with this because uh,
Speaker 1: a child support situation was undone, which is remarkable. Um
Speaker 1: And here's how so. So there's a formula, and it
Speaker 1: sometimes will seem crazy. Someone didn't spend fifty a month
Speaker 1: or two thousand a month on their kids, per se,
Speaker 1: and maybe in this big, high profile divorce they did.
Speaker 1: But for the purposes of this conversation, I'm going to
Speaker 1: mention that it's it's the it's the Kanye Kardashian divorce.
Speaker 1: This is an outlier and me talking because I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about I'm talking about a divorce and I'm talking
Speaker 1: about a settlement to kind of give some context. People
Speaker 1: always want me to talk about divorce here, So I
Speaker 1: do want to be able to give a little bit
Speaker 1: of education and caller on something that I do intimately understand.
Speaker 1: So sometimes you have to break the diet for certain reasons. Uh,
Speaker 1: And it's to not talk about them, but it's to
Speaker 1: talk about something in society. So sometimes one party is
Speaker 1: high on the hog and making a lot of money,
Speaker 1: and that's what the child support is determined based off.
Speaker 1: And that's what the situation seems like. Here you have
Speaker 1: a person who fell from grace, had a big cancelation,
Speaker 1: was a billionaire, and that's probably when the tally began,
Speaker 1: the when the formula began, and now they've declined a
Speaker 1: lot in their income. But that judge in that formula
Speaker 1: is already baked. So there's a situation where this person
Speaker 1: could possibly go back and say, look, you saw what happened.
Speaker 1: There's been a significant decrease and look at the comparison
Speaker 1: of what we make and how much money we have
Speaker 1: we because one would say, why would the moneyed spouse
Speaker 1: need all that money. So that's one thing that can happen.
Speaker 1: Number two, Um, the person who has more custody the
Speaker 1: other person has to pay. So let's say it's you know,
Speaker 1: it could be they usually do it out of a
Speaker 1: two week period. One parent could have the child eight
Speaker 1: days out of fourteen, and the other parents could have
Speaker 1: the child six days out of fourteen. The person who
Speaker 1: has the children eight days should be paid child support
Speaker 1: because they have the child for more time. So often
Speaker 1: parents want the child for more time, then they get
Speaker 1: the child for more time. Plus they're also getting child
Speaker 1: support because they have a child for more time. So
Speaker 1: the you know, Kim and Kardashian has primary custody of
Speaker 1: her children, so that's why she's receiving child support, regardless
Speaker 1: of what her financial situation is. There are so many
Speaker 1: ways to create this formula. Another thing that happens um,
Speaker 1: which probably isn't relevant in this case. In general, another
Speaker 1: thing that happens is this is a common one. One
Speaker 1: parent has to pay the other parent child support. Let's
Speaker 1: say it's five thousand dollars. Let's say it's seven thou
Speaker 1: that parents is the other parents not spending any money
Speaker 1: on the kids. The kids have clothes their dirty or
Speaker 1: too small, the kids are eating home every night. The
Speaker 1: mom or the dad is out partying, buying handbags, living
Speaker 1: the life. Then the other paying party gets really frustrated
Speaker 1: and tries to go back. And typically once a judge
Speaker 1: has made that kind of a decision, barring anything drastic,
Speaker 1: they won't do anything to change it. And another thing is,
Speaker 1: you know, the one one thing that courts don't do.
Speaker 1: They don't require any sort of audit. They don't require
Speaker 1: that the one parent being paid all of this money
Speaker 1: show that the money actually went to it's the kids.
Speaker 1: But if you were paying two point five million dollars
Speaker 1: for four kids, so that means six hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year per kid, presumably someone would want to see
Speaker 1: is that money really going He's spending six thousand dollars
Speaker 1: on the kids in this case probably yes. The vacations
Speaker 1: are lavish, it's another level, but one parent should be
Speaker 1: able to see how that money is being spent. It
Speaker 1: just doesn't happen, and so often one parent is spending
Speaker 1: child support money on themselves. They will justify, oh, the nice,
Speaker 1: fancy car, while the kids drive in that car, it's safe.
Speaker 1: Oh well, the big vacations, while the kids are going
Speaker 1: on the vacasions. Oh we're eating caviar, while the kids
Speaker 1: can have a caveat you know, the bigger house. It's
Speaker 1: for the kids. There's so many justifications. It's a very
Speaker 1: challenging circumstance because it's about money, and it's rarely equitably
Speaker 1: distribute did and it's rarely fairly spent, and it's just
Speaker 1: an equation and a formula that judges need to go by.
Speaker 1: And I've heard crazy, crazy numbers, particularly in Hollywood, UM
Speaker 1: and in just really wealthy individuals. And I've also heard
Speaker 1: crazy situations where someone stuck paying is crazy number when
Speaker 1: their own net worth and earnings have declined, and it's
Speaker 1: just impossible, nearly impossible to go back to court. I've
Speaker 1: done it and have won every time for whatever I've
Speaker 1: gone back for, because you don't go unless you've got something.
Speaker 1: But it's really challenging to have judges undo what they've done.