Dr. Dre & Nicole Young’s divorce includes claims of hidden assets & embezzlement

'The Defiant Ones' - Special Screening

Dr. Dre and Nicole Young were married for 24 years. She filed for divorce in June of this year, and I had a feeling that it would not be an amicable divorce in any sense. There’s some question about a prenup (she says there was one, but she signed it under duress, and he ripped it up), but it doesn’t matter if there was a prenup anyway – they live in California (a community property state) and the length of time they’ve been together, it means that Nicole is absolutely going to end up with half of their joint assets, which are considerable. Dr. Dre is reportedly worth something like $800 million. In early September, Nicole made headlines because she’s apparently asking for $2 million A MONTH in spousal support, and a lot of outlets ran Nicole’s breakdown of what a $2 million-a-month expense list looks like – go here to see. It’s… um, absurd. Well, now Nicole says that her estranged husband is hiding assets. I believe her.

Dr. Dre’s estranged wife says he secretly transferred valuable assets to himself after they split — in particular his stage name and “The Chronic” — but sources connected to Dre call her claim “ridiculous” and an attempt to embarrass him into submission. Nicole Young just filed legal docs claiming the mogul created a solely-owned, brand new holding company and transferred into it what she claims is joint property — trademarks for “Dr. Dre” and “The Chronic.” Nicole says it’s a blatant attempt to hide assets that are community property.”

Sources connected to Dre tell TMZ, “They were married in 1996. Chronic came out in ’92 and Dr. Dre used his name since the 80′s, so it’s all his and his alone.”

According to Nicole’s legal docs, she says Dre transferred the trademarks after he allegedly kicked her out of their home and before he threatened on June 27, 2020 to divorce her. Nicole beat him to the punch … filing for divorce just 2 days later. Nicole calls Dre’s move an “epic failure and reveals the true nature of his character, or lack thereof.” Nicole says the Dre trademark was first filed in 1997 — when they were already married.

Our Dre sources fire back, “It’s the act of a desperate woman who finally realized that the iron-clad prenup she signed doesn’t win her the lottery.” As we reported, they had a prenup, which Nicole says she signed under duress. She also says he ripped it up several years into the marriage. He strongly denies he ever ripped it up.

Nicole also claims she was the victim of physical, emotional and financial abuse during their marriage. She does not outline specific instances of abuse. Our Dre sources say to that … “In their 26 years together, there has never been any hint or claim of threatened or actual physical violence and the insinuation is an insult to actual victims of domestic abuse.” A Dre source adds there was one incident of violence 30 years ago — not involving Nicole — and Dre copped to it and “paid the price for it.”

[From TMZ]

Yeah… there’s some stuff here I don’t understand… he obviously owns the “Chronic,” but again… community property and I have no doubt he’s maneuvering and hiding assets. After that story, TMZ did one of their “men’s rights advocacy” stories which they almost certainly got straight from Dr. Dre – they claim that Nicole has “drained” a business account of $363K and that constitutes criminal embezzlement. Her lawyers are calling this accusation a “stunt” and “pathetic.” There will be even more stories like this in the coming months. It’s also super-curious to me that Dr. Dre is represented by Laura Wasser! Wasser just running sh-t through TMZ again, I guess.

City of Hope Gala 2018

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

12 Responses to “Dr. Dre & Nicole Young’s divorce includes claims of hidden assets & embezzlement”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. schmootc says:

    How does one spend $20K a month on cell phone and email use? I don’t see how that’s even literally possible. But yeah, seems like this one will drag on for a while. At least they don’t have young children to fight over.

  2. Tiffany says:

    Yeah, Dre went with Wasser because he knows she is tight with Levin and Levin will destroy Nicole’s character on his website.

    It is a bullying tactic that I want to fail and Nicole still gets half.

  3. Athyrmose says:

    Justice for Dee Barnes.

    I will never not think of her when this monster’s name comes up.

  4. MuttonChop says:

    Um, that “one incident” 30 years ago was savagely beating Dee Barnes. What price did he pay for it? Becoming a multi millionaire with a white washed background? It’s disgusting that TMZ, or anyone for that matter, would dismiss it as some minor blip that doesn’t reflect on his true character. If Nicole is claiming abuse, I see no reason for her not to be believed, especially when evidence of his violence is a historical fact.

    • Jordana says:

      Physical abuse could be more widely interpreted. I.e. causing her physical harm, like giving her an STI, for example. It is physical abuse.

    • Mina_Esq says:

      I believe her. Physical abuse doesn’t have to be limited to punches thrown. It includes throwing objects, or knocking over a chair. She also lists emotional and financial abuse, which are very psychologically damaging. I can totally see Dre being that kind of an angry, controlling guy. Just look at his behavior in this separation thus far…Makes you respect Bezos, and I don’t like to show any respect to Mr. Evil.

    • Lanie says:

      He also regularly beat the shit out of Michel’le.

      Hoteps, incels, MRAs and Pick-mes who think it isn’t likely that Dre was beating Nicole too are lying scumbags.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      All of this. I have no trouble believing her.

  5. Catherine says:

    Community property laws can be rendered null by the terms of the prenuptial agreement so she can absolutely end up with what is proscribed by the terms of the agreement and nothing more unless it is invalidated. Prenuptial agreements can be invalidated if they are signed through coercion or if the signee was not given appropriate time to evaluate, seek her own counsel, etc. She is introducing facts (she was young, he ripped it up) which seems to attempt to establish a reason for invalidation which probably means the prenup sets its own terms of distribution of property/assets and doesn’t simply point to community property laws in CA.

  6. Beep says:

    I think you meant Dr. Dre, not Dr. Drew is worth $800million

  7. Natasha says:

    Hes a scumbag POS and I hope she gets more than half!