Your one stop shop for conservative posters!

« Huh? | MAIN | In there with the SPARE »


The Other Woman

         Mistress loses share of porn king's estate

Other_woman TRENTON, N.J., (UPI) -- A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a woman who bore two sons to a millionaire pornography publisher has no claim on his estate beyond a $100,000 bequest.

Lawyers for Annette McDonald argued that she should receive about $9 million -- 25 percent -- of the estate left by George Mavety, who died several years ago.

Lawyer George Daggett told the Newark Star-Ledger that he plans to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

"In the 1970s, this decision would have been more appropriate," Daggett said. "In 2006, when the guy is worth $36 million, I think you have to look at it differently, and I hope the Supreme Court will."

Mavety, a former teacher from Canada, made a fortune publishing magazines like "Leg Show." He married three times and was also involved in a number of extra-marital relationships.

In his will, he left McDonald $100,000 and said that she could continue to occupy a house he owned in Sparta until their surviving son turns 25. The son received $1.5 million and the house.

Mavety, who weighed 300 pounds, died of a heart attack in 2000 at the age of 63.

                               She got what she deserved.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Other Woman:


No gray areas for you, eh?

I'm not criticizing. For all I know, I envy you. Having never lived a black & white life, I have no clue as to what I'm missing. My thought is life is easier as a black & white viewer, but incredibly lonely. For those of us who live in the gray, life is not easy, and as a result, we experience a lot of disappointed expectations and ultimately end up choosing to be alone.

Where's the color?

The surviving son got the house AND enough to take care of HER.

The old man did not trust HER to take care of the KID.

I find that a wise decision.

You're making assumptions about information not included in this article.

As a black & white viewer, you made the assumption that women who are the mistresses of men are all the same and not worthy of anything much, and that they are irresponsible.

From the perch of my gray fog, I don't make any assumptions with any absolutes on the moral side of this.

All the facts are there if you read carefully.

Shall I point them out?

she could continue to occupy a house he owned in Sparta until their surviving son turns 25. The son received $1.5 million and the house

A. She lives in the house.

B. Her son is NOT 25.

C. She gets 100K and the son get 1.5 miilion AND the house WHEN he turns 25.

Based on this, I assume they live in that house. Sooo, if she is a good mother, her son has the ability to take care of her.

Tell me where I am wrong.

Be glad to. "She got what she deserved."

Who are you to make that statement? You have no idea what kind of life she lived for this man. You don't know anything.

We are not here to determine what people deserve. About the only absolute in the 'deserve' category is that we, each, know deep in our hearts what WE deserve.

Her son will determine THESE things.

Not her.

Not her lawyer.

Not even himself.

Her son.

AFTER she completes HER DUTY as a MOTHER.

ANYTHING else runs the risk of her wasting the money and leaving their offspring wanting.

I'd call that an elegant solution.

Anything beyond that - is her greed.

The article stated there were MANY such as her. And many wives.

Based on that - is she to receive 25% of ALL OF IT?

I think not and any other 'emotions' you wish to add will serve only make the issue to more foggy FOR YOU.

I can see clearly.

It is quite simple.

You're making moral judgments.

It does not say if he left his last wife alive. Whether or not he had children from his wives.

The solution looks 'fine' to you because you're ASSUMING that as a 'loose' woman, she would squander the money. You can't do that.

Greed? Who's to say. $100,000 is not enough to care for her when her son turns 25 and kicks her out.

There is no emotion in my perceptions.


I won't bother belaboring this with you anymore.

Suffice it to say it was YOU who brought the excess baggage onboard.

I simply made a judgement - based on the FACTS.

The pesky facts. The ones that are STATED.

Not the ones YOU DREAM UP.

How can you say I dreamed up facts? I did no such thing. You made a moral judgment based on the scant information in the article. I maintain that you can't do that. And I based that assertion on several things, each of which you've blown off as meaningless 'emotional' reaction.


This could be a very good woman. Her son could be a clod. You don't know one way or the other, so you can't say she got what she deserved.

I don't dwell in the Land of Coulda Woulda Shoulda.

I am sure it is a colorful place.

I live in the Land of Absolutes, you know, that drab and dreay oh so Black & White place?

Where I live, FACTS MATTER.

Not what color they are.

Facts come in colors. It is those who can only see in black & white who cannot see those hues of meaning, subtlety, and insight.

The problem with your judgment on this woman is that you don't have all those ice cold facts.

It's that simple..... in shades of black all the way through every shade to white.

I stated previously - I base my judgement on the facts as they are presented.

Anything else is B U L L S H I T and speculation.

Something you are fast becoming mired in.

Fact: She was his mistress and bore him two sons. (One obviously died.)

Fact: He's worth 36 million dollars.

Fact: He is allowing her to live in his house with the son. When the son turns 25 he gets the house and 1.5 million dollars. She gets 100K.

? She got what she deserved ? You can't say that. Simple.

You left out a fact.

Many mistresses and several WIVES.

Oh, and THIS ... Lawyers get 40%.


So. We do not know what he offered the other mistresses. They may not even be around. He would only deal with the current wife. Divorce or death of the other wives would have been settled matters.

The fact that a lawyer get a percentage has zero bearing on what this woman deserves.

You know what? I'm seeing in black & white, and you've gone blind.

Let's go to your STRONG suit - MATH.

36 million - Estate Tax, Probate fees and Lawyers = 18M

18 million X .24 (1/4) = 4.5M

4.5 mllion - 40% contigency fees for HER lawyers = 2.5M

No house, no 100K ... just 2.5 million.

2.5 million - state and federal income taxes = 1.5M

1.5 million

No house, no 100K

Do you know how much a house costs in New Jersey?

NOW, under THAT scenario - WHO WON?

I rest my case.

Tears and bullshit? That is the office down the hall.

This is the FACTS Office ma'am.

Nice facts, honey.

Now what's with the moral judgment? SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED?

We are right back where we started. You still cannot KNOW what this woman deserved.


You guys need a referee :-). I actually thought this sounded like fodder for the next John Irving trash novel. Mistresses, fortunes, exploitation,'s all there, except for a little pedophilia (that part may have just been left out).

I agree w/ you on this most things in life regarding sex without commitment, divorce, etc., it sounds like noone was the "winner" here. She made a poor decision to even become involved w/ the jerk, but he sounds like a sexual addict. I feel bad that their kid has to be the pawn in the whole situation, regardless of whether or not he is a clod.

I actually knew all parties involved and the golddigging Annette did get what she deserved. Actually a lot more than she deserved. She was pushy, b*tchy and only was with GM for his money. Everyone who knew her knew that.

The woman did nothing. She was kept for years. She didn't do anything to earn and when she did it was because GM tried to set her up with running a magazine that didn't take off.

No sympathy here.

Back to Top

« Huh? | Main | In there with the SPARE »

The comments to this entry are closed.