In late 2011, Phil Ivey’s ex-wife Luciaetta went to the Nevada Supreme Court as she considered her share following their divorce in 2009 unfair. Ivey paid $2.2 million to her ($1 million in jewellery) and an additional alimony of $180,000 from January, 2010. Moreover, Luciaetta would receive a 40% cut of all of Ivey’s shares and other incomes, except for the Tiltware shares. An additional 40% of the sell price of their home went to her, besides a car and a down payment for a new apartment.
Phil and Luciaetta Ivey
Luciaetta arguably appealed to the Supreme Court because she had only been eligible for the alimony as long as Ivey received a regular payment from Full Tilt Poker mother company Tiltware; that is, until April 2011, the Black Friday. As a result, Ivey has been forced to certify his incomes from Tiltware: a monthly wage of $920,000. Lawyer Bruce Shapiro claims that Luciaetta would have been eligible for 50% of this salary, given that Ivey signed to the company during their marriage.
Ivey and his representative build their defence on his ex-wife’s greed and argue that Luciaetta has only appealed because she had already depleted her resources she received upon their divorce.
Phil and Luciaetta Ivey
Luciaetta arguably appealed to the Supreme Court because she had only been eligible for the alimony as long as Ivey received a regular payment from Full Tilt Poker mother company Tiltware; that is, until April 2011, the Black Friday. As a result, Ivey has been forced to certify his incomes from Tiltware: a monthly wage of $920,000. Lawyer Bruce Shapiro claims that Luciaetta would have been eligible for 50% of this salary, given that Ivey signed to the company during their marriage.
Ivey and his representative build their defence on his ex-wife’s greed and argue that Luciaetta has only appealed because she had already depleted her resources she received upon their divorce.
0 comments