Alan Thicke’s sons say in new court papers that issues still exist between them and their father’s widow and thus their bid to have a judge confirm a prenuptial agreement between their father and stepmother should not be dismissed.
In May, “Blurred Lines” singer Robin Thicke and his brother, Brennan Thicke, filed a Los Angeles Superior Court petition asking the court to uphold the accord their father and his third wife, Tanya Callau Thicke, had agreed to prior to their 2005 wedding. The siblings are co-trustees of the Thicke Living Trust created in March 1998.
The siblings’ court papers allege 41-year-old Tanya Thicke said she would take her claims to the news media unless her community property claims are recognized by the co-trusteees. They claim she is seeking more than what their father left her, which consists of a $500,000 from a life insurance policy, 25 percent of her husband’s personal effects, all the furniture at the actor’s ranch property, all death benefits from his pensions and multiple union memberships and 40 percent of the estate that remained.
But in court papers filed in July, Tanya Thicke’s attorney, Adam Streisand, says the siblings’ allegations are false and that their petition should be dismissed because it seeks relief not available under the state Probate Code.
“Indeed, Tanya has no intention of filing any legal proceeding to challenge the validity of her prenup,” Streisand states in his court papers. “The (brothers’) petition served its only purpose: it unfairly smeared Tanya because Alan had the audacity to love her.”
However, according to the son’s court papers filed Thursday, Tanya Thicke previously challenged the estate’s plan, including the prenuptial agreement and various items of the trust.
Attached to the son’s attorneys’ court papers is a copy of a letter written by Streisand in January to one of the petitioners’ lawyers, David Cartano, in which Streisand addresses the prenuptial agreement.
“I have to say I’ve never seen anything quite like this pre,” Stressing wrote. “Let me just begin by saying that there is no chance the pre could withstand a legal challenge.”
Streisand calls the prenuptial agreement “about the worst document I think I have ever seen a lawyer generate. It is impossible to make any sense of the document and whatever it is supposed to mean, it certainly would not constitute a waiver of any community property rights.”
Thicke’s widow “has very significant community rights in the trust assets,” according to Streisand.
In light of the letter, Thicke’s sons did not ignore the widow’s claims, but instead acted responsibly by filing the petition to resolve the issues that she raised, the siblings’ lawyers state in their court papers.
The petition asks for such additional instructions, including the extent to which the ranch and other trust assets are to be distributed to Tanya Thicke and the other beneficiaries, according to the sons’ lawyers’ court papers.
“Try as she may to ignore now ignore these issues for purposes of these motions, Tanya cannot run, nor can she hide, from them,” the sons’ lawyers’ state in their court papers.
Prior to the filing of the petition, Tanya Thicker never said she had no intention to challenge the validity of the prenuptial agreement or that she had accepted its terms, according to the sons’ lawyers’ court papers.
A hearing on Tanya Thicke’s dismissal motion is scheduled Sept. 14.
Thicke died Dec. 13 at age 69 of a ruptured aorta. He had collapsed while playing ice hockey in Burbank.
–City News Service