Bren’s children allowed to sue him
A judge has cleared the way for two children of Irvine Co. owner Donald L. Bren to take their father to court in a 4-year-old fraud case that may illuminate the wealth and lifestyle of one of America’s most private billionaires.
Jennifer McKay Gold and two children she had with Bren -- Christie A. Bren, 18, and David L. Bren, 15 -- sued the real estate magnate in May 2003, contending Bren withheld emotional and financial support that he had allegedly promised.
Gold, who was never married to Bren, said the Irvine Co. chairman persuaded her to handle child support arrangements out of the courtroom but then reneged on his promises.
Bren said, through a spokesman, that he has demonstrated a “historic and consistent commitment” to provide for the children.
In December, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge George H. Wu threw the case out, saying the plaintiffs had waited too long to file the suit. But on Tuesday, he reversed himself and concluded the case brought by the children -- though not the mother -- could proceed.
The children’s attorney, Hillel Chodos, said that during their lifetime Bren has paid between $3,000 and $20,000 a month in child support, a fraction of what he would have paid had the mother taken him to court. The lawsuit asks for the difference between what Bren paid and what he would have paid had she taken him to court for child support, plus interest and punitive damages.
Bren told Gold he would provide for their children “in a manner commensurate with his wealth and station in life,” Chodos said, adding that she decided to sue after she realized he had never intended to keep that promise.
Bren denies making such a pledge.
During the litigation, Bren’s lawyer suggested the Irvine Co. boss made an average of $14.4 million annually from 1988 to 2002. Gold’s lawyer, who calls that figure “ludicrous,” calculated Bren made about $240 million a year and asked the courts to compel him to give more details.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in October 2005 that it was impossible to calculate child support -- which by law factors in the parents incomes -- without more detail about Bren’s wealth. Chodos said that because he has yet to receive detailed financial disclosures from Bren, it is unclear how much his clients are owed.
Forbes estimates Bren’s worth at $8.5 billion.
“I think in light of this ruling there will come a time when Bren will have to be more forthcoming,” Chodos said. “It’s like photography. We’re in the darkroom but the image is slowly going to emerge.”
A statement from a Bren spokesman called the lawsuit “unfortunate” and said that he had made cumulative child support payments to Gold of $4.4 million, including more than $380,000 in 2006. It said Bren had been “consistently fair and generous in his support of Ms. Gold and their children.”
“For more than 18 years, Mr. Bren has honored every child-support obligation to Jennifer McKay Gold, including obligations set forth in written legal agreements they negotiated in good faith with the assistance of separate attorneys,” the statement read.
“For 15 years, Ms. Gold received payments under those agreements without objection,” but is demanding more on the basis of “separate oral agreements” that were never struck, the statement read.
Bren’s lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, declined to comment.
Chodos said he was delighted with Judge Wu’s ruling and eager to take the case to a jury.
“You’re the mother of two children and the father’s a billionaire and you agree to take a trifling amount of child support,” Chodos said. “The idea that you don’t have a separate agreement? If you believe that, I’ve got some swampland in Florida for you.”
christopher.goffard
@latimes.com
