Is Real Housewives Of Orange County’s Vicki Gunvalson About To Be Sued…AGAIN? Should Brooks Ayers Hire An Attorney?


It appears that all isn't well in Vodkaville, and Real Housewives of Orange County's Vicki Gunvalson could be back on the receiving end of a law suit claiming fraud and breach of contract.  The case, which was previously dismissed, is reportedly about to be re-filed by Vicki's former partner in Vodkas by Vicki, Robert Williamson, III.  In it, major allegations are waged against the reality star and her off-again-on-again (off-again) beau Brooks Ayers

Of course, it doesn't help matters that the relationship status between Vicki and Broke Brooks has gone from lukewarm to non-existent to down right contentious, at least those are the rumors!  If this is the end of Vicki's vodkas, however are we going to get to taste Slade's bacon variety?


Radar is reporting that Brooks is so peeved over the pair's most recent break-up that he is threatening Vicki with the his plans to tell her secrets to the world.  I guess that's what a man scorned via text message does!  Vicki apparently canceled the duo's joint American Express and then bid him farewell from her smart phone.

A source close to the couples tells the site, Vicki dumped him via a text message.  He was furious. Brooks told her that if she said anything negative about him in the media, he wasn’t going to hold back. He was adamant that he would take her down. He said in no uncertain terms, ‘Be very careful Vicki.’”

The insider reveals, Brooks repeatedly would call and text Vicki and try and reconcile.  It dragged on and on. At one point, he was in Las Vegas, with his children, when he discovered that Vicki had canceled their shared credit card. Brooks was pissed. He felt that she purposefully embarrassed him in front of his children.”

I guess he should have kept filling her love tank with Hallmark sentiments!  Regardless, Vicki and Brooks may be dunzo in the dating world, but that doesn't mean they won't have to reunite in the courtroom.  

According to the same site, the law suit against Vicki and Brooks could resurface.  Robert's original filings alleged that Vicki and Brooks committed fraud and misrepresentation in an effort to unjustly enrich themselves.  In the first action, Vicki and Robert reached a settlement, and the suit (as to her) was dismissed without prejudice…meaning it could be brought again at a later time.

An insider tells the site, “The working relationship between Robert and Vicki has broken down yet again and she is attempting to back track on the terms and conditions of the settlement. As a result, Robert is planning to re-file the suit against Vicki. It’s back on.”

Another source seconds that assumption, adding, “Unless Vicki makes a three-hundred-and-sixty degree turn, pronto, she’s facing the very real prospect of being a defendant in this lawsuit, again.”  Is it just me, or do people need to learn the difference between making a three-sixty and making a one-eighty?

The shadiness revolves around Vicki secretly gifting part of the business to Brooks who in turn sold his portion to Robert. Robert alleged in his original suit that this was a fraudulent ploy to get more money from him.  However, here's what I don't understand (so please help me out): if Vicki and Robert were 50/50 partners, why is he buying more of the company from Brooks?  Wouldn't he pick up on the fact that Vicki had given Brooks a percentage of her portion?  It sounds fishy all around if you ask me!

Unfortunately for Brooks, while the suit was dismissed against Vicki (for the time being, at least!), he is still a defendant…and he fancies himself a lawyer as well.  That's right!  Brooks is going pro se on this one, folks!

LA Late claims that Brooks is defending himself in the suit.  However, when he filed his answer, Brooks neglected to comply with the Court's local rules by filing an indication of possible interested parties.  

In an Order by the Magistrate Judge, the Court stated, “This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s failure to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties as required by […the local Rule]. The Answer (#7) [by Brooks Ayers] in this matter was filed July 23, 2013…. [The Rule] requires that counsel for private parties shall, upon entering a case, file a certificate as to interested parties, listing all persons, firms, partnerships or corporations, known to have an interest in the outcome of the case, including the names of all parent subsidiary, affiliate and/or insider of the named non-individual parties.” adding “If there are no known interested parties, other than those participating in the case, a statement to that effect must be filed.”

It continues, “To date, Defendant has failed to comply.  It is ordered that Defendant shall file his Certificate as to Interested Parties … no later than August 19, 2013. Failure to comply may result in the issuance of an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed [upon Ayers].”  

Oh Brooks…it's time to call a lawyer, dude.  Maybe Eddie Judge's dad could help?


[Photo Credit: Facebook]