Rep. Grayson Avoids Dividing Marital Assets In Divorce After Showing His Marriage Was Bigamous

Alan_Grayson_Updated_HeadshotThere is an interesting twist in the messy divorce of Congressman Alan Grayson (D, Florida) this week after his lawyers pulled off a challenge that you usually see in movies: the secured an order dismissing any division of marital assets with his wife Lolita because she was found to have been previously married. Since his marriage was invalid on bigamy grounds, there was no marriage and thus no marital assets. That is a considerable blow for Lolita who sought part of Grayson’s $30 million estate. She has four minor children with Rep. Grayson.

Rep. Grayon insists in papers that “Unbeknownst to Mr. Grayson, Ms. Grayson was married and remained married to another man …up to and after the parties conducted an apparent marriage ceremony on April 28, 1990.” He says that, four years after their marriage, Lolita “secretly participated” in a divorce from her first husband, Robert Carson.

Screen-Shot-2014-03-05-at-2.43.41-PMThe surprising allegation was the latest in a truly horrific divorce where Rep. Grayson referred to his ex-wife as a “gold digger”. On March 1, police were called to their house after Rep. Grayson’s wife accused him of shoving her against a door and required her to fight him off. Grayson then released a videotape that he says shows Lolita as the aggressor. The video was shot by one of Grayson’s aides. He then accused her of defamation, libel, slander and abuse of process. He is also accused by her lawyers of trying to have her arrested for credit card fraud.

After succeeding in proving his marriage bigamous, Rep. Grayson is moving to deny Lolita custody of their children and is seeking reimbursement for “all of the money and property she has received” during their “purported” marriage. This includes $15,000 in damages as well as exclusive use of the family’s home and their 1981 DeLorean.

In the meantime, Lolita (who married Rep. Grayson in 1990) has said that she is living on public assistance after Rep. Grayson cut her off financially.

Grayson has had an impressive career, including lecturing at George Washington University. He has shown both considerable intellect and skills in a remarkable series of accomplishments. He worked his way through Harvard College as a janitor and nightwatchman and finished summa cum laude with a degree in economics in 1978. In 1983, he earned a Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and a Masters of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is an accomplished economists and an expert on gerontology. He also clerked for both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia while they were on the D.C. Circuit. That is a background in law and business that anyone would relish.

Moreover, none of this controversy over the bigamy or divorce appears to have affected Grayson’s political ambitions or position. On July 9, 2015, his announced his candidacy for the United States Senate.

89 thoughts on “Rep. Grayson Avoids Dividing Marital Assets In Divorce After Showing His Marriage Was Bigamous”

  1. I agree with many posters, there is more going here. In the meantime, here’s “Fall of the House of Usher”, starring Vincent Price.

  2. ISTM, after year 4 (date of her divorce) and thru year 12, they lived together as husband and wife and purported to married to all who knew them. Thus from at least year 12 or so to year 25, there must be a common law marriage there. She will end up with half the increase in wealth during those years if this ever makes trial….

  3. When were the children born? After her divorce from number one? The children are said to be “minors”. Why would some rich guy have offspring working in a coal mine? If the children were born after her divorce then they should get the benefit socially, economically and politically, of having been born within a legit marriage. When did papa Creech learn that Lolita had been married when he and she got married?
    Just because she was already married does not mean that her marriage to number two was not legal. I say he owes her 1/2 the marital property earned during the marriage. The offspring who are minors need an education. If the first one was born when they married in 1990 then that offspring is 25– an adult. In America its “18 Up and Out”.

  4. Too messy, too few details, but being together with for 25 years and four children should mean something. If she tried to murder him she isn’t stable enough to have the children if they are minors. Wouldn’t their union be common law marriage because they were together so many years? Why the heck didn’t she get a damn divorce from the first husband? I do feel sympathy for her and he sounds like a jerk, they both sound like jerks actually. Too many of those in the world.

  5. BillH, All critical thinkers evolve into realizing what the Dem party has become. Welcome to our BIG club. Soon, only Kool-Aid cultists will be Dem voters.

  6. steve, We are shocked, just SHOCKED, to read you are a Grayson fan!

  7. Disclaimer: I’m a Grayson fan.

    I don’t know the domestic relations laws or legal privileges of Florida, but accusing a spouse (or in this case putative spouse) of anything generally is protected by the litigation privilege (at least in California) if it’s related to the annulment case. And as others have commented we don’t know all the facts nor do we know the judicial officer’s background or temperament. It’s a typical divorce-type case only surfacing because it involves a public figure.

  8. I am disappointed to read that resume. To have the kind of mind which could accomplish all of that, and then to take the apparent pride which he does is spouting idiotic drivel about a “Republican health plan” and “blood dripping from the teeth of Dick Cheney,” is wasted resource on a grand scale. I have long been dismayed that Democrats would think that such idiocy constitutes “powerful political rhetoric,” but to see that it is coming from a man who probably actually could produce powerful rhetoric gives me little hope for governance in this nation.

    And No, I am not a Republican right wing troll, I am a Democrat who is becoming more and more disappointed by what my party is becoming.

  9. Why is there no mention of “Lolita” being charged with the crime of bigamy? Are there no charges being pursued against “Lolita” for the commission of this crime? His personality, education and temperament are irrelevant. Whether one likes his comments or politics should not be of any concern. This is not a personality contest. He was conned into marrying, living with and having children by someone who lied to him–among other things–for close to 25 years. You see, as antiquated and old-fashioned as this may sound, some people actually interpret this whole marriage-thing as a sacred, religious vow. He has been damaged. He, along with the children from this union, are the true victims. “Lolita”–not the most common name for someone in the US. Florida, did you say?

  10. randyjet,

    wrong side of the bed this morning? the non-wife is a criminal why?

    1. Paying $10,000/mo is not being a cad or cheap. Then she uses a credit card that she should not have on TOP of the monthly payments! I guess that trying to falsely accuse her husband and stealing money cannot be considered against her! Is there ANY crime she can commit that would void any smpathy for her on the part of these loons? Incredible! Yes you can commit any crime against a person, but STILL have the right to half of their assets if you are married. In most states, you cannot profit from a crime you commit. She has committed the CRIMES of bigamy, making false police reports, stolen money, and is getting most of his Congressional salary. And people STILL have sympathy for HER? What kind of a person are you? The lawyers have all had a more than good look at the case, and they ALL say she is wildly delusional as to what she is entitled to. Yet we have some folks who side with her and think that if he has any money at all, it should go to her. Incredible

  11. Claiming to be on public assistance and being on public assistance can be two different things. No lofty friends or family?

  12. In DC there is K Street and C Street. Which one houses the whores and which one the lobbyists?
    I might have gotten screwed on the wrong street.

  13. I forgot to mention: Her last 5 lawyers have told her to accept the settlement, but she wants more. Even the 6th, and current lawyer, thought she was going to accept the offer, but she backed out at the last moment. She has wants half of his networth: $31 million, but the judge, current lawyer (and previous lawyers) told her that it is highly unlikely that she is going to get this. So, she went to the media to put more pressure on him (to give her more…she wants to maintain her lifestyle as if she is still married to him)?

  14. Palimony only works in lala land of CA Florida is a bit more sane, but not by much.

  15. I guess Grayson redistricted her right out of her assets.

    Maybe Lolita is holding out for a SC ruling on polygamy.

  16. bfm, You miss the point completely. The reason she deserves nothing now is not that she is getting divorced, but that she is a CROOK beyond the FACT of her bigamy. IF she had tried to murder Grayson think that she should be entitled to a share of marital assets and joint custody? GET REAL!

    1. ” she is a CROOK beyond the FACT of her bigamy. IF she had tried to murder Grayson think that she should be entitled to a share of marital assets and joint custody? GET REAL!”

      And we know she is a crook because …. Grayson said so???

      If her crookery relates to marital assets it seems to me there is an excellent argument that those assets are as much hers as Grayson’s.

  17. Penelope, I hope you remember our leader of morals Gingrich, who divorced his wife when she got cancer and was a drain on him. or when he found his other woman more attractive and dumped his second wife. It is time for the SCOTUS to declare plual marriages a right too. That will sort all this out.

Comments are closed.