Okay, sure, things look bad for Brian Giles when his ex-girlfriend, Cheri Olvera, filed a $10 million suit against him for child support and damages from domestic violence. Oh, and things looked worse after video was released of him allegedly attacking her in a 2006 incident.
By the way, when we say “damages” from domestic assault, we’re not talking about a broken vase or something material and replaceable; according to the lawsuit, Giles’ abuse caused two miscarriages. Good god. But Brian Giles isn’t worried, you see. Not when, according to the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, he’s sure what this suit is really about: the money.
Why, just ask him:
“I categorically deny each and every allegation of the complaint for palimony,” Giles said in the statement. “This is all about money. The marriage never took place because the plaintiff changed her mind about a prenuptial agreement. The statement that I promised before marriage to divide my property to plaintiff if we ever separated or died is nonsense.”
If that’s the issue on the table, then yes, on its face, Giles’ position makes sense. Why, exactly, would he pledge to share his assets before marriage, then not get married? A prenup seems far more likely to be a deal-breaker over the course of a (especially when it comes to an income disparity of this size).
And about that domestic violence? Giles, unsurprisingly, denies almost all allegations; yes, the video thing happened, Giles admits, but all that other stuff is, in his eyes, false:
“I categorically deny the allegation that I perpetuated a continuing course of domestic violence on the plaintiff,” Giles said in the statement. “There was an incident in Phoenix which I regret. I want the team and the fans of baseball to know that I am sorry it happened. I addressed the problem and the case was dismissed by the court. At no time did I hit, kick, or push the plaintiff so that it caused her to miscarry.”
Now, it’s worth pointing out that “continuing course of domestic violence” is entirely lawyer-speak; that’s not to draw any conclusions about its veracity, of course, but this is a quite typical statement from someone who has been caught once–and only once–engaging in an act like domestice abuse.
But all the same, it’s still weird to see such disparate elements of a lawsuit like these two elements. If Giles truly made an arrangement to divide his property with the plaintiff, then she’s entitled to her share regardless of
whether how many times and how severely he assaulted her.
If he didn’t, however, then without medical records that indicate Olvera’s latest miscarriage was due to personal trauma (like, say, being thrown down a hallway), the suit is basically worthless. California and Arizona codes both state that the statute of limitations on personal injury is two years, and the video of the alleged assault in the Phoenix bar was taken on August 27, 2006. Further, the case was dismissed in court following Giles’ successful completion of anger management classes, and while that’s not enough to get a civil suit tossed, it’s enough to make the plaintiff’s lawyers work a lot harder to prove their case.
So, one would think, it is imperative that Olvera’s lawyers prove the deal to share Giles’ property was struck between Giles and Olvera. But perhaps–just perhaps–this was, in direct contradiction to Giles’ statement, actually not about the money at all. Think: Giles has spent the better part of this month in the public spotlight being accused of domestic violence to the point of miscarriage, a wife-beater without the temerity to get married first. Even if the suit is dismissed, his name is likely (and legally) damaged beyond repair. If that was their mission, then by all means, mission accomplished.