The California judge slated to rule this upcoming September on a dismissal motion filed last week by Tanya Thicke might have things clearly in mind and fully pieced together by then, being capable of weighing in definitively and with full confidence on the matter.
On the other hand …
Frankly, Thicke’s petition seems to muddy judicial waters more than it calms them, given that, at the same time she is vowing not to question or file legal proceedings regarding an ongoing and bitter estate battle, she is also manifestly criticizing an extant document that sets forth and limits her property claims.
We first visited the estate imbroglio that quickly emerged in the wake of entertainer Alan Thicke’s death this past spring in a May 24 blog entry, noting therein the clear rancor existing between Tanya Thicke — Alan Thicke’s wife upon his death — and Thicke’s children.
Two of Thicke’s sons are co-trustees of a trust established by their father prior to his death. They filed a petition in May alleging that Tanya Thicke was threatening to turn the estate matter into a tabloid spectacle and trying to increase her estate take by breaking a prenuptial agreement she and Thicke executed prior to their marriage.
Her legal response last week accused the brothers of trying to smear her and sully her reputation. Her attorney says she has no intention of doing anything other than fully honoring the marital contract she signed.
Notably, though, and notwithstanding that assertion, Tanya Thicke’s legal counsel lambasts the agreement she says she will not challenge, stating that its validity is questionable because she was forced to sign it within a limited time and absent legal representation. Tanya Thicke’s dismissal petition goes on to call the prenuptial agreement “unfair and even “ridiculous” for myriad problems it allegedly contains.
The court is scheduled to rule on the petition September 14.