Paulina Rubio’s personal and financial situation is going through a particularly delicate moment after the reported loss of her home in Miami, a fact that opens a new chapter in the life of the Mexican singer. According to what was reported on the program Todo para la mujer, the artist is facing a complex economic situation that is directly related to the litigation she has been involved in for years with her ex-husbands, Nicolás Vallejo-Nágera “Colate” and Gerardo “Jerry” Bazúa.
Rubio, recognized for a musical career that dates back to the 1980s, has reportedly reached a breaking point due to the costs of these legal proceedings, which not only involve disputes with his former partners, but also a growing financial burden of legal expenses and professional fees.
The information about the alleged eviction was shared by the communicator Maxine Woodside in her program. In her intervention, she pointed out that Paulina Rubio could no longer sustain the economic commitments linked to her home, specifically the mortgage payments, which resulted in the loss of the property.
Woodside expressed it directly on the air: “Paulina was just evicted from her house, she was evicted because she has a lot of debts and owed part of the mortgage of her house and she was evicted”, he said, explaining that the underlying problem would be a sum of accumulated debts.
According to what was said in the same space, the artist would have requested a bank loan and, to obtain it, she mortgaged her house. The purpose of the loan, according to the information shared, was to raise funds to cover expenses related to her litigation.
Paulina Rubio: The mortgage and the destination of the money
In the narrative presented by Woodside, the loan obtained through the mortgage would not have been used for a personal project or investment, but to cover the costs of legal proceedings. In other words, the real estate would have functioned as a financial backing to face a prolonged period of legal expenses related to her conflicts with Colate and Buzzy.
This point is relevant because it directly connects the eviction with a dynamic that, according to what was shown on television, has extended over time: constant legal disputes and sustained expenses that ended up impacting their economic stability.
During the same program, journalist Shanik Berman stressed that, in her opinion, the most severe financial drain came not so much from what her ex-husbands allegedly demanded or disputed, but from the cost of lawyers and the long history of legal representation.
Berman put it this way: “It wasn’t so much about what was being taken from her by the gentlemen, but by the lawyers. He got involved with so many lawyers to try to take away the children, he spent it on lawyers and the lawyers kept everything.”
With this comment, he pointed out that the accumulation of fees and changes or multiplication of legal counsel would have consumed a large part of the singer’s resources.
As a whole, what is exposed in Todo para la mujer draws a scenario in which the eviction in Miami would not be an isolated event, but the result of a chain of financial decisions and a prolonged wear and tear caused by legal conflicts, debts and the impossibility of covering mortgage commitments.
Find out more at ‘QueOnnda.com’.
