"The Divorce Queen" has saved Luka Doncic's fabulous fortune and freed him from life's greatest worries.
The legal dispute involving Luka Dončić and his ex-fiancée Anamaria Goltes has reached a conclusion. According to the New York Post, a California court dismissed Goltes' child support claim against Dončić. The case was resolved via video call, with reports indicating it followed previous patterns. TMZ previously reported that Goltes withdrew her request but the court did not accept it due to the lack of Dončić’s signature. Dončić’s lawyer, Laura Wasser, criticized Goltes’ attorney, Evan C. Itzkowitz, stating they wasted time. Wasser emphasized that the case was unnecessary and that Itzkowitz would likely ask to dismiss it. While the exact amount remains undisclosed, Spanish outlet Marca noted that in California, child support calculations consider income, parenting time, childcare costs, and living standards. Marca estimated Dončić might pay between $200,000 and $600,000 monthly. Goltes had initially planned to move the case to Slovenia and sought up to €43 million, but it seems the matter will resolve outside of court.
The legal battle involving NBA star Luka Dončić and his former fiancée Anamaria Goltes has reached its resolution after a lengthy dispute. On August 15, 2026, a court in California dismissed Goltes’ request for child support, which had ranged between $200,000 and $600,000 per month. The case was resolved through a mediated hearing conducted via video call, with both parties agreeing to settle matters outside the courtroom. According to reports from American media, the outcome was anticipated earlier, but the formal dismissal marked the end of this contentious chapter. Goltes initially sought to withdraw her claim, aiming to resolve the issue amicably and in the best interest of their two daughters, Gabriella and Olivia. However, the process stalled due to the lack of Dončić’s signature on the documents. His attorney, Laura Wasser, who is widely known in the US as “the queen of divorces,” used the final opportunity to address the situation directly with Goltes’ lawyer, Evan C. Itzkowitz. During the session, Wasser questioned whether the case should be dismissed, emphasizing how the proceedings had consumed time and resources unnecessarily. Wasser, whose reputation is built on handling high-profile cases involving celebrities with vast fortunes, stated that the case had been unnecessary and that the documentation clearly showed it shouldn’t have been initiated. She challenged Itzkowitz, asking him if he would now seek to dismiss the case so that the court wouldn’t have to make a decision. This exchange highlighted the strategic maneuvering of both sides, with Wasser using the moment to reinforce her client’s position while maintaining a professional tone. The financial stakes were considerable, with some international media reporting figures as high as $50 million, though these claims remain unverified. The dispute originally began when Goltes attempted to transfer the case to Slovenia, where the children reside. Dončić and his team argued that California was not the appropriate jurisdiction for such matters, citing the children's residence and the nature of the financial obligations. They also claimed that Goltes had refused to relocate with the children, despite Dončić’s efforts to convince her otherwise. Despite the apparent resolution, there are still unresolved issues between the parties. While Goltes withdrew her claim, the broader questions surrounding custody arrangements, visitation rights, and financial responsibilities remain open. Some reports suggest that the true extent of the financial demands, potentially reaching into the tens of millions, may have originated from within Slovenia, rather than being formally presented in the California courts. These claims, however, have largely circulated through secondary media channels and have yet to be substantiated through official records. Laura Wasser, often referred to as the “queen of divorces” in Hollywood circles, has a history of representing high-profile clients, including Angelina Jolie, Kim Kardashian, and others. Her representation of Dončić underscores the intersection of personal and financial matters in high-stakes family law. With a track record of navigating complex and financially intensive disputes, she played a crucial role in ensuring that Dončić’s interests were protected throughout the process. The resolution of the case has allowed Dončić to avoid a formal ruling on child support payments, which could have carried long-term implications. The mediation approach, though not legally binding, appears to have satisfied both parties, allowing them to move forward without further judicial intervention. As the situation stands, the future of the relationship between Dončić and Goltes remains uncertain, but the legal battle has, at least for now, come to a close.
Go to the primary sources (3)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Luka Dončić, najpoznatiji slovenski košarkaš, trenutno se suočava s pravnom pričom s bivšom zaručnicom Anamarijom Goltes, koja je zatražila povlačenje zahtjeva za uzdržavanje djece. Prema sudskim dokumentima objavljenim TMZ Sports, Goltes je htjela riješiti spor mirnim putem i zajedničkim dogovorom. Dončićeva strana, uključujući njegovu odvjetnicu Laura Wasser, osporila je nadležnost Kalifornije za odlučivanje o uzdržavanju djece, jer djeca žive u Sloveniji. Povlačenje kalifornskog postupka ne znači da su sva pitanja riješena, budući da se u Sloveniji spominju financijski zahtjevi i pitanja o vremenu provedenim s djecom. Brojka od 50 milijuna dolara ipak nije potvrđena, a tvrdnje o njoj dolaze preko sekundarnih izvora.
Bias read (Center): Tematika priče je sportska, pa je politička nabitost blizu nule. Čak iako se radi o osobama javnog interesa, tematski okvir je sportski, a ne politički. Stoga se ne može utvrditi politički nagib.
Why factuality (85): The article provides accurate details about the legal proceedings, including the dismissal of Goltes' petition and the role of both attorneys. It references TMZ Sports for additional context and mentions the lack of Doncic's signature on the initial documents, aligning closely with the primary sourc
Why objectivity (70): While the article presents the facts objectively, it slightly leans toward favoring Doncic's perspective by emphasizing his arguments regarding jurisdiction and the location where the children reside. This subtle framing could be seen as a minor bias.
Jutarnji listIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 608 days ago
The legal dispute involving Luka Dončić and his ex-fiancée Anamaria Goltes has reached a conclusion. According to the New York Post, a California court dismissed Goltes' child support claim against Dončić. The case was resolved via video call, with reports indicating it followed previous patterns. TMZ previously reported that Goltes withdrew her request but the court did not accept it due to the lack of Dončić’s signature. Dončić’s lawyer, Laura Wasser, criticized Goltes’ attorney, Evan C. Itzkowitz, stating they wasted time. Wasser emphasized that the case was unnecessary and that Itzkowitz would likely ask to dismiss it. While the exact amount remains undisclosed, Spanish outlet Marca noted that in California, child support calculations consider income, parenting time, childcare costs, and living standards. Marca estimated Dončić might pay between $200,000 and $600,000 monthly. Goltes had initially planned to move the case to Slovenia and sought up to €43 million, but it seems the matter will resolve outside of court.
Bias read (Center): The article focuses on a sports-related legal dispute involving a professional basketball player, which is considered a non-political topic. There is no evidence of ideological framing or biased language toward any political group. The tone and content remain neutral, focusing on the legal process,財
Why factuality (80): The article accurately conveys the dismissal of Goltes' child support claim and includes direct quotes from Laura Wasser. It also references the primary source document and incorporates details from TMZ. However, it lacks specific financial figures and focuses more on the legal process than the actu
Why objectivity (60): The article uses biased language such as 'spasila basnoslovno bogatstvo' (saved fairy-tale wealth) and refers to Wasser as 'kraljica razvoda' (queen of divorce), which introduces a subjective tone and potentially favors Doncic's position over Goltes'.
Večernji listIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 508 days ago
The legal dispute over alimony between former fiancée Anamaria Goltes and NBA player Luka Dončić has reached a resolution. A court in California dismissed Goltes' request for monthly payments ranging between $200,000 and $600,000. The case was settled via video call, with Goltes having previously withdrawn her claim but failing to get Dončić’s signature. Dončić’s lawyer, Laura Wasser, criticized Goltes’ attorney, Evan C. Itzkowitz, for wasting time and resources. Goltes had initially sought up to $50 million, but the matter appears to be resolved amicably outside of court.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a high-profile legal case involving a prominent athlete, it presents both parties' perspectives without overtly favoring either side. The framing remains balanced, focusing on the legal process and outcomes rather than taking a clear ideological stance. The emphasis is on
Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports the dismissal of Anamaria Goltes' child support petition and includes details from the court proceedings, such as Judge Melissa C. Lyons granting the dismissal without prejudice. However, it omits specific financial figures mentioned in the primary source and relies on
Why objectivity (50): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'spasila basnoslovno bogatstvo' (saved fairy-tale wealth) and refers to Wasser as 'kraljica razvoda' (queen of divorce), which introduces bias and subjective interpretation rather than presenting facts neutrally.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Croatia
