December 6, 2025 • 57 mins
The Black Effect Presents... Reality with the King!
Reigndrops, it’s exactly what the title says… a full-on dyNASTY divorce is brewing for the Burruss-Tuckers, and breaking down all the latest news and documents is none other than Eboni K. Williams. From Instagram posts to People exclusives, we cover it ALL. And OLG is about to take on a whole new meaning… OLG: Outrageous Legal Grudge-Match.
A Dy-NASTY Divorce: Kandi & Todd with Eboni K Williams
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BreakfastClubPower1051FM
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset. In
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well, we have so.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Much to talk about greeting and salutation, honey, that's what
we're doing. So on Tonight's Live, I've listened and I'll responded,
and you guys wanted me to bring back my amazing
friend and amazing co host f M. K. Williams to
(00:58):
talk about the Candy and Todd divorce proceedings. So on
this one, what we're gonna do is utilize Ebony's amazing
intelligence when it comes to the law and being a
celebrity and how those two things sort of intersect when
it comes to what happens with the celebrity divorce, the
(01:19):
money desk at stake, children being involved, minor children at
that in addition to recent information about particular allegations of
possible cheating. So, Ebony, are you ready to break this
all down?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I am if I have shot approval from the rain Drops, shit,
I mean, well damn.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Well. Look, you know the range are very opinionated. So
just to catch you all up to speed, what's going on?
And look, this has been a situation that a lot
of did not see coming. So I want to make
sure to recapture you guys exactly what is happening. So
(02:08):
rain Drops, as you all know, Candy Burristucker has decided
to file for divorce on November twenty first. She has
called it quiz after eleven years of marriage. She said
in a statement that after deep thought a lot of prayer,
she's made the decision to move forward with advores. Okay,
(02:33):
she cited that the marriage was irretrivially broken and that
she was seeking for joint cust study. So before we
get into Ta's response, which truly did break the Internet ebony,
some of divorces, especially celebrities, we always hear the reconcilable differences,
(02:55):
which is pretty much like the safest thing to say
about like two parties. We decided to different matters to
say that it was irvally broken explain to us exactly
what that particular statement means and why or why not
is that important when it comes to this divorce.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Well, the only real legal significance of that language, Carlos,
and it's a good, it's a good point of clarification
is that because, like you said, irreconcilable differences is a
catch all, you know, it's it's a standard catch all
that almost everybody uses in their uh no fault state divorces,
which Georgia is. But that beyond you know, what do
(03:45):
you call it? Reconciliation piece just kind of goes to
tap the judge or the try or effect on the
shoulder and let them know basically, we're not particularly interested
in counts or mediation tactics that would put us on
a path for reconciliation. It's basically because sometimes when you
(04:06):
initially find you do an initial first filing of divorce,
you might have a judge push you in that direction,
especially when there are minor children involved, as is the
case with Candy and Todd. They've got a six year
old daughter Blaze, nine year old son Ace and so
and especially I'm going to bring up some components rain drops,
So follow me here when you're in the Bible Belt,
(04:28):
they are in the state of Georgia. And I say
this as a proud Southern girl myself, who practice family
law in the state of North Carolina, you're gonna sometimes
run into a judge, and the judges, y'all, have a
tremendous amount of discretion in family law cases. So that's
one thing to note. This is not a prosecutor and
a defense This is a judge and only a judge
(04:50):
that we'll hear from both Candy's lawyers and Todd's lawyers
and decide all the elements of this case, from custody
to the enforcement of the prenup, which we will get to,
to all the elements. And so when you're in this
type of jurisdiction, the South, the Bible Belt, where the
culture of the region, y'all, and that mandates a presumption
(05:11):
of family, a presumption especially in the political climate that
we're in. I don't have to name it, y'all can
put it together, okay, where there's such a energy and
propensity around traditional family values and family staying together and
nuclear family situations. So the inclusion by Candy's attorney and
(05:34):
their legal team of that sentence essentially beyond reasonable chances
of reconciliation is to say, hey, you're honor In case
you're thinking about trying to put us on track for
some type of preliminary reconciliation counseling, we can skip it.
That's what that says to me.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah. Yeah, So one of the things that occur after that,
because again the worse filings for me, and again I'm
not a lawyer, I'm just a general public citizen. One
thing that I thought was okay, it was a kind
way of saying, this relationship cannot be you know, retrieved
(06:17):
outside of getting back together. We do have minor children together.
We are going to try to have a joint custody.
She did say that. She also said that look, they
have businesses together, and that any depth that they have
to be split and anything else should be split. Everything
seemed to be fair and everybody said, okay, that's fine.
(06:40):
Then a few days later after that, on December second,
I'm sorry an December second, what happened On December first,
Tom Tucker's attorney, Randy Kessler, responded to Candy's filing, and
this is where things were said, ebony that run the
(07:00):
general public, the wrong way, not all of a sudden,
but I wanted to get your thoughts on it. In
the In the document, it did state that Todd would
like to have in the unlike in the hopefully unlikely
event that they are unable to reach a custody deal,
(07:22):
he will be seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody,
and final decision making authority. The document stated that Candy
having substantial time and meaningful access to the children. He's
(07:44):
praising her as a mother, But he also did say
that because she travels a lot, he wants to be
able to be the primary parent if they're unable to
reach a deal. You being a love yourself, you being
a working mom, yourself, you're actually on set today, yep.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Out of state, by the way, out of state, on
set out on the other side of the country. So
I'm actually very similarly positioned to where Miss Candy Burgers
is in terms of this type of situation. So let's
start in the back, carlost let me do some issue
spotting here, old school style. Everything you read, and I'm
so glad you read it in its totality around uh
(08:30):
Todd's request on the custody piece. The initial request this
is around a potential child support claim. Okay, so let's
let's reverse engineering. This is setting up a potential claim
from Todd and his legal team to seek child support.
I want everybody to immediately put spousal support on a
selparate chef, a separate shelf. Spousal support and child support
(08:53):
have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Okay. Spousal
support may or may not even be at play, depending
on whether or not the judge decides to uphold the
existing prenuptial agreement. But child support is something that you
actually cannot bypass in a pre nup, Okay, because it's
(09:14):
not about you or you spouse or spouse. It's about
who the child. So excuse me. With that framework, With
this being all about a potential child support claim, that
would be why Todd, through his attorney Randy Kessler, would
be seeking primary physical custody, because if you don't have
(09:34):
primary physical custody, there is little to no claim around
why you should be compensated from the other parent, because
the judge will typically look at that as if it's
split physical custody. They will look at y'all as equals
who are more or less equally positioned to care for
the children through your own resources with the time you
each equally have the children. But if you're saying no, no, no, no,
(09:58):
I am the the children are with me most of
the time, subject to visitation from the other spouse, then
the financial presumption shifts. Carlos, see how that goes. And
now the expectation is I need to be paid from
the other's spouse compensated for taking on more fiscal responsibility
because the children are with me more so I'm feeding them,
(10:19):
I'm clothing them, I'm housing them, I'm paying for their extracurriculars,
and I need to be paid child support to make
that equitable. That's so, that's that's connecting the dots as
to why he's starting from a physical custody demand and
then the legal joint custody that standard because uh, there
(10:39):
is no fiscal component to legal custody, because legal custody
is not about where the physicality of the children. It's
only about the decision making. So this is where they
go to school, if they have health insurance, what kind
testing the things of this in terms of like whatever
whatever assessments the children might need as they continue you
(11:00):
to grow and develop but then I think it's interesting.
Something I don't see often, Carlos, is this final request
potentially of final decision making. Because the whole point of
joint legal custody is to say that we are joint
in assessing what I just ran down, schooling, healthcare, the
major decisions that affect the child's life. But he's saying
(11:22):
that I actually want final decision making potentially, and that's
a bit unusual. So but the first thing you said
is important. We only get to me having physical primary custody,
joint decision making, legal custody and final decision if and
only if we can't get to a custody agreement. So
that's gonna be the first step, Carlos. They're gonna sit
(11:43):
down with maybe a mediator, an arbitrator, or even the
judge and try to see if they can come up
with what we tend to call a consent decree, which
means we both consent mutually agree that this is going
to be the custody arrangement. So that's going to be
the first attempt.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Todd, on his social media has had this sort of
like social media series, nothing I would call a websode,
but he has been promoting that he does a lot
of daddy daycare, and he's been doing this for you know,
in recent months. Do you think that was a part
(12:22):
of strategy to show that he is the prime he
is being theen based on what he's showing me as
the primary care came, I don't have to.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
I don't have to think it. Well, I was gonna say,
I don't have to think it, Carlos. I know it.
I know it, and it's not necessarily that's not a deed,
that's not nefarious, that's just quite obvious. Quite frankly, when
you see people start to show up in a public setting,
which social media is as public as it kind of
gets right because it's real time visibility, establishing a narrative
(12:54):
which may very well be true, may not be true,
maybe a little true or and untrue, who knows, right,
but they're establishing a narrative that sements them in a
particular position. So he's saying publicly, hey, public and potential
judge and whoever's assessing this, I need you to know
(13:14):
that it is me that is primarily at home doing
the daily caretaking of the children. I'm running the bathwater,
I'm preparing the meals. I'm preparing any medicines they may take.
I'm the one doing story time because why my wife,
per his claim, is out of town, out of the country,
(13:35):
promoting Broadway shows, doing press for her incredible you know,
works and projects and movies and films and all the
amazing things she's doing. So while she is away, kind
of well, what's it getting the bacon. I'm playing daddy
daycare at home, frying up the bacon, and I am
holding down the home front. That is clearly Carlos what
(13:57):
he has been trying to establish for the past several months,
which bolsters his argument his legal claim that that's why
I should be designated the primary physical custodian, because, like
you were saying, and you know, using me as an
example of what it looks like to be the working
mom who's going to get the bacon. I'm out in
La getting the bacon. I'm on set getting the bacon.
(14:19):
Somebody's got to get the bacon. But also somebody has
to be home to fry the bacon because the children
can't eat un fried bacon, you know, using this analogy,
so I would tell you, cybar, this this is sidebar.
This is part of the reason that I used a
donor true tide of my personal story time part Yeah.
(14:40):
Part of the reason that I decided to be a
single mom by choice, Carlos King and use a donor
and not have a father for liberty, not use a friend,
not have a cold parenting situation, is because I knew
my circumstances professionally would put me in Candy's exact situation,
and that I would very possibly end up paying child
(15:03):
support for my own daughter. Oh apps, some motherfucking lute
excuse me, I would easily be in a position to
have to go in front of a judge looking just
like this and plead my own case from my own
daughter that I carried in birth, to say, despite my
travel schedule, my work schedule, my sometimes lack of real
(15:25):
time availability, I assure you I can make sure all
of her needs are met. Because that opens the door,
Carlows for exactly this where a father, despite the relationship
between me and the father, despite what we even previously
agreed to, could then say, your honor, look at her.
She's outside. She might be outside for very wonderful, noble reasons,
(15:45):
but she's away from home and children need, you know, mom,
to be home. Mom's not available to be home, and
so she has she has put her custody rights at
risk from a legal standpoint, and I'm here to step
into the to the to the to the pocket. I'm
here to step into the role and play the primary
(16:06):
custodian for my children. And that's a real risk, Carlos,
and it is one of the reasons I'm telling you
that women with high power careers that demand travel or
time away. My daughter is being very well taken care
of right now, rain Drops in Carlos. I assure you,
I'm getting hourly updates from her nanny, who has been
with her since she was four months old. She's in
(16:28):
a lovely, you know, preschool that she's been so she's good.
But if I had to argue this to a judge,
it could go either way, and I wasn't willing to
risk it going either way. So that's a personal decision.
Every woman gets to make that decision for herself. But
I hope that helps understand rain Drops why somebody would
(16:49):
do what I did, And more and more women are
electing to do it because we don't want to be
in court having to potentially fight for custody of our
own children simply because we chose or needed to go
to work.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Wow. Wow, well, listen, you are preaching to the choir
of the women who are working mothers. Who's working women
in the group chat? With that being said, I want
to ask you this because this was brought up recently
and I never thought about it until one of my
brain drops brought it to my attention. Does that hurt
(17:23):
a woman in this case? So, let's sen if Candy
had Blaze via surrogacy, right, yes? Does that will that hurt?
Let me remind could Todd and his attorney used that
as a way to establish her busy schedule and the
(17:47):
reason why it is in the best interest for the
primary custody to be in the hands of the father
because of something like that. Is that something that could
be used? Has it ever? Did?
Speaker 3 (18:01):
I don't think so. I don't think so. I appreciate
the curiosity. I see where it could come from from
a curiosity standpoint, but I don't believe so. I didn't
follow that storyline, Cluk, I was watching this shor at
the time. But from what I know period of sarrogacy, Carlos,
it is almost always used for medical necessity, Candy, like myself,
(18:21):
is now very much so considered advanced maternal age. Candy
at that point had already birth Riley. Also at that
point Ace and Ace she was older as well, so
I could see we're medically speaking, she would have a
very sound argument to say that Blaze was brought to
the world lovingly and beautifully sarrogacy because not of professional obligations,
(18:48):
you know. And she couldn't carry the baby because it
was inconvenient, but due to medical reasons, so that would
not I don't see any argument, Carlos where that would
legally work against her.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
This is reality. He with the King, and I'm Carlos King.
Let's get back into the show. Okay, So rain Drop,
I'll hope that answered your question. I want to make
sure to ask that, so thank you rain Dad for
asking that question. I want to move into the financing.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Can I just add something real quick because it doesn't
necessarily the Candy, but it could apply to other women
in these situations. Let's say Candy had used an egg donor, right,
So let's say Candy was so was the legal mother
of one of her children, but not the biological mother.
I want to be clear, rain Drops, that does not
jeopardize her custody. The law does not afford a biological
(19:38):
parent more legal rights than a legal parent. I think
that's very important to clarify.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Okay, and I'm clarified that. And and Ebony, I'm not
sure if you heard of this story that happened to
Sherry Shepherd.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Oh, yes, Sherry has told me that story herself at
her own mouth.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yes, are you at liberty if you wanted to, because
because what you said made me think about that. Because
rain Drops, listen, Sherry Shepherd used a dinner egg, which
was her ex husband Lamar Sally's firm, to have herself
through a surrogate mother. The egg donor was selected by
the agency after you know, they signed an agreement with
(20:21):
the agency to be the legal parents. However, rain Drops, it.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Led to a legal battle during the divorce, with a
court ultimately ruling that Sherry was the legal mother of
the child and have to pay.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Child support. Sure did, Sure did? Sure did? So that's important.
So anybody hearing this this thinking you're mitigating your financial
responsibility by putting some biological distance between you and the child,
you are not. The court said, motion denied, go ahead, Carlos.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
All right, so I want to get into the financial
so good.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
This is so many issues, so many issues.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
As my team all week, I said, I am attending
the University of Kay Williams because you.
Speaker 5 (21:12):
Know, I'm obsessed with you and your brilliant and just
everything that I'm learning from you courtesy of this and listen,
I have so much of my play.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
But I do want to go to law school now.
And also just so you know, a lot of frame drops,
courtesy of just watching you for years and also watching
this you are. You are influencing and inspiring a lot
of people at the law school. So I want you
to know that, and I so love that you.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Just so y'all know, rain drops. Of the entire legal profession,
only five percent count on one hand, one two, four
or five percent are Black attorneys. There are less than
for men and women black men and women. There are
less than sixty seven thousand Black attorneys in the United
States of America. We are underrepresented in this profession and
it affects us in every way from child support to
(22:03):
a criminal court to real estate property court. When you
get people's deeds stolen from underneath them, we need us
so Carlos all jokes aside, brother, I will literally write
your personal recommendation letters to law school. And I am
hand to God, very dead serious, very soon.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Thank you for that. And you know me, I take listen,
she knows it could be worked together. Everything I do
I take seriously, and I'm always preparing myself. So when
the time is right, I will let you know. Okay,
so rain drops. As we all know, Candy and Todd
got married April fourth, twenty fourteen. Todd, in the court document,
(22:40):
has stated that although he admits that he did sign
a prenuptial agreement, he is suggesting, though, that he was
pressured into signing it without his lawyers around.
Speaker 6 (22:53):
Todd's lawyer said that he was presented without having council present.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Even though Candy then counsel that communicated previously with Todd's
counsel regarding a potential prenuptial agreement. What do don't want
to Rang Josh to know, because I know they're dealing
with business. What that means Range John's and I want
ethnic to school us on this when they say that
(23:21):
Candy's lawyers independently spoke to Todd without his lawyer's president.
The reason why that could be deemed I'm not going
to well, I'll just say the word is correct me
if I'm wrong. The reason why that may be deemed
unethical is because the moment, the moment two parties, So
(23:41):
in this case, Candy and Todd, Candy a Todd having
separate lawyers, the moment the lawyers are engaged talking to
each other. As a lawyer, you're not allowed.
Speaker 6 (23:50):
To speak to the other council's client without them being president.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (23:57):
That correct? Yes? Yeah, Okay, I mean that's that's that's
like a one on one type of way you get
sationed by the Bar association, is speaking to another attorney's
client without representation present. And just the reason for that,
rain Drops, is because there's a certain power dynamic at
play and certain presumptions of understandings that we have with
(24:21):
each other amongst each other as attorneys. Okay that lay
people could be brilliant, could be fortune five hundred CEOs,
could be multi muntime billion millionaire, celebrity whatever. It's not
undermining to say they are incompetent. It's just to say,
and they can actually catch this tea colors, they can
actually be attorneys. It can actually be it can actually
(24:42):
be an attorney. But if they are not the attorney
representing the legal interests of that person, in that case,
they are not permitted to speak to the council period.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Yes, And what we saw on the Wedding special was
Candy did call her lawyer. Tom was president. Todd tried
to call his lawyer. He didn't answer, but we did
see on camera that Candy's lawyer on speaker was talking
with Todd. And what would happened on the wedding.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Can we ask the flag that when Todd tried to
then later in that same scene call his lawyer, Randy
and tried to do the same thing, like, hey, Randy,
Candy's right here with me. Can you talk to us
and basically calm her down and let her know it's
gonna be all right. Randy Kessler said, what I think
not I will not be speaking to miss Burris without
(25:33):
her council present. But what I can do for you,
Todd is get on the phone and call Candy's attorney
and we could talk lawyer to lawyers. So that's the
easy way to think about it, rain drops. Lawyers should
be talking lawyers to lawyers, and the party should be
talking to each other, but we will not have a dynamic.
A triangulation is the word where me and my lawyer
(25:54):
are sitting on the phone with my future husband without
his lawyer present. Because that in and of itself can
be construed as a form of duress, a form of
compounding pressure and obligation that does not afford equal representation.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
So, with all of that being said, Todd attorney in
this document, okay, is the reason why he is questioning
the prenuptial agreement because of the fact that he did
find the document without an attorney. His attorney president. One
(26:35):
thing that the attorney is saying, ebony is the fact
that I'm gonna read a verbatim so one of his
quote things right now, give me one second, okay. Tucker's
(26:56):
counterclaim for divorce also demanded a division of all marital
assets both real and personal, tangible and intangible between the parties.
What does that mean?
Speaker 3 (27:16):
I'm so sorry, production was in my ear. Read that
last line again, thank you, okay, just the last the
last two lines.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Okay. A division of all marital assets both real and personal,
tangible and intangible between the parties.
Speaker 3 (27:34):
Well, that's just going to probably mean to cover all bases, right,
because we know George is a community property state, and
he's just saying, hey, listen, we want all we know
what real property and assets are. That's the houses and
the cars and things like that, clothing, jewelry, things like
that that were purchased during the marital time which eleven years.
But the intangible stuff that could be things like stop
(27:54):
that appreciate it maybe right, or if either of them
or both of them have any pension funds. So basically,
you know accounts that things that are not liquid, assets
that are not liquid, so whatever you know that could
be any any account, money market accounts, things of that nature.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
One thing that I want to get into is the
fact that people assume Evny like, hey, they signed a prenup,
they got on the boards, everything should be good. It's
a legal document. Tell me why that's not always the case.
They weren't married for ten plus years. Somebody did say
in the chat that is it true that in ten
(28:35):
years in the state of Georgia that you may be
able to renegotiate your prenup just based on all of
the activities that may have occurred in the ten years.
And one thing that I do want to say, Mayor
J Blige ex husband can Do did sign a prenup. However,
(28:55):
she still had to pay.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Home as Justin Ross affection affectionately called him ken don't
shout out to the lovely Dustin Ross. So a few things.
This ten year mark, let's clear some things up. Ten
years in some states is hugely significant, like the state
(29:18):
I'm in right now, California. In California, we saw this
with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in California. Legally speaking,
it's for real, for real, for real once you get
to ten years, meaning it now becomes very difficult to
not cash the other party out once you hit the
ten year mark. Now, let's go to Georgia where this
is happening. They don't have that severe of a statute
(29:41):
where everything kind of changes it ten years, but certainly
a few things do happen at ten years. Now, no
sitting judge is going to presume that this was just
for play play. If somebody sayed ten years, even if
they were a gold digger, they were committed, so we're
gonna treat them more seriously. That's a real thing. Also
point in the marriage, but certainly it's more likely after
(30:02):
the ten year mark things could be renegotiated. We even
heard Ashley Darby discuss this on Real Housewives of Potomac
when she was still married to Michael Darby that once
they got to ten years, it essentially is thrown out,
you know, this notion of we need to be real
careful of how we divvy things up once you get
to ten years. Again, the presumption is that everybody was
(30:26):
operating in good faith and that this is more treated
as a community of sorts and that's how it's gonna
be handled. So that's the significance of the ten year piece,
just so everybody's clear on that. It doesn't seismically change
what's going on here, but it says that nobody the
judge is not gonna look at Todd or whoever the
(30:46):
other person is and say you just married them just
for money, because most people that just married for money
are in and out in a year two or three,
not eleven.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
And just so we know for the record, Candy is
the one that actually filed for the divorce. Todd did it.
So I just wanted to make sure that fact was
also presented because people are saying that all of this
happened because you know Todd wanted to, you know, get
the money. It's pretty much well.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
Cash out, yeah, cash out. Well, we had to add
this to Carlos because I think you're right. First of all,
you're exactly right. I think people look at he signed
the document. It's legally binding, case closed. While that's not
the now, it is important that he signed the document.
I do want to be clear, it's not a nothing sandwich, okay,
(31:35):
because he signed the document. And there's also a part
in the wedding special or maybe it's an episode of
the next season where he says on camera, against my
attorney's advice, against my attorney's advice, I signed the document
because no piece of paper I'm paraphrasing now, but no
piece of paper is going to get in the way
(31:56):
of me and Candy being together. That's not gonna be
a good fact for Todd Tucker. However, it's not. But
it's not going to be a good fact for him, Carlos.
But it's not controlling enough to undermine his entire claim.
And part of the reason why is what I'm about
to tell you and point out now, both of their
lawyers are going to make arguments around whether or not
(32:18):
his signing of the prenup was what we call truly voluntary?
Was it truly voluntary? And when he says what I
just said, he said, against my attorney's advice, I signed
it anyway. That goes to it being voluntary.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Right.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
But you know what doesn't bode well for Candy's side
of this argument and it being truly voluntary the time frame,
the fact that these two were twenty four hours before
their wedding, still going back and forth around the document
itself clauses what this means interpretation Already, that's a flag
(32:54):
to any judge Carlos, because ideally, for a prenup to
be deemed kind of best practices, this should have been
done months ago, months ago, this should have been in
the can. This is what this really is supposed to
look like in best practices is we set a wedding date,
(33:14):
and we each give our lawyers the document. Your lawyer
drafts it, they send it to my lawyer. We spend
at least, on average, with this kind of money involved,
a month to three months negotiating back and forth. What's fair?
Would I like what you like? Cut this out? Or
draft this? Da da da da da da. Then we
agree on the document I sign, you sign, it's notarized,
(33:37):
it's in the can at least a month, if not
three or four months ahead of the wedding date. When
you are just the nature of the pressure cooker of
vows start in twenty four hours now, that could easily
be construed as duress in its own form? Is that
making sense? Just the nature of the timeline can can
(34:00):
can be construed as an aspect of duress? Why? And
I don't know that that that this is on candy,
So I'm not saying that rain drops. But what I'm
saying is that's going to be investigated by the judge,
Miss Burris and your counsel. When did you deliver the
initial draft to mister Tatar and how long did his
counsel have to review it? And when did they get
the revisions? And how long did you to see did
(34:24):
you allow adequate reasonable time of review, consideration, and negotiation
and execution of the document, because if the court deems
you did not, and that you kind of tried to
run the clock out so that you were you felt
like your decision is marry the love of my life
or signed the document ill advised that that wouldn't vote
well for Miss Boris.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
I have to ask the question because it's in the
comments and I want to get your expert opinion. A
lot of people are saying that with Todd because Okay,
Candy tops a claim Todd's response and said that they
will use the Bravo footage of the wedding series to
show that he did sign it. Now, with that being said,
(35:10):
the fact of the matter is Todd did sign it
the morning of his wedding. He did not have a
lawyer present. Yes, the Bravo cameras were there, But the
question does remain do you think that Todd was smart
enough to know that at the end of the day, Godfribis,
(35:31):
something may go awry. I do have this to protect myself.
Speaker 7 (35:37):
The footage to protect himself, The footage of the fact
that he is signing the morning and everything and everything
that led to it, him having issues with Mama Joyce,
his his his mother makes you rest in peace, and
Mama Joys almost getting the physical altercation the day.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Before the wedding. He's being you know him and came
again to an ur I'm gonna tell.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
You something else. I'm gonna tell you something else that
would work in his favor. Again, not controlling, but just
something in his bucket. There was a couple of times
that morning or the day before rather where Candy was
saying things like, what do you need to talk to
your lawyer for? Talk to him for what? This is open?
You know, this is this is simple. You're making something
out of nothing. That kind of language not ideal for
(36:25):
showing voluntariness, because what ideally would have been said is like,
of course, baby, call your counsel, call him a million times,
go over in a thousand times. I want you to
be completely comfortable with all the terms and conditions in
the document before we walk down this aisle. That's what
a judge is ideally looking for, not anything that looks
(36:47):
to try to circumvent the conversation with counsel because it's
very important.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Yeah, yeah, okay, a few more minutes. Get back to worry.
I want to I want to get into this so
that so rand on us all the legalities that we know.
Speaker 8 (37:00):
As of today, December fourth, at the December fourth, sixty
seven pm Eastern Tod's attorney, Brandy Kesseler has not counter
claimed to Candy's response.
Speaker 9 (37:13):
Now yesterday, Ebanie the very credible People magazine revealed that
a source said that Candy Birds discovered that Todd Tucker
was talking to other women behind her back.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
That same day. Yesterday, Candy revealed on her Instagram a
post where she said how she has been dealing with
this for months and that sometime we have to check
on your strong friend. She had a photo slide of
her smiling and said that she was hurting and it
was in pain emotionally behind these photos. Today Today today
(37:56):
Tod posted a photo of him in a scenery background,
saying how he's with somebody, a friend of his, and
he's this journey has been difficult for How are the
interesting time? It's the timing. Do you think these two
people are using the media to influence the public perception?
(38:21):
Did Todd cheeto Candy? I'm emotionally distressed too, not just her.
Is that a factor in this that that that could
help the case legally?
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I think they're doing what people in their position kind
of have to do right now, Carlos, which is do
two things at once. They're letting their lawyers, their actual lawyers, UH,
navigate this very real issue of divorce and custody and
all these things in the court of law, and because
of just how hugely public Candy and now Todd are,
(38:57):
they are working the court of public opinion at the
same time. Because if they were to do the thing
that we used to be told and advised to do
in this business, which is let it play out in
court and the public opinion piece will take care of itself,
we're seeing now that that no longer is effective. Those
are no longer the times we're living in, Carlos King.
(39:17):
So they are doing what public figures of their magnitude
must do. Actually, I would say, which is get in
front of some of this public narrative immediately and as
soon as possible. So Candy probably or her team probably
I think correctly assumed that if there starts to be
an argument around infidelity or bad actions on the part
(39:39):
of Todd Tucker, his legal team would then go to
her Instagram and pull all of these beautiful, gorgeous photos
of Candy Burris in July, of Candy Burris in March,
of Candy Burros in September, and say, for a woman
who was going through all that you just told this
court you're going through, I certainly can't tell this to me.
(40:00):
I'm just telling you how it go down in the
war room. Baby. I'm telling you how to go down
the war room. I'm telling you how to go down
in the depositions because I've sat in them. I have
done the questioning. Well, ma'am, you just told me that
your husband was cheating on you with your best friend,
and this and that and you going through it and
you got postpartum? Was this you having postpartum in Malibu?
(40:21):
Was this you have? This is how it go down, baby.
So this is Candy and her team saying, oh no,
we're not gonna allow for that. We're gonna we're gonna
we're going to get in front of that narrative and
we're gonna say, despite what it looks like, despite all
the you know, what's an eighteen hundred hark, I mean,
her stylist. But but but but you know, behind the
(40:43):
oh my god, god, dang here everything okay, back to
the business. Said hey, I'm sorry, I was literally gaged
despite all of that stunning, gorgeousness that you see on
your screens. My heart breaking. I was absolutely devastated. I'm
(41:04):
literally going through and then now, twenty four hours later,
we're not gonna let that go un answered, if we're
Todd Tucker and his team right, because certainly we're not
gonna let the opposing council or you know, opposing party
at this point which they are adversaries, Ladies and gentlemen.
Don't be confused, not saying they hate each other, not
even saying they don't still love each other. But when
it comes to what this is, in this point in time,
(41:26):
they are adversarial to one another, you better fucking believe it. Okay,
So he's not gonna allow his now adversary to take
that argument and run with it unanswered. So now we
too have to make our case that despite what it
looked like and the holding hands and the red carpets,
I too was struggling, I too was going through. So
(41:46):
we'll see something else I want to put out a
far go, Carlos. What we don't know is whether or
not this this prenuptial agreement had something called a bad
boy clause. Okay, This said is that a part of
the divvying of the assets and lat is predicated on behavior. Now,
(42:08):
these aren't very common because they're very hard to enforce
and very hard to prove, but it is.
Speaker 8 (42:16):
It is.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
It is something that we see. Sometimes it's rumored that
Jessica Bill and Justin Timberlake have such a clause that says,
in addition to the basic consideration who has what, who
made what, who brought what to the table, and when
they bought it, and da da dah, we're also gonna
consider before we make the division of assets and liabilities,
take into account whether one or either party committed infidelity,
(42:41):
was a bad actor. If indeed, fidelity is even you know,
a consideration in the marriage. So we don't know, and
I have no reason to know because I wouldn't know,
right we haven't seen the documents yet. But I just
want rain drops to put that on the radar that
if indeed there was a bad boy cl laws that says,
all of this looks different if mister Tucker is proven
(43:04):
to be out of fidelity, or maybe if Miss Burgess
is proven to be. And sometimes they go one way,
so don't assume that what's good for the goose is
good for the other. I've seen bad boy clauses that
only apply to the husbands. I've seen bad woman clauses
that only apply to the wife because it's understood that
the husband, because he's bringing the whole bag. Can do
(43:24):
whatever he want to do. But you bitch, you better
not think about it. I've seen it, so I'm just
telling you.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
What it is.
Speaker 3 (43:31):
Okay, Okay, So go ahead, go.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
Ahead, question questions. With that being said, With that being said,
With that being said, Candy and Todd have been very
public and open about inviting women in their bedroom. It's
been something that they've been very open about. They this
is not a secret. They have three songs. They've been
very open about it. They had that understanding. If there
(43:57):
is a bad boy cloth or bad woman claw in
the in the in the prenuptial agreement, is it plausible
to say if Todd decided to be with a woman
independently of Candy, although Candy has allowed women to enter
their bedroom together, is that considered cheating because he does
(44:21):
have a free pass to sleep with other women based
on from my understanding watching the show, if she was around,
but is that considered cheating? And and and we have
seen videos of them on Instagram. They been on boats
with with with a third you know, with with another
woman and seems to be having a good, golly time.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
So this is the height of judges discretion. Carlos and
this is where you know. One thing we say in
the law, and I've heard this since my first day
of law school, is the law always lagged behind society, right,
So what we know are these notions of whether it's
threesomes or more broader polyamory. They've always existed. No one's
naive to it, but the visibility and maybe the frequency
(45:10):
is peaking. It's climaxing right part in the pun Okay,
So because of that, I could see this is gonna
be what judge do you get on what day? And
what are their personal kind of values around this sort
of thing. You can end up in front of a
judge that's very kind of old school and traditional. It
feels like my grandma, don't start nothing you can't finish, okay,
(45:32):
May she rest in peace. So, hey, young lady, you allowed,
you know, you broke the seal so to speak, you know,
and once you break the seal and allow one woman
into your bed, you are tacitly inviting unlimited women at
unlimited times. And it will only be a fool that
thinks she can control the nature of it once we've
(45:53):
allowed permissible third party participation. That's one perspective you could
get a more of all. We'll say judge man or
woman of any age by the way, that says, hey, no,
it don't go like that. The couple must be in
complete agreement at all times on what the rules and
participation look like. So if it's if she's known, if
(46:16):
Ms Buris knows and she's you know, volunteering, and she's willing,
then it's permissible. But any activity outside of her knowledge,
outside of her permissiveness this court is gonna deem to
be out of fidelity of the agreed upon relationship. So
that's that's gonna ultimately be the height of a judge's
discretion point.
Speaker 2 (46:37):
Okay, and my last question for you is this. You
were very honest about, you know, not dating a bus driver,
right and then girl.
Speaker 3 (46:53):
And it absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
Yes, it lifted, it was split. A lot of people
are decide, a lot of people are not on your side. Yes,
that's how the conversation. The last question for edby k
Williams at least up tonight because she will be back.
Speaker 3 (47:08):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (47:10):
You are a woman of means, you are a highly
educated woman, and you are a celebrity. You, like I said,
have been litten about not dating the bus driver based
on the fact that they're you know, the the financial
difference between Candy and Todd entering the relationship, and now
he's asking for you know, possible child support. Alumny, are
(47:35):
these the reasons why you felt so strongly about not
dating a bus driver to prevent yourself from being in
the situation?
Speaker 3 (47:44):
But of course that's an easy answer, no shame. In
my game, rain Drops, this is very much a part,
not exclusively, but a very real part of why I
personally this is a me decision, each woman, each man,
each person gets to make this decision for themselve. But
for me, this would not be a risk I would
be willing to take. And that's based on a few things, right, Raindrops,
(48:06):
It's based off my personal value system. I'm very old school.
I'm very much of the traditional mindset that I think
men in this nation we live in a patriarchy, and
I believe that men, despite challenges that they also go through,
I think they are put in best position to climb
the capitalism ladder of this nation based off of male
(48:29):
patriarchal systems. So what do I look like tethering myself
legally for sure to a man that I'm out earning
when the whole system is designed for you to out
earn me. So I got a problem with that, and
I have no problem saying that, put it on a
T shirt. That's fine, fine, totally fine with it. But
in addition to that, because I have practiced family law,
(48:52):
I know what it's like to see sherry share. And
I also have relationships with women who have paid child
support for their own children. I have relationships with women
who have paid spousal support to men for years, to
multiple men. Some of these women and they're not all famous.
Some of them are accountants, some of them are CEOs,
(49:12):
some of them are you know, working healthcare positions, you know,
And that's again, not a risk I am personally willing
to take. So I want to be clear before anybody
thinks anything funny style, I am not calling Todd Tucker
a bus driver at all. I believe that Todd was
a working individual, that he bought many things to the table,
and Candy made sure we knew that. But the discrepancy
(49:34):
is undisputed. The financial discrepancy between herself and Todd remained severe.
And when there is a severe discrepancy from the man,
the woman whoever it is this risk of money grab
accusations is going to always be at play.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
Ebony, I know you got to run. Thank you so much,
my love for breaking this down for you are listen,
she knows this already.
Speaker 6 (49:59):
You will have been heavy requested your arms were president, and.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
I know you're busy on the West coast, but I
want to say thank you so much for taking time out.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
I love you, and I.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
Get my best a Liberty and I will see you
some of my.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
Live I will love you. Rain Drops y'alls by Sweetie
Bye Carlos.
Speaker 2 (50:16):
Okay, all right, so rain drops, you have it here.
Speaker 6 (50:24):
Ebony broke it down. Ebony broke it down. Ebney broke
it down. Ebony broke it down.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
I want to read the super chat really fast before
I have to run myself job to get my food.
I gotta eat tu seven o'clock job.
Speaker 6 (50:42):
Sweet talks the Mama Joyce's behavior along with the pressure
of being filmed at to the duress.
Speaker 2 (50:48):
I mean, look, I think what we're seeing now is
I thought Candy's filing for divorce was very straight and narrow.
It wasn't anything that I thought was relacious. Then Todd responded,
and Todd, I think what Todd asked for.
Speaker 6 (51:10):
If they're unable to agree to joint to the custody
of the kids, then.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
You know people want X, Y and Z. I think
that's when people started parkling, like what's going on? And
then when he challenged the prenup, challenging, challenging, excuse me
the prenup, I think the audience was like, oh, this
is about to get a little messy. So to answer
your question, sweet Tea talks, I don't know. I think
I think more is going to come out. And one
(51:35):
thing I will say about being in the media is
this okay, And and hear me, Lillington brain drops when
you see things like bread crumbs being dropped, something big
is about to happen when you see like little bread crumbs.
And People Magazine is very different than I don't want
(51:59):
to I want to mention outlet because I'm not trying
to like say one is high to the other. But
what I will say is People Magazine in order for
them to publish a story, and I know this for
a fact, I am a journalist. Hey, porscha, People Magazine
is the most credible entertainment magazine in the world. In
(52:21):
order for them to publish anything from a source, they
need more than two sources. And that's just the fact,
me sweating job, that's a fact. You need more than
two sources for People Magazine to publish anything. They're not
gonna take a phone call from Edna because she heard
(52:45):
on the streets. M okay at First Avenue or you
know she read on the YouTube streets. Child, what, No,
they're not going to which I think a lot of
people should not do. But I digress.
Speaker 6 (53:02):
Stop reporting on things that isn't substantial anyway. They're not
going to report on anything unless they get multiple sources.
So what happened yesterday?
Speaker 2 (53:13):
I was like, People Magazine, my people, So that happened?
And then I know you got look, wait a minute, Carlos.
Miss Edna's reliable too, Yes, child, But I'm just saying
(53:34):
not when it comes to sources that People Magazine is
gonna take without talking to miss Edna in addition to
two more people. Child, That's all I'm saying. Okay, So
when I saw that, I was like, oh, these are breadcrumbs,
cause that's how the video works. It is with this child. Okay,
Oh I missed this. This This is a question for
(53:55):
Ebony when Leina and c Hey, Carlos and Ebony. If
toad Chie could he still get alamoney love y'all, I'll
bring you know what I want to do. Actually, I won't.
Speaker 6 (54:09):
Me and Ebony to come back and then maybe bring
on a Georgia divorce lawyer to talk.
Speaker 2 (54:20):
To ebd and I because I like that. Because the
thing is this, Everything is contingent on the state. When
you get married. State laws are different. As you all though.
That's that, all right. Last question from page four one
two eight Carlos as a producer for Candy's wedding special,
(54:41):
how did you feel about Candy gimming Todd the pre
nup forty eight hours forty eight hours before the wedding.
I saw that the comment. First of all, I have
no feelings in terms of I follow me as a producer,
I follow the reality. I don't I don't invoke my
personal opinion based on the reality of the people were filming.
(55:02):
So I wastly busy following it in real time. I
did see the comments built A lot of you guys
are saying that she gave him the prenup forty eight
hours before they got married. I don't. I don't know
if that is true, I have to I have to
go back and watch the season. Based on my memory,
(55:25):
I think he had it. I don't listen, I would,
I don't think. Listen. I don't think Todd had a
first draft of the prenup forty eight hours before they
were married. I don't think that's the case. I think
what may have been the case is maybe the final
(55:46):
draft on Candy's part was sent to him forty eight hours.
But I don't think he received a first draft forty
eight hours. So you know, but who, okay who? We
watched the wedding special here, Okay, the diva just me said.
(56:07):
I heard he got it three weeks before.
Speaker 6 (56:12):
Okay, I'm what I'm gonna do is look at the
the wedding special again, because I don't remember.
Speaker 2 (56:24):
I don't remember, but I do not. I'm ninety nine
percent sure he did not receive a first draft forty
eight hours. I don't think so at all. I don't
think that. But he did receive the final document the
morning of the wedding.
Speaker 6 (56:42):
Because we were there filming it. So all right, ray listen,
I'll hope you guys enjoyed this episode. We will be
back more and when more information occurs, and thank you
guys so much, and I'm dropping.
Speaker 2 (56:54):
I'm driving another episode tomorrow. Okay, so make sure you
guys go on Patreon, Patreon, doctor Hevle and I. Every
week we are recapping Maritime Medicine. Sign on to Patreon
to watch Heaveley and I recap Mariton Medicine, and sign
out to Patreon to see Marlo Hampton and we do
(57:16):
our fashion recaps. Okay, all right, that's patreon dot com
slash b Carlos King. All right, love you guys so much.
I'll see y'all late time.
Speaker 1 (57:32):
Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership.
Speaker 2 (57:40):
With the Lack Effect Network.
Speaker 1 (57:42):
You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
be Carlos King Underscore
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset. In
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well, we have so.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Much to talk about greeting and salutation, honey, that's what
we're doing. So on Tonight's Live, I've listened and I'll responded,
and you guys wanted me to bring back my amazing
friend and amazing co host f M. K. Williams to
(00:58):
talk about the Candy and Todd divorce proceedings. So on
this one, what we're gonna do is utilize Ebony's amazing
intelligence when it comes to the law and being a
celebrity and how those two things sort of intersect when
it comes to what happens with the celebrity divorce, the
(01:19):
money desk at stake, children being involved, minor children at
that in addition to recent information about particular allegations of
possible cheating. So, Ebony, are you ready to break this
all down?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I am if I have shot approval from the rain Drops, shit,
I mean, well damn.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Well. Look, you know the range are very opinionated. So
just to catch you all up to speed, what's going on?
And look, this has been a situation that a lot
of did not see coming. So I want to make
sure to recapture you guys exactly what is happening. So
(02:08):
rain Drops, as you all know, Candy Burristucker has decided
to file for divorce on November twenty first. She has
called it quiz after eleven years of marriage. She said
in a statement that after deep thought a lot of prayer,
she's made the decision to move forward with advores. Okay,
(02:33):
she cited that the marriage was irretrivially broken and that
she was seeking for joint cust study. So before we
get into Ta's response, which truly did break the Internet ebony,
some of divorces, especially celebrities, we always hear the reconcilable differences,
(02:55):
which is pretty much like the safest thing to say
about like two parties. We decided to different matters to
say that it was irvally broken explain to us exactly
what that particular statement means and why or why not
is that important when it comes to this divorce.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Well, the only real legal significance of that language, Carlos,
and it's a good, it's a good point of clarification
is that because, like you said, irreconcilable differences is a
catch all, you know, it's it's a standard catch all
that almost everybody uses in their uh no fault state divorces,
which Georgia is. But that beyond you know, what do
(03:45):
you call it? Reconciliation piece just kind of goes to
tap the judge or the try or effect on the
shoulder and let them know basically, we're not particularly interested
in counts or mediation tactics that would put us on
a path for reconciliation. It's basically because sometimes when you
(04:06):
initially find you do an initial first filing of divorce,
you might have a judge push you in that direction,
especially when there are minor children involved, as is the
case with Candy and Todd. They've got a six year
old daughter Blaze, nine year old son Ace and so
and especially I'm going to bring up some components rain drops,
So follow me here when you're in the Bible Belt,
(04:28):
they are in the state of Georgia. And I say
this as a proud Southern girl myself, who practice family
law in the state of North Carolina, you're gonna sometimes
run into a judge, and the judges, y'all, have a
tremendous amount of discretion in family law cases. So that's
one thing to note. This is not a prosecutor and
a defense This is a judge and only a judge
(04:50):
that we'll hear from both Candy's lawyers and Todd's lawyers
and decide all the elements of this case, from custody
to the enforcement of the prenup, which we will get to,
to all the elements. And so when you're in this
type of jurisdiction, the South, the Bible Belt, where the
culture of the region, y'all, and that mandates a presumption
(05:11):
of family, a presumption especially in the political climate that
we're in. I don't have to name it, y'all can
put it together, okay, where there's such a energy and
propensity around traditional family values and family staying together and
nuclear family situations. So the inclusion by Candy's attorney and
(05:34):
their legal team of that sentence essentially beyond reasonable chances
of reconciliation is to say, hey, you're honor In case
you're thinking about trying to put us on track for
some type of preliminary reconciliation counseling, we can skip it.
That's what that says to me.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah. Yeah, So one of the things that occur after that,
because again the worse filings for me, and again I'm
not a lawyer, I'm just a general public citizen. One
thing that I thought was okay, it was a kind
way of saying, this relationship cannot be you know, retrieved
(06:17):
outside of getting back together. We do have minor children together.
We are going to try to have a joint custody.
She did say that. She also said that look, they
have businesses together, and that any depth that they have
to be split and anything else should be split. Everything
seemed to be fair and everybody said, okay, that's fine.
(06:40):
Then a few days later after that, on December second,
I'm sorry an December second, what happened On December first,
Tom Tucker's attorney, Randy Kessler, responded to Candy's filing, and
this is where things were said, ebony that run the
(07:00):
general public, the wrong way, not all of a sudden,
but I wanted to get your thoughts on it. In
the In the document, it did state that Todd would
like to have in the unlike in the hopefully unlikely
event that they are unable to reach a custody deal,
(07:22):
he will be seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody,
and final decision making authority. The document stated that Candy
having substantial time and meaningful access to the children. He's
(07:44):
praising her as a mother, But he also did say
that because she travels a lot, he wants to be
able to be the primary parent if they're unable to
reach a deal. You being a love yourself, you being
a working mom, yourself, you're actually on set today, yep.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Out of state, by the way, out of state, on
set out on the other side of the country. So
I'm actually very similarly positioned to where Miss Candy Burgers
is in terms of this type of situation. So let's
start in the back, carlost let me do some issue
spotting here, old school style. Everything you read, and I'm
so glad you read it in its totality around uh
(08:30):
Todd's request on the custody piece. The initial request this
is around a potential child support claim. Okay, so let's
let's reverse engineering. This is setting up a potential claim
from Todd and his legal team to seek child support.
I want everybody to immediately put spousal support on a
selparate chef, a separate shelf. Spousal support and child support
(08:53):
have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Okay. Spousal
support may or may not even be at play, depending
on whether or not the judge decides to uphold the
existing prenuptial agreement. But child support is something that you
actually cannot bypass in a pre nup, Okay, because it's
(09:14):
not about you or you spouse or spouse. It's about
who the child. So excuse me. With that framework, With
this being all about a potential child support claim, that
would be why Todd, through his attorney Randy Kessler, would
be seeking primary physical custody, because if you don't have
(09:34):
primary physical custody, there is little to no claim around
why you should be compensated from the other parent, because
the judge will typically look at that as if it's
split physical custody. They will look at y'all as equals
who are more or less equally positioned to care for
the children through your own resources with the time you
each equally have the children. But if you're saying no, no, no, no,
(09:58):
I am the the children are with me most of
the time, subject to visitation from the other spouse, then
the financial presumption shifts. Carlos, see how that goes. And
now the expectation is I need to be paid from
the other's spouse compensated for taking on more fiscal responsibility
because the children are with me more so I'm feeding them,
(10:19):
I'm clothing them, I'm housing them, I'm paying for their extracurriculars,
and I need to be paid child support to make
that equitable. That's so, that's that's connecting the dots as
to why he's starting from a physical custody demand and
then the legal joint custody that standard because uh, there
(10:39):
is no fiscal component to legal custody, because legal custody
is not about where the physicality of the children. It's
only about the decision making. So this is where they
go to school, if they have health insurance, what kind
testing the things of this in terms of like whatever
whatever assessments the children might need as they continue you
(11:00):
to grow and develop but then I think it's interesting.
Something I don't see often, Carlos, is this final request
potentially of final decision making. Because the whole point of
joint legal custody is to say that we are joint
in assessing what I just ran down, schooling, healthcare, the
major decisions that affect the child's life. But he's saying
(11:22):
that I actually want final decision making potentially, and that's
a bit unusual. So but the first thing you said
is important. We only get to me having physical primary custody,
joint decision making, legal custody and final decision if and
only if we can't get to a custody agreement. So
that's gonna be the first step, Carlos. They're gonna sit
(11:43):
down with maybe a mediator, an arbitrator, or even the
judge and try to see if they can come up
with what we tend to call a consent decree, which
means we both consent mutually agree that this is going
to be the custody arrangement. So that's going to be
the first attempt.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Todd, on his social media has had this sort of
like social media series, nothing I would call a websode,
but he has been promoting that he does a lot
of daddy daycare, and he's been doing this for you know,
in recent months. Do you think that was a part
(12:22):
of strategy to show that he is the prime he
is being theen based on what he's showing me as
the primary care came, I don't have to.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
I don't have to think it. Well, I was gonna say,
I don't have to think it, Carlos. I know it.
I know it, and it's not necessarily that's not a deed,
that's not nefarious, that's just quite obvious. Quite frankly, when
you see people start to show up in a public setting,
which social media is as public as it kind of
gets right because it's real time visibility, establishing a narrative
(12:54):
which may very well be true, may not be true,
maybe a little true or and untrue, who knows, right,
but they're establishing a narrative that sements them in a
particular position. So he's saying publicly, hey, public and potential
judge and whoever's assessing this, I need you to know
(13:14):
that it is me that is primarily at home doing
the daily caretaking of the children. I'm running the bathwater,
I'm preparing the meals. I'm preparing any medicines they may take.
I'm the one doing story time because why my wife,
per his claim, is out of town, out of the country,
(13:35):
promoting Broadway shows, doing press for her incredible you know,
works and projects and movies and films and all the
amazing things she's doing. So while she is away, kind
of well, what's it getting the bacon. I'm playing daddy
daycare at home, frying up the bacon, and I am
holding down the home front. That is clearly Carlos what
(13:57):
he has been trying to establish for the past several months,
which bolsters his argument his legal claim that that's why
I should be designated the primary physical custodian, because, like
you were saying, and you know, using me as an
example of what it looks like to be the working
mom who's going to get the bacon. I'm out in
La getting the bacon. I'm on set getting the bacon.
(14:19):
Somebody's got to get the bacon. But also somebody has
to be home to fry the bacon because the children
can't eat un fried bacon, you know, using this analogy,
so I would tell you, cybar, this this is sidebar.
This is part of the reason that I used a
donor true tide of my personal story time part Yeah.
(14:40):
Part of the reason that I decided to be a
single mom by choice, Carlos King and use a donor
and not have a father for liberty, not use a friend,
not have a cold parenting situation, is because I knew
my circumstances professionally would put me in Candy's exact situation,
and that I would very possibly end up paying child
(15:03):
support for my own daughter. Oh apps, some motherfucking lute
excuse me, I would easily be in a position to
have to go in front of a judge looking just
like this and plead my own case from my own
daughter that I carried in birth, to say, despite my
travel schedule, my work schedule, my sometimes lack of real
(15:25):
time availability, I assure you I can make sure all
of her needs are met. Because that opens the door,
Carlows for exactly this where a father, despite the relationship
between me and the father, despite what we even previously
agreed to, could then say, your honor, look at her.
She's outside. She might be outside for very wonderful, noble reasons,
(15:45):
but she's away from home and children need, you know, mom,
to be home. Mom's not available to be home, and
so she has she has put her custody rights at
risk from a legal standpoint, and I'm here to step
into the to the to the to the pocket. I'm
here to step into the role and play the primary
(16:06):
custodian for my children. And that's a real risk, Carlos,
and it is one of the reasons I'm telling you
that women with high power careers that demand travel or
time away. My daughter is being very well taken care
of right now, rain Drops in Carlos. I assure you,
I'm getting hourly updates from her nanny, who has been
with her since she was four months old. She's in
(16:28):
a lovely, you know, preschool that she's been so she's good.
But if I had to argue this to a judge,
it could go either way, and I wasn't willing to
risk it going either way. So that's a personal decision.
Every woman gets to make that decision for herself. But
I hope that helps understand rain Drops why somebody would
(16:49):
do what I did, And more and more women are
electing to do it because we don't want to be
in court having to potentially fight for custody of our
own children simply because we chose or needed to go
to work.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Wow. Wow, well, listen, you are preaching to the choir
of the women who are working mothers. Who's working women
in the group chat? With that being said, I want
to ask you this because this was brought up recently
and I never thought about it until one of my
brain drops brought it to my attention. Does that hurt
(17:23):
a woman in this case? So, let's sen if Candy
had Blaze via surrogacy, right, yes? Does that will that hurt?
Let me remind could Todd and his attorney used that
as a way to establish her busy schedule and the
(17:47):
reason why it is in the best interest for the
primary custody to be in the hands of the father
because of something like that. Is that something that could
be used? Has it ever? Did?
Speaker 3 (18:01):
I don't think so. I don't think so. I appreciate
the curiosity. I see where it could come from from
a curiosity standpoint, but I don't believe so. I didn't
follow that storyline, Cluk, I was watching this shor at
the time. But from what I know period of sarrogacy, Carlos,
it is almost always used for medical necessity, Candy, like myself,
(18:21):
is now very much so considered advanced maternal age. Candy
at that point had already birth Riley. Also at that
point Ace and Ace she was older as well, so
I could see we're medically speaking, she would have a
very sound argument to say that Blaze was brought to
the world lovingly and beautifully sarrogacy because not of professional obligations,
(18:48):
you know. And she couldn't carry the baby because it
was inconvenient, but due to medical reasons, so that would
not I don't see any argument, Carlos where that would
legally work against her.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
This is reality. He with the King, and I'm Carlos King.
Let's get back into the show. Okay, So rain Drop,
I'll hope that answered your question. I want to make
sure to ask that, so thank you rain Dad for
asking that question. I want to move into the financing.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Can I just add something real quick because it doesn't
necessarily the Candy, but it could apply to other women
in these situations. Let's say Candy had used an egg donor, right,
So let's say Candy was so was the legal mother
of one of her children, but not the biological mother.
I want to be clear, rain Drops, that does not
jeopardize her custody. The law does not afford a biological
(19:38):
parent more legal rights than a legal parent. I think
that's very important to clarify.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Okay, and I'm clarified that. And and Ebony, I'm not
sure if you heard of this story that happened to
Sherry Shepherd.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Oh, yes, Sherry has told me that story herself at
her own mouth.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yes, are you at liberty if you wanted to, because
because what you said made me think about that. Because
rain Drops, listen, Sherry Shepherd used a dinner egg, which
was her ex husband Lamar Sally's firm, to have herself
through a surrogate mother. The egg donor was selected by
the agency after you know, they signed an agreement with
(20:21):
the agency to be the legal parents. However, rain Drops, it.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Led to a legal battle during the divorce, with a
court ultimately ruling that Sherry was the legal mother of
the child and have to pay.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Child support. Sure did, Sure did? Sure did? So that's important.
So anybody hearing this this thinking you're mitigating your financial
responsibility by putting some biological distance between you and the child,
you are not. The court said, motion denied, go ahead, Carlos.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
All right, so I want to get into the financial
so good.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
This is so many issues, so many issues.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
As my team all week, I said, I am attending
the University of Kay Williams because you.
Speaker 5 (21:12):
Know, I'm obsessed with you and your brilliant and just
everything that I'm learning from you courtesy of this and listen,
I have so much of my play.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
But I do want to go to law school now.
And also just so you know, a lot of frame drops,
courtesy of just watching you for years and also watching
this you are. You are influencing and inspiring a lot
of people at the law school. So I want you
to know that, and I so love that you.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Just so y'all know, rain drops. Of the entire legal profession,
only five percent count on one hand, one two, four
or five percent are Black attorneys. There are less than
for men and women black men and women. There are
less than sixty seven thousand Black attorneys in the United
States of America. We are underrepresented in this profession and
it affects us in every way from child support to
(22:03):
a criminal court to real estate property court. When you
get people's deeds stolen from underneath them, we need us
so Carlos all jokes aside, brother, I will literally write
your personal recommendation letters to law school. And I am
hand to God, very dead serious, very soon.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Thank you for that. And you know me, I take listen,
she knows it could be worked together. Everything I do
I take seriously, and I'm always preparing myself. So when
the time is right, I will let you know. Okay,
so rain drops. As we all know, Candy and Todd
got married April fourth, twenty fourteen. Todd, in the court document,
(22:40):
has stated that although he admits that he did sign
a prenuptial agreement, he is suggesting, though, that he was
pressured into signing it without his lawyers around.
Speaker 6 (22:53):
Todd's lawyer said that he was presented without having council present.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Even though Candy then counsel that communicated previously with Todd's
counsel regarding a potential prenuptial agreement. What do don't want
to Rang Josh to know, because I know they're dealing
with business. What that means Range John's and I want
ethnic to school us on this when they say that
(23:21):
Candy's lawyers independently spoke to Todd without his lawyer's president.
The reason why that could be deemed I'm not going
to well, I'll just say the word is correct me
if I'm wrong. The reason why that may be deemed
unethical is because the moment, the moment two parties, So
(23:41):
in this case, Candy and Todd, Candy a Todd having
separate lawyers, the moment the lawyers are engaged talking to
each other. As a lawyer, you're not allowed.
Speaker 6 (23:50):
To speak to the other council's client without them being president.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (23:57):
That correct? Yes? Yeah, Okay, I mean that's that's that's
like a one on one type of way you get
sationed by the Bar association, is speaking to another attorney's
client without representation present. And just the reason for that,
rain Drops, is because there's a certain power dynamic at
play and certain presumptions of understandings that we have with
(24:21):
each other amongst each other as attorneys. Okay that lay
people could be brilliant, could be fortune five hundred CEOs,
could be multi muntime billion millionaire, celebrity whatever. It's not
undermining to say they are incompetent. It's just to say,
and they can actually catch this tea colors, they can
actually be attorneys. It can actually be it can actually
(24:42):
be an attorney. But if they are not the attorney
representing the legal interests of that person, in that case,
they are not permitted to speak to the council period.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Yes, And what we saw on the Wedding special was
Candy did call her lawyer. Tom was president. Todd tried
to call his lawyer. He didn't answer, but we did
see on camera that Candy's lawyer on speaker was talking
with Todd. And what would happened on the wedding.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Can we ask the flag that when Todd tried to
then later in that same scene call his lawyer, Randy
and tried to do the same thing, like, hey, Randy,
Candy's right here with me. Can you talk to us
and basically calm her down and let her know it's
gonna be all right. Randy Kessler said, what I think
not I will not be speaking to miss Burris without
(25:33):
her council present. But what I can do for you,
Todd is get on the phone and call Candy's attorney
and we could talk lawyer to lawyers. So that's the
easy way to think about it, rain drops. Lawyers should
be talking lawyers to lawyers, and the party should be
talking to each other, but we will not have a dynamic.
A triangulation is the word where me and my lawyer
(25:54):
are sitting on the phone with my future husband without
his lawyer present. Because that in and of itself can
be construed as a form of duress, a form of
compounding pressure and obligation that does not afford equal representation.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
So, with all of that being said, Todd attorney in
this document, okay, is the reason why he is questioning
the prenuptial agreement because of the fact that he did
find the document without an attorney. His attorney president. One
(26:35):
thing that the attorney is saying, ebony is the fact
that I'm gonna read a verbatim so one of his
quote things right now, give me one second, okay. Tucker's
(26:56):
counterclaim for divorce also demanded a division of all marital
assets both real and personal, tangible and intangible between the parties.
What does that mean?
Speaker 3 (27:16):
I'm so sorry, production was in my ear. Read that
last line again, thank you, okay, just the last the
last two lines.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Okay. A division of all marital assets both real and personal,
tangible and intangible between the parties.
Speaker 3 (27:34):
Well, that's just going to probably mean to cover all bases, right,
because we know George is a community property state, and
he's just saying, hey, listen, we want all we know
what real property and assets are. That's the houses and
the cars and things like that, clothing, jewelry, things like
that that were purchased during the marital time which eleven years.
But the intangible stuff that could be things like stop
(27:54):
that appreciate it maybe right, or if either of them
or both of them have any pension funds. So basically,
you know accounts that things that are not liquid, assets
that are not liquid, so whatever you know that could
be any any account, money market accounts, things of that nature.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
One thing that I want to get into is the
fact that people assume Evny like, hey, they signed a prenup,
they got on the boards, everything should be good. It's
a legal document. Tell me why that's not always the case.
They weren't married for ten plus years. Somebody did say
in the chat that is it true that in ten
(28:35):
years in the state of Georgia that you may be
able to renegotiate your prenup just based on all of
the activities that may have occurred in the ten years.
And one thing that I do want to say, Mayor
J Blige ex husband can Do did sign a prenup. However,
(28:55):
she still had to pay.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Home as Justin Ross affection affectionately called him ken don't
shout out to the lovely Dustin Ross. So a few things.
This ten year mark, let's clear some things up. Ten
years in some states is hugely significant, like the state
(29:18):
I'm in right now, California. In California, we saw this
with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in California. Legally speaking,
it's for real, for real, for real once you get
to ten years, meaning it now becomes very difficult to
not cash the other party out once you hit the
ten year mark. Now, let's go to Georgia where this
is happening. They don't have that severe of a statute
(29:41):
where everything kind of changes it ten years, but certainly
a few things do happen at ten years. Now, no
sitting judge is going to presume that this was just
for play play. If somebody sayed ten years, even if
they were a gold digger, they were committed, so we're
gonna treat them more seriously. That's a real thing. Also
point in the marriage, but certainly it's more likely after
(30:02):
the ten year mark things could be renegotiated. We even
heard Ashley Darby discuss this on Real Housewives of Potomac
when she was still married to Michael Darby that once
they got to ten years, it essentially is thrown out,
you know, this notion of we need to be real
careful of how we divvy things up once you get
to ten years. Again, the presumption is that everybody was
(30:26):
operating in good faith and that this is more treated
as a community of sorts and that's how it's gonna
be handled. So that's the significance of the ten year piece,
just so everybody's clear on that. It doesn't seismically change
what's going on here, but it says that nobody the
judge is not gonna look at Todd or whoever the
(30:46):
other person is and say you just married them just
for money, because most people that just married for money
are in and out in a year two or three,
not eleven.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
And just so we know for the record, Candy is
the one that actually filed for the divorce. Todd did it.
So I just wanted to make sure that fact was
also presented because people are saying that all of this
happened because you know Todd wanted to, you know, get
the money. It's pretty much well.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
Cash out, yeah, cash out. Well, we had to add
this to Carlos because I think you're right. First of all,
you're exactly right. I think people look at he signed
the document. It's legally binding, case closed. While that's not
the now, it is important that he signed the document.
I do want to be clear, it's not a nothing sandwich, okay,
(31:35):
because he signed the document. And there's also a part
in the wedding special or maybe it's an episode of
the next season where he says on camera, against my
attorney's advice, against my attorney's advice, I signed the document
because no piece of paper I'm paraphrasing now, but no
piece of paper is going to get in the way
(31:56):
of me and Candy being together. That's not gonna be
a good fact for Todd Tucker. However, it's not. But
it's not going to be a good fact for him, Carlos.
But it's not controlling enough to undermine his entire claim.
And part of the reason why is what I'm about
to tell you and point out now, both of their
lawyers are going to make arguments around whether or not
(32:18):
his signing of the prenup was what we call truly voluntary?
Was it truly voluntary? And when he says what I
just said, he said, against my attorney's advice, I signed
it anyway. That goes to it being voluntary.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Right.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
But you know what doesn't bode well for Candy's side
of this argument and it being truly voluntary the time frame,
the fact that these two were twenty four hours before
their wedding, still going back and forth around the document
itself clauses what this means interpretation Already, that's a flag
(32:54):
to any judge Carlos, because ideally, for a prenup to
be deemed kind of best practices, this should have been
done months ago, months ago, this should have been in
the can. This is what this really is supposed to
look like in best practices is we set a wedding date,
(33:14):
and we each give our lawyers the document. Your lawyer
drafts it, they send it to my lawyer. We spend
at least, on average, with this kind of money involved,
a month to three months negotiating back and forth. What's fair?
Would I like what you like? Cut this out? Or
draft this? Da da da da da da. Then we
agree on the document I sign, you sign, it's notarized,
(33:37):
it's in the can at least a month, if not
three or four months ahead of the wedding date. When
you are just the nature of the pressure cooker of
vows start in twenty four hours now, that could easily
be construed as duress in its own form? Is that
making sense? Just the nature of the timeline can can
(34:00):
can be construed as an aspect of duress? Why? And
I don't know that that that this is on candy,
So I'm not saying that rain drops. But what I'm
saying is that's going to be investigated by the judge,
Miss Burris and your counsel. When did you deliver the
initial draft to mister Tatar and how long did his
counsel have to review it? And when did they get
the revisions? And how long did you to see did
(34:24):
you allow adequate reasonable time of review, consideration, and negotiation
and execution of the document, because if the court deems
you did not, and that you kind of tried to
run the clock out so that you were you felt
like your decision is marry the love of my life
or signed the document ill advised that that wouldn't vote
well for Miss Boris.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
I have to ask the question because it's in the
comments and I want to get your expert opinion. A
lot of people are saying that with Todd because Okay,
Candy tops a claim Todd's response and said that they
will use the Bravo footage of the wedding series to
show that he did sign it. Now, with that being said,
(35:10):
the fact of the matter is Todd did sign it
the morning of his wedding. He did not have a
lawyer present. Yes, the Bravo cameras were there, But the
question does remain do you think that Todd was smart
enough to know that at the end of the day, Godfribis,
(35:31):
something may go awry. I do have this to protect myself.
Speaker 7 (35:37):
The footage to protect himself, The footage of the fact
that he is signing the morning and everything and everything
that led to it, him having issues with Mama Joyce,
his his his mother makes you rest in peace, and
Mama Joys almost getting the physical altercation the day.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Before the wedding. He's being you know him and came
again to an ur I'm gonna tell.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
You something else. I'm gonna tell you something else that
would work in his favor. Again, not controlling, but just
something in his bucket. There was a couple of times
that morning or the day before rather where Candy was
saying things like, what do you need to talk to
your lawyer for? Talk to him for what? This is open?
You know, this is this is simple. You're making something
out of nothing. That kind of language not ideal for
(36:25):
showing voluntariness, because what ideally would have been said is like,
of course, baby, call your counsel, call him a million times,
go over in a thousand times. I want you to
be completely comfortable with all the terms and conditions in
the document before we walk down this aisle. That's what
a judge is ideally looking for, not anything that looks
(36:47):
to try to circumvent the conversation with counsel because it's
very important.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Yeah, yeah, okay, a few more minutes. Get back to worry.
I want to I want to get into this so
that so rand on us all the legalities that we know.
Speaker 8 (37:00):
As of today, December fourth, at the December fourth, sixty
seven pm Eastern Tod's attorney, Brandy Kesseler has not counter
claimed to Candy's response.
Speaker 9 (37:13):
Now yesterday, Ebanie the very credible People magazine revealed that
a source said that Candy Birds discovered that Todd Tucker
was talking to other women behind her back.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
That same day. Yesterday, Candy revealed on her Instagram a
post where she said how she has been dealing with
this for months and that sometime we have to check
on your strong friend. She had a photo slide of
her smiling and said that she was hurting and it
was in pain emotionally behind these photos. Today Today today
(37:56):
Tod posted a photo of him in a scenery background,
saying how he's with somebody, a friend of his, and
he's this journey has been difficult for How are the
interesting time? It's the timing. Do you think these two
people are using the media to influence the public perception?
(38:21):
Did Todd cheeto Candy? I'm emotionally distressed too, not just her.
Is that a factor in this that that that could
help the case legally?
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I think they're doing what people in their position kind
of have to do right now, Carlos, which is do
two things at once. They're letting their lawyers, their actual lawyers, UH,
navigate this very real issue of divorce and custody and
all these things in the court of law, and because
of just how hugely public Candy and now Todd are,
(38:57):
they are working the court of public opinion at the
same time. Because if they were to do the thing
that we used to be told and advised to do
in this business, which is let it play out in
court and the public opinion piece will take care of itself,
we're seeing now that that no longer is effective. Those
are no longer the times we're living in, Carlos King.
(39:17):
So they are doing what public figures of their magnitude
must do. Actually, I would say, which is get in
front of some of this public narrative immediately and as
soon as possible. So Candy probably or her team probably
I think correctly assumed that if there starts to be
an argument around infidelity or bad actions on the part
(39:39):
of Todd Tucker, his legal team would then go to
her Instagram and pull all of these beautiful, gorgeous photos
of Candy Burris in July, of Candy Burris in March,
of Candy Burros in September, and say, for a woman
who was going through all that you just told this
court you're going through, I certainly can't tell this to me.
(40:00):
I'm just telling you how it go down in the
war room. Baby. I'm telling you how to go down
the war room. I'm telling you how to go down
in the depositions because I've sat in them. I have
done the questioning. Well, ma'am, you just told me that
your husband was cheating on you with your best friend,
and this and that and you going through it and
you got postpartum? Was this you having postpartum in Malibu?
(40:21):
Was this you have? This is how it go down, baby.
So this is Candy and her team saying, oh no,
we're not gonna allow for that. We're gonna we're gonna
we're going to get in front of that narrative and
we're gonna say, despite what it looks like, despite all
the you know, what's an eighteen hundred hark, I mean,
her stylist. But but but but you know, behind the
(40:43):
oh my god, god, dang here everything okay, back to
the business. Said hey, I'm sorry, I was literally gaged
despite all of that stunning, gorgeousness that you see on
your screens. My heart breaking. I was absolutely devastated. I'm
(41:04):
literally going through and then now, twenty four hours later,
we're not gonna let that go un answered, if we're
Todd Tucker and his team right, because certainly we're not
gonna let the opposing council or you know, opposing party
at this point which they are adversaries, Ladies and gentlemen.
Don't be confused, not saying they hate each other, not
even saying they don't still love each other. But when
it comes to what this is, in this point in time,
(41:26):
they are adversarial to one another, you better fucking believe it. Okay,
So he's not gonna allow his now adversary to take
that argument and run with it unanswered. So now we
too have to make our case that despite what it
looked like and the holding hands and the red carpets,
I too was struggling, I too was going through. So
(41:46):
we'll see something else I want to put out a
far go, Carlos. What we don't know is whether or
not this this prenuptial agreement had something called a bad
boy clause. Okay, This said is that a part of
the divvying of the assets and lat is predicated on behavior. Now,
(42:08):
these aren't very common because they're very hard to enforce
and very hard to prove, but it is.
Speaker 8 (42:16):
It is.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
It is something that we see. Sometimes it's rumored that
Jessica Bill and Justin Timberlake have such a clause that says,
in addition to the basic consideration who has what, who
made what, who brought what to the table, and when
they bought it, and da da dah, we're also gonna
consider before we make the division of assets and liabilities,
take into account whether one or either party committed infidelity,
(42:41):
was a bad actor. If indeed, fidelity is even you know,
a consideration in the marriage. So we don't know, and
I have no reason to know because I wouldn't know,
right we haven't seen the documents yet. But I just
want rain drops to put that on the radar that
if indeed there was a bad boy cl laws that says,
all of this looks different if mister Tucker is proven
(43:04):
to be out of fidelity, or maybe if Miss Burgess
is proven to be. And sometimes they go one way,
so don't assume that what's good for the goose is
good for the other. I've seen bad boy clauses that
only apply to the husbands. I've seen bad woman clauses
that only apply to the wife because it's understood that
the husband, because he's bringing the whole bag. Can do
(43:24):
whatever he want to do. But you bitch, you better
not think about it. I've seen it, so I'm just
telling you.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
What it is.
Speaker 3 (43:31):
Okay, Okay, So go ahead, go.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
Ahead, question questions. With that being said, With that being said,
With that being said, Candy and Todd have been very
public and open about inviting women in their bedroom. It's
been something that they've been very open about. They this
is not a secret. They have three songs. They've been
very open about it. They had that understanding. If there
(43:57):
is a bad boy cloth or bad woman claw in
the in the in the prenuptial agreement, is it plausible
to say if Todd decided to be with a woman
independently of Candy, although Candy has allowed women to enter
their bedroom together, is that considered cheating because he does
(44:21):
have a free pass to sleep with other women based
on from my understanding watching the show, if she was around,
but is that considered cheating? And and and we have
seen videos of them on Instagram. They been on boats
with with with a third you know, with with another
woman and seems to be having a good, golly time.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
So this is the height of judges discretion. Carlos and
this is where you know. One thing we say in
the law, and I've heard this since my first day
of law school, is the law always lagged behind society, right,
So what we know are these notions of whether it's
threesomes or more broader polyamory. They've always existed. No one's
naive to it, but the visibility and maybe the frequency
(45:10):
is peaking. It's climaxing right part in the pun Okay,
So because of that, I could see this is gonna
be what judge do you get on what day? And
what are their personal kind of values around this sort
of thing. You can end up in front of a
judge that's very kind of old school and traditional. It
feels like my grandma, don't start nothing you can't finish, okay,
(45:32):
May she rest in peace. So, hey, young lady, you allowed,
you know, you broke the seal so to speak, you know,
and once you break the seal and allow one woman
into your bed, you are tacitly inviting unlimited women at
unlimited times. And it will only be a fool that
thinks she can control the nature of it once we've
(45:53):
allowed permissible third party participation. That's one perspective you could
get a more of all. We'll say judge man or
woman of any age by the way, that says, hey, no,
it don't go like that. The couple must be in
complete agreement at all times on what the rules and
participation look like. So if it's if she's known, if
(46:16):
Ms Buris knows and she's you know, volunteering, and she's willing,
then it's permissible. But any activity outside of her knowledge,
outside of her permissiveness this court is gonna deem to
be out of fidelity of the agreed upon relationship. So
that's that's gonna ultimately be the height of a judge's
discretion point.
Speaker 2 (46:37):
Okay, and my last question for you is this. You
were very honest about, you know, not dating a bus driver,
right and then girl.
Speaker 3 (46:53):
And it absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
Yes, it lifted, it was split. A lot of people
are decide, a lot of people are not on your side. Yes,
that's how the conversation. The last question for edby k
Williams at least up tonight because she will be back.
Speaker 3 (47:08):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (47:10):
You are a woman of means, you are a highly
educated woman, and you are a celebrity. You, like I said,
have been litten about not dating the bus driver based
on the fact that they're you know, the the financial
difference between Candy and Todd entering the relationship, and now
he's asking for you know, possible child support. Alumny, are
(47:35):
these the reasons why you felt so strongly about not
dating a bus driver to prevent yourself from being in
the situation?
Speaker 3 (47:44):
But of course that's an easy answer, no shame. In
my game, rain Drops, this is very much a part,
not exclusively, but a very real part of why I
personally this is a me decision, each woman, each man,
each person gets to make this decision for themselve. But
for me, this would not be a risk I would
be willing to take. And that's based on a few things, right, Raindrops,
(48:06):
It's based off my personal value system. I'm very old school.
I'm very much of the traditional mindset that I think
men in this nation we live in a patriarchy, and
I believe that men, despite challenges that they also go through,
I think they are put in best position to climb
the capitalism ladder of this nation based off of male
(48:29):
patriarchal systems. So what do I look like tethering myself
legally for sure to a man that I'm out earning
when the whole system is designed for you to out
earn me. So I got a problem with that, and
I have no problem saying that, put it on a
T shirt. That's fine, fine, totally fine with it. But
in addition to that, because I have practiced family law,
(48:52):
I know what it's like to see sherry share. And
I also have relationships with women who have paid child
support for their own children. I have relationships with women
who have paid spousal support to men for years, to
multiple men. Some of these women and they're not all famous.
Some of them are accountants, some of them are CEOs,
(49:12):
some of them are you know, working healthcare positions, you know,
And that's again, not a risk I am personally willing
to take. So I want to be clear before anybody
thinks anything funny style, I am not calling Todd Tucker
a bus driver at all. I believe that Todd was
a working individual, that he bought many things to the table,
and Candy made sure we knew that. But the discrepancy
(49:34):
is undisputed. The financial discrepancy between herself and Todd remained severe.
And when there is a severe discrepancy from the man,
the woman whoever it is this risk of money grab
accusations is going to always be at play.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
Ebony, I know you got to run. Thank you so much,
my love for breaking this down for you are listen,
she knows this already.
Speaker 6 (49:59):
You will have been heavy requested your arms were president, and.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
I know you're busy on the West coast, but I
want to say thank you so much for taking time out.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
I love you, and I.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
Get my best a Liberty and I will see you
some of my.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
Live I will love you. Rain Drops y'alls by Sweetie
Bye Carlos.
Speaker 2 (50:16):
Okay, all right, so rain drops, you have it here.
Speaker 6 (50:24):
Ebony broke it down. Ebony broke it down. Ebney broke
it down. Ebony broke it down.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
I want to read the super chat really fast before
I have to run myself job to get my food.
I gotta eat tu seven o'clock job.
Speaker 6 (50:42):
Sweet talks the Mama Joyce's behavior along with the pressure
of being filmed at to the duress.
Speaker 2 (50:48):
I mean, look, I think what we're seeing now is
I thought Candy's filing for divorce was very straight and narrow.
It wasn't anything that I thought was relacious. Then Todd responded,
and Todd, I think what Todd asked for.
Speaker 6 (51:10):
If they're unable to agree to joint to the custody
of the kids, then.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
You know people want X, Y and Z. I think
that's when people started parkling, like what's going on? And
then when he challenged the prenup, challenging, challenging, excuse me
the prenup, I think the audience was like, oh, this
is about to get a little messy. So to answer
your question, sweet Tea talks, I don't know. I think
I think more is going to come out. And one
(51:35):
thing I will say about being in the media is
this okay, And and hear me, Lillington brain drops when
you see things like bread crumbs being dropped, something big
is about to happen when you see like little bread crumbs.
And People Magazine is very different than I don't want
(51:59):
to I want to mention outlet because I'm not trying
to like say one is high to the other. But
what I will say is People Magazine in order for
them to publish a story, and I know this for
a fact, I am a journalist. Hey, porscha, People Magazine
is the most credible entertainment magazine in the world. In
(52:21):
order for them to publish anything from a source, they
need more than two sources. And that's just the fact,
me sweating job, that's a fact. You need more than
two sources for People Magazine to publish anything. They're not
gonna take a phone call from Edna because she heard
(52:45):
on the streets. M okay at First Avenue or you
know she read on the YouTube streets. Child, what, No,
they're not going to which I think a lot of
people should not do. But I digress.
Speaker 6 (53:02):
Stop reporting on things that isn't substantial anyway. They're not
going to report on anything unless they get multiple sources.
So what happened yesterday?
Speaker 2 (53:13):
I was like, People Magazine, my people, So that happened?
And then I know you got look, wait a minute, Carlos.
Miss Edna's reliable too, Yes, child, But I'm just saying
(53:34):
not when it comes to sources that People Magazine is
gonna take without talking to miss Edna in addition to
two more people. Child, That's all I'm saying. Okay, So
when I saw that, I was like, oh, these are breadcrumbs,
cause that's how the video works. It is with this child. Okay,
Oh I missed this. This This is a question for
(53:55):
Ebony when Leina and c Hey, Carlos and Ebony. If
toad Chie could he still get alamoney love y'all, I'll
bring you know what I want to do. Actually, I won't.
Speaker 6 (54:09):
Me and Ebony to come back and then maybe bring
on a Georgia divorce lawyer to talk.
Speaker 2 (54:20):
To ebd and I because I like that. Because the
thing is this, Everything is contingent on the state. When
you get married. State laws are different. As you all though.
That's that, all right. Last question from page four one
two eight Carlos as a producer for Candy's wedding special,
(54:41):
how did you feel about Candy gimming Todd the pre
nup forty eight hours forty eight hours before the wedding.
I saw that the comment. First of all, I have
no feelings in terms of I follow me as a producer,
I follow the reality. I don't I don't invoke my
personal opinion based on the reality of the people were filming.
(55:02):
So I wastly busy following it in real time. I
did see the comments built A lot of you guys
are saying that she gave him the prenup forty eight
hours before they got married. I don't. I don't know
if that is true, I have to I have to
go back and watch the season. Based on my memory,
(55:25):
I think he had it. I don't listen, I would,
I don't think. Listen. I don't think Todd had a
first draft of the prenup forty eight hours before they
were married. I don't think that's the case. I think
what may have been the case is maybe the final
(55:46):
draft on Candy's part was sent to him forty eight hours.
But I don't think he received a first draft forty
eight hours. So you know, but who, okay who? We
watched the wedding special here, Okay, the diva just me said.
(56:07):
I heard he got it three weeks before.
Speaker 6 (56:12):
Okay, I'm what I'm gonna do is look at the
the wedding special again, because I don't remember.
Speaker 2 (56:24):
I don't remember, but I do not. I'm ninety nine
percent sure he did not receive a first draft forty
eight hours. I don't think so at all. I don't
think that. But he did receive the final document the
morning of the wedding.
Speaker 6 (56:42):
Because we were there filming it. So all right, ray listen,
I'll hope you guys enjoyed this episode. We will be
back more and when more information occurs, and thank you
guys so much, and I'm dropping.
Speaker 2 (56:54):
I'm driving another episode tomorrow. Okay, so make sure you
guys go on Patreon, Patreon, doctor Hevle and I. Every
week we are recapping Maritime Medicine. Sign on to Patreon
to watch Heaveley and I recap Mariton Medicine, and sign
out to Patreon to see Marlo Hampton and we do
(57:16):
our fashion recaps. Okay, all right, that's patreon dot com
slash b Carlos King. All right, love you guys so much.
I'll see y'all late time.
Speaker 1 (57:32):
Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership.
Speaker 2 (57:40):
With the Lack Effect Network.
Speaker 1 (57:42):
You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
be Carlos King Underscore
The Breakfast Club News
Hosts And Creators
Charlamagne Tha God
DJ Envy
Jess Hilarious
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com