Steve Harvey responds to ex-wife Mary Harvey’s allegations after judge’s OK
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Comedian and radio personality Steve Harvey is firing back against his ex-wife Mary Harvey, now that a Texas judge has temporarily lifted a gag order prohibiting him from speaking about the case.
The former Mary Shackelford, Harvey’s second wife, took to YouTube last month to bash her ex-husband and give her version of the dissolution of their marriage in a three-video series.
The judge ordered her Monday to take down the videos and stop talking about the case. As of Tuesday, the videos had indeed been taken down from her YouTube account -- but they live on through others’.
Steve Harvey’s rep Bobbie Edmonds said that the judge lifted the gag order per the comedian’s request so that he could respond to his ex-wife’s allegations that he was unfaithful, evicted her, took their son and left her penniless. A March 10 hearing will determine if Mary Harvey can be held in contempt of court for violating the injunction, according to Edmonds’ statement.
Mary Harvey was given three homes after they split in 2005, a $1.5-million payout and an allowance of $40,000 a month until 2009, according to court documents. Steve Harvey was given primary custody of their then-13-year-old son Wynton, whom Mary Harvey “willingly” put on a plane back to his father.
The documents indicate that the Harveys’ marriage dissolved because of “irreconcilable differences,” not the infidelity alleged. Harvey’s current wife, Marjorie Bridges, “was not named in the original divorce proceeding nor was she the cause of the marital breakup,” the documents said.
And Bridges has already made plans to sue Mary Harvey for defamation.
“As a wife and a mother, I cannot stand back and allow the defamation of my character or actions that will malign my family,” she said.
In the meantime, Mary Harvey‘s camp is further “enjoined and restrained from releasing any disparaging, false, or malicious information about this litigation,” the documents said. That’s likely the reason they’ve been mum about this turn of events.
-- Nardine Saad