Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Prominent Trial Lawyer Loses Support Fight
Recently, a prominent Georgia trial lawyer was ordered to pay his former paramour $6 million in child support payments. Willie Gary, whose law practice is based in Florida, claimed in court papers to have a net worth of $60 million. Gowins v. Gary, No. 2004CV88406. (Fult. Super. Ct., July 15, 2004). Gary is known in Georgia law circles for his representation of race discrimination plaintiffs against The Coca-Cola Co., and Centennial Olympic Park bombing victims suing Atlanta Olympic organizers. His Web site boasts of winning a $240 million verdict against The Walt Disney Co. in 2001 in an intellectual property theft case; a $139.6 million verdict against brewer Anheuser-Busch; and a half-billion-dollar verdict against the Loewen Group, a large Canadian funeral-home chain.
The child support judgment orders Gary to pay $28,000 per month — for 16 years — to an Atlanta woman who bore him twins after their brief romantic relationship 5 years ago. Gary agreed to pay $175,000 for “support and maintenance of the children” and for a down payment on a home in Georgia for the mother and twins. He is also obligated to pay for the children's medical, dental and hospitalization insurance, maintain life insurance and prepay college tuition for the twins.
According to Jay D. Bennett, a partner at Alston & Bird, who initially handled the case for the plaintiff and drafted the settlement agreement later adopted by the judge, the agreement also calls for Gary to pay $30,000 to Alston & Bird to cover attorney fees.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.