I think this is going to be an ugly battle. Death always brings out the worst in people.
2006-12-28 02:15:32 · 6 answers · asked by redwidow 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Yes, I do think that she should be allowed to go back.
I don't understand why there can't be some sort of compromise. Like having a bodyguard watch her while she's in the house.
I just don't think anyone should be allowed in the house unsupervised.Not when there is so many accusations flying around.
2006-12-28 02:46:44 · answer #1 · answered by Poe B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because she is not the legal wife, she should be removed from the house and given her personal belongings even if Mr. Brown purchased them with his own money. He meant those things for her.
Mr. Brown might appreciate it if the heirs would help the girl out though. Maybe give her a place to live (motel) till she can find a place of her own. Give her a maximum of six months with a small monthly allowance of $1000. I'm sure the estate he left can handle that small amount of money. If she can't find a place to live in six months, she's not looking. She could buy a job with the first $1000 and start saving after that like I did when I first moved to where I live now. It's a bit of a rough go at the first, but if she's determined, she'll make it. I know I did.
His heirs could be really classy and buy her a good used Ford Taurus for around $7000 to get around in. Maybe pay the car insurance for the first year, too. If she's the stupid type of woman then buy her a longwheel based pickup truck with an automatic transmission with a tall camper shell, so she'll have a place to live. Wal-Mart sells good camping gear, too.
I hope she's not a gold digger type. Life is so hard when you are stupid. Gold diggers are not known for their intelligence.
2006-12-28 10:28:54 · answer #2 · answered by Catfish_Woman154 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not like their relationship was a secret. It had been going on for a long time, but I don't know if it qualifies for 'common law' rights. With a celebrity icon, like James Brown, obviously there are many, many things in that house that she wasn't around for or entitled to have access to.
I'm sure that, when it's time to settle his estate, she'll get what she actually deserves and anything that is rightfully hers. In the mean time, I don't believe she should be allowed in there for anything other than clothing and personal items necessary for her to conduct her daily routine.
2006-12-28 10:27:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i know what you mean about death bringing out the ugly... i feel sorry for her, there was no indication of things being bad between them so i say she should be allowed back in, but i guess from a legal standpoint the lawyers are stepping in because she's not legally entitled to anything... too bad things weren't in writing before he died... guess that's why you should not put off for tomorrow the things you can do today... perfect example!
i hope she gets to move back in or at least that she gets a fair shake of what she's entitled to. it's going to be nasty though by the looks of things from the start!
2006-12-28 10:24:42 · answer #4 · answered by asian chick 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
On a moral basis, yes. On a legal basis, I don't know. Too bad she didn't get something in writing because now she is going to have to sue to get what may be rightfully hers.
2006-12-28 10:18:31 · answer #5 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, she lived there and they have a child together
2006-12-28 10:24:07 · answer #6 · answered by SKYDOGSLIM 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋