Trump cards

Examines the court battles of Donald and Ivana Trump including Ivana Trump's affidavit, the disarray of modern families and mythical 'family values.'

By Joan Ullman, published on November 01, 1992 - last reviewed on October 01, 2009

For Ivana's chef, Vaclav "Billy" Juza, who served as a witness for Donald, another key to whether Mazzucchelli has slept in Ivana's bedroom is the tea. He states in an affidavit that at Ivana's rented Swiss chalet, he was instructed by Steve, the chauffeur, to "place two teacups and two teabags on the kitchen table every night ... because that's what they do all the time in Greenwich and New York." The chef says that each morning the tea and teacups would be gone. "I would go into Ms. Trump's bedroom and remove two teacups into the kitchen to be washed."

But Ivana, her lawyer, and others in her retinue denounce most of these charges as lies, from the key to the travel dates to the cooking to Mazzucchelli's footing her bills. Ivana says that even when they travel, they go Dutch. Or the bills are not on Donald's house, but on her publisher's.

At the hearing, Ivana's lawyer, Cohen, also pointed out that Ivana and Mazzucchelli actually live a continent apart: he in London, she in New York. Cohen also argued that "a tryst, vacation, occasional traveling, are not close to cohabiting" but "the intermittent socialization of a 1990s dating relationship."

In court papers, Cohen also accuses Donald of trying to use the divorce agreement to force Ivana back into a "chastity belt" that other women have long since shed for the money belt.

"The emancipated woman with full equality is the law of our land," Cohen states. And it is "not any of Mr. Trump's business whether his ex-wife is involved in a relationship, be it business, friendship, or an intimate friendship."

Another of Ivana's lawyers also argued at the hearing that even if Ivana and Mazzucchelli were actually shacked up as alleged by Donald-which he emphatically denied-they still would not be legally cohabiting because they were not com mingling their bodies in bed and their money in the bank. Citing an earlier case in which a court ruled that a man and woman had not cohabited though they slept together for years, this lawyer pointed out that for a couple to legally cohabit, they must file joint taxes, list the same address on their drivers license, and generally "hold themselves out as a couple" in all but legal name.

Following this same logic-or illogic-you could not live together, like Mia and Woody (whose case was initially before the same judge), and yet be legally found to be cohabiting because you did publicly hold yourself out as a couple.

Donald's lawyer dismisses the chastitybelt charge. He claims Ivana is free to be as promiscuous as she wants and to date as many men as she can handle-she just cannot be supported by two men.

But what was SIM? Amidst the arguments at the hearing, the judge and Donald's lawyer briefly tangled-and admitted their respective confusion-about the difference between friendship, dating, courtship and the cohabiting that "intimates a sexual relationship." When Donald's lawyer also defined Ivana's alleged SIMMING as "a serious, intimate, marriage-scheduled or -proposed relationship," and still later, as "a mutual, serious, marriage-minded relationship," my own head was swimming.

I later found that others were just as confused. Trump v. Trump has actually pitted common sense against nonsense, men against women.

Their series of nuptial agreements marks Donald and Ivana as a new, but increasingly common, breed of man and wife who differ only in degree from their unwed, uncommitted cohabiting peers. They hope they are tying a lasting knot, but signal their fear that it will soon become unraveled. This not-so-hidden distrust of one another can act like a self-fulfilling prophesy. In keeping the marriage partners' mythic sense of "we-ness" from developing, these agreements can actually hasten the marriage's demise-if not insure it altogether.

Psychologist Judith Minton, adjunct associate professor in the department of psychiatry at New York University Medical Center, agrees. "These agreements turn marriage into purely renewable business contracts," she said.

Nevertheless, the case puts Ivana in what many see as the unlikely position of standard bearer for women's equality under the law. Ivana ... a feminist.?

Unlike Dan Quayle, who made a fictional character real, Ivana has managed to make her real self into fiction: as the made-over creation of Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon, as the best-selling fiction writer whose novel (soon to be a major motion picture) chronicles a wealthy WASP (ship)builder who dumps his wife for a younger woman. In her latest incarnation, she was transformed from "the ultimate '80s-style wife" into the ultimate "'90s-style struggling, divorced mother balancing family, career, and social life," becoming the ironic heroine of thousands of real-life Murphy Brown fans by lecturing (at a reported $20,000 a pop) on "Daring To Be Yourself," "Breaking the Cinderella Myth," and similar topics.

"Her wealth is relative, and it shouldn't be held against her," Ivana's naturally biased lawyer said. "She did a great deal [to help build Donald's career and wealth], and then he threw her out. But she didn't let a huge egomaniac destroy her."

Others, like psychologist Minton, remained appalled at the thought. They contend that Ivana in fact makes a mockery of many feminist ideals, and totally blinds people to the reality that divorce leaves few women's fortunes greatly improved. In fact, it has largely feminized poverty in the United States. "The wealth is relative?" Minton said incredulously. "She's struggling? That's ridiculous!"