After a jury found Amber Heard guilty of defaming Johnny Depp in her Washington Post publication on a victim of domestic violence, she was sentenced to pay millions of dollars in compensation to her ex-husband.
However, shortly after the trial ended, Ms. Hurd’s lawyer appeared on the morning talk show to say that her client would not be able to pay the $ 8.35 million in damages to the Pirates of the Caribbean star.
“Oh, no. Absolutely not,” said lawyer Elaine Bredehoft when asked by host Savannah Guthrie on Today’s show if her client could pay the huge sum to Mr. Depp.
Mr Depp won the defamation lawsuit he filed against his ex-wife on all three charges. He received $ 10 million in compensatory fees for missed career opportunities and $ 5 million in punitive damages. Judge Penny Azcarate later reduced the sentence to $ 350,000, the maximum in Virginia, where the trial took place.
For her part, Ms. Hurd received $ 2 million in damages for one of her three counterclaims. That left her owed a total of $ 8.35 million to Mr. Depp.
Although Ms. Hurd’s financial situation is unclear, Ms. Bredehoft revealed during the trial’s closing arguments that her client had amassed more than $ 6 million in legal costs alone.
In 2016, the 36-year-old rreceived $ 7 million in an agreement from Mr. Depp when the couple divorced. These funds, as she said earlier, are intended to be divided equally as donations to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles.
However, during the high-stakes trial, video evidence presented by Mr Depp’s lawyers revealed that Ms Hurd had not yet kept that promise. The actress said in a cross-examination that she “completely intends” to keep her promise.
“I would like him to stop judging me so I can,” Ms. Hurd told Fairfax County Court.
Witnesses in the trial revealed that Ms. Hurd’s acting career was hampered by a high-ranking defamation lawsuit., reported Newsweek.
The story continues
Combined with Ms Bredehoft’s statements after the sentencing, this has led to speculation as to whether Ms Hurd will be able to take on the costly bill and, if not, what her legal appeal might be.
Although she did not address the financial tensions in her post-trial statement, Ms. Hurd acknowledged a deep “broken heart” from the jury’s decision.
“The disappointment I feel today is indescribable,” Ms. Hurd wrote. “I am heartbroken that the mountain of evidence was still not enough to confront my ex-husband’s disproportionate power, influence and influence.
The potential paths Ms. Hurd could take to avoid paying millions of dollars are unclear and could lead to even more legal fees, according to CBS.
Appealing the sentence is one way Ms. Hurd tried to avoid paying $ 8.35 million. Her lawyer told Today that her legal team is pursuing this option.
“Absolutely,” Ms Bredehoft said of the appeal. “And she has excellent reasons for that.”
If Ms. Hurd takes this path, she may still be required to pay bail – plus interest – as the lawsuit goes through the courts, according to CBS’s MoneyWatch.
If Ms. Hurd decides not to file a complaint and is still unable to pay the damages, this could lead to salary seizures – which allows a judge to order a certain amount to be deducted from income or paychecks and redirected to a creditor. .
Under Virginia law, Mr. Depp will need a court order before a salary lien can be imposed. The measure has limitations, with rules varying by country. In Virginia, “a lender can seize less than 25 percent of your disposable income or the amount by which your disposable income exceeds 40 times the federal minimum wage,” according to legal website Nolo.com.
The third option is to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, but this time it is also uncertain.
Bruce Markel, a professor of insolvency law at Northwestern Pritzker Law School, told Law & Crime that due to the nature of Ms. Hurd’s case, she could not be exempted from her payments by filing for insolvency. Defamation is considered an intentional tort, which means that the misconduct was committed with malice or intentional.
“What separates Hurd’s case from ordinary tort cases is the establishment of intent,” he told the newspaper. “The insolvency law does not allow the commission of most intentional torts (battery, assault, etc.). Defamation is entered because of the required findings of malice or intent to injure another. “
The last potential delay for Mrs Hurd is one over which she has no control: it should rather be initiated by Mr Depp.
The actor may decide to waive monetary damages or, if Ms. Hurd decides to appeal, refuse the amount in the negotiations.
It is unclear whether any of the parties will take this path. However, Mr Depp emphasized in a post-sentencing statement that his “goal” in the defamation lawsuit was “to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome”.
“To tell the truth was something I owed to my children and to all those who remained steadfast in their support for me,” he wrote on Instagram.
“I feel at ease knowing that I have finally achieved this.
Add Comment