He insisted he and his legal team were looking for a “very basic discovery” in regard to the “facts, documents and witnesses supporting her contentions” of their divorce, but argued Christine was indulging in “gamesmanship” after she “steadfastly refused” to reveal her contentions and alleged she “cannot admit or deny that she understood” their pre-nup.
The documents read: “Christine asserts she cannot admit or deny that she understood the Premarital Agreement because she (and apparently all of her attorneys) do not understand the word ‘understood.’ This is gamesmanship of the worst sort.”
‘Understood’ is not a technical or arcane word. It is not ground for objection that a request is ambiguous unless it is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply.
”The notion that Christine and the multiple seasoned lawyers representing her do not understand the word ‘understood’ and cannot reply to this simple, straightforward [request for admission] is frivolous. Clearly, this vagueness objection was interposed only for the purpose of delay.”
A judge previously ruled in July that Christine - who is temporarily living in staff accommodation on the grounds of her former marital home - must confer with Kevin before taking any property from the estate.
