Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds’ NY Mansion Sits Unfinished Amid $2M Debt Claims

Talk about a feelgood story. Could not happen to a more pair of more annoying, evil, arrogant airheads. Ryan: not so successfully Machiavellian these days.

Blake Lively is providing a new explanation and spin on why she settled this lawsuit for no amount of money…spoiler alert: it was about others 🤣

But a source close to Lively tells PEOPLE,

>"For Blake Lively, this was never about money - it was about exposing bad actors who are also harming others."

>"She didn't settle her claims until the documents exposing the bad actors behind smear campaigns were made public — documents that have led to other lawsuits and investigations," the source added.

>"With this motion, she is breathing life into a groundbreaking statute designed to protect survivors from retaliatory lawsuits."

⬇️ Relevant Content:

📍 Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files appellate brief to the 5th Circuit

📍 Jed Wallace Files Appeal of Blake Lively Defamation Suit Getting Tossed - TMZ

📍 Wallace v Lively: Lively files a Response to Jed Wallace’s Opposition to Attorney’s Fees & Cost under 47.1

📚 Why the Jed Wallace Appeal Matters (0:01–1:28)

• NAG explains that Jed Wallace’s appeal may be the only major appeal to come out of the main Blake Lively/Wayfarer litigation.
• NAG says most parties waived appeal rights as part of the settlement structure, including likely future rulings on the §47.1 issues.
• Wallace is appealing the dismissal of Blake Lively from his Texas defamation case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• NAG recaps Wallace’s theory: Blake Lively publicly connected him to allegations of aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation through the CRD complaint and New York Times article, but later omitted him from the SDNY complaint itself.
• Wallace argues that this damaged his reputation worldwide.

🏛️ How Federal Appeals Courts Work (1:28–5:03)

• NAG breaks down the federal appellate system and explains that federal cases stay within the federal system on appeal.
• Because Wallace filed in the Western District of Texas, the appeal goes to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• The Fifth Circuit oversees federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
• Decisions from the Fifth Circuit become binding precedent for all federal courts within those states.
• NAG emphasizes that appeals courts are completely different forums from trial courts and operate under entirely different procedural rules.

👩‍⚖️ Three-Judge Panels & En Banc Review (5:03–9:03)

• NAG explains that appeals are normally decided by rotating three-judge panels rather than the entire appellate court.
• She discusses “en banc” review, where the full court hears a case, but it is extremely rare and reserved for major legal issues.
• Oral argument is also not guaranteed in appellate cases.
• Wallace requested oral argument by framing the issue as novel and legally significant.
• NAG notes appellate judges often rely heavily on elite law clerks because appellate courts shape legal doctrine rather than resolving factual disputes.

⚖️ What Appeals Courts Actually Do (9:03–12:56)

• Appeals courts do not retry cases or reweigh facts.
• Appeals courts only review legal decisions made by trial judges to determine whether legal errors occurred.
• No new evidence can be introduced on appeal.
• Appeals are limited to the “record” created in the lower court.
• Appellate briefs are pure legal argument rather than evidentiary presentations.
• Wallace’s appeal specifically argues that the trial court made legal errors when dismissing Blake Lively for lack of personal jurisdiction.

🧠 The Three Main Arguments Wallace Is Making (12:56–19:44)

• Wallace argues the trial court improperly failed to treat all allegations in his complaint as true, which is required at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
• He argues the judge improperly analyzed Blake Lively’s Texas contacts separately instead of collectively.
• He also argues the judge wrongly discounted allegations pleaded “upon information and belief.”
• Personal jurisdiction depends on whether someone has sufficient “minimum contacts” with a state.
• Wallace argues Blake Lively herself created Texas-related legal activity by accusing him of Texas-based conduct in the CRD complaint.

📄 The Rule 202 Petition — Wallace’s Strongest Argument (19:44–28:55)

• NAG says Wallace’s strongest argument involves Blake Lively’s use of Texas pre-suit discovery procedures.
• She explains how Texas allows litigants to file Rule 202 petitions to obtain discovery before formally filing lawsuits.
• Blake Lively filed such a petition in Texas seeking discovery from Wallace before ultimately adding him to the SDNY litigation.
• Wallace argues that by voluntarily invoking Texas legal procedures, Blake Lively purposefully availed herself of Texas law.
• NAG says NAG was personally surprised the trial court rejected this argument.
• The trial court ruled the Rule 202 petition did not count because it was not a formal lawsuit.
• NAG notes there is no controlling case law directly addressing this issue, making it an issue of first impression.

📖 How Lawyers Argue Case Law on Appeal (28:55–33:40)

• NAG explains how both sides rely on analogies to prior appellate cases because no directly controlling precedent exists.
• Wallace’s team tries to distinguish the cases Blake Lively relied upon by arguing those factual situations were materially different.

🎬 South by Southwest & Texas Contacts (33:40–38:48)

• Wallace also argues Blake Lively created Texas contacts through her activities during the It Ends With Us promotional period in Texas.
• Wallace references allegations connected to South by Southwest and appearances in Waco.
• Wallace argues Blake Lively failed to correct statements allegedly tying him to misconduct while in Texas.
• The complication is that many of these allegations were pleaded “upon information and belief.”
• The trial court discounted those allegations because they were not presented with stronger factual certainty.

⚠️ “Information and Belief” Allegations Explained (38:48–42:25)

• NAG explains that allegations pleaded “upon information and belief” are commonly used when a party suspects facts are true but lacks direct confirmation.
• Wallace argues the judge improperly treated those allegations differently during the jurisdictional analysis.
• Wallace further argues that Blake Lively could have submitted affidavits directly denying those allegations, but chose not to.
• NAG says this portion of Wallace’s argument has become more persuasive over time.

⏳ Possible Outcomes of the Appeal (42:25–End)

• NAG explains the Fifth Circuit could:
  • Affirm the dismissal,
  • Reverse the dismissal,
  • Or issue a mixed ruling.
• NAG discusses the possibility of a “PCA” — a per curiam affirmance with no written opinion.
• If oral argument is granted, NAG predicts the appeal could extend well into 2027.

>Blake Lively has publicly stated numerous times since the inception of her lawsuit that she wanted a chance to tell her story. Blake, you still have an opportunity to tell your full story by releasing the full transcript of your deposition testimony to help the victims you claim to support

Dear Blake Lively,

Your DEPOSITION TESTIMONY is your own first hand account of what you experienced and went through. This is your one chance to help so many women and victims that you claim to support, stand behind and advocate for through your lawsuit. 

The May 18th, 2026 trial date never came to pass because of the settlement reached on May 4th, 2026, right in time for you to go to the Met Gala. Don’t let the victims that you claimed to support and represent down by silencing yourself. Their lives might depend on your DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. 

In a joint statement released after the settlement, it stated that “Ms. Lively deserved to be heard” - Blake, there is no better way to make your voice heard than releasing the full transcript of your DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. You have all the power to release your full testimony to support all victims you claim to represent. 

So Blake Lively, if you claim you really wanted to pull back the curtain, stand up for yourself, for all women, all victims, the children, the most vulnerable and victims of digital violence and to tell your full story, now is your chance to do so. Do the right thing by all those victims you claim to stand up for and RELEASE THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. 

********************************************************

All the times Blake Lively, wanted to stand up for all women, all victims, all children and others who are powerless and voiceless:

• December 21, 2024 - NY Times Article quote

 

https://preview.redd.it/b427gjjjpz1h1.jpg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50901b884736912a8fcb2c3dfe82f849ce452ceb

• June 9, 2025 - IG story post after Wayfarer counter claims dismissal

https://preview.redd.it/adevfbvlpz1h1.jpg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c13f8999feb92579ed55e13046c3e951012e4ba4

• January 22, 2026- Blake Lively via her PR attorney after dispositive motion hearing

https://preview.redd.it/7qohwlznpz1h1.jpg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed2f9bd6b77886972b041bade46a95415c9b5d2e

• April 2nd, 2026 - After Judge Liman’s dismissal of 10/13 of her claims on IG

https://preview.redd.it/txmzdkfrpz1h1.jpg?width=1289&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d51b8375137469ec7c2a1629b2b660633378ced3

A lot of people criticize Jamie and Justin for the managerial style but their bottom line looks pretty good in an industry with a lot of failures. Some of the cast in IEWU cast aspersions on Jamie but I think this is more like a racial microaggression than a truly objective view of his actual performance as CEO. They also produce a lot of social relevant films with actual human story lines

1. The Block Buster Wins (Box Office)

On paper, Wayfarer has achieved a level of commercial success that most independent production companies rarely touch. They have a proven track record of turning micro or modest budgets into massive theatrical returns:

• It Ends With Us (2024): This was an astronomical financial home run. Produced on a modest budget of roughly $25 million, the film grossed over $351 million worldwide. Even after accounting for theater splits and marketing costs, the net studio profit is estimated to be north of $200 million—a massive windfall split primarily between Wayfarer and its distribution partner, Sony Pictures.
• Five Feet Apart (2019): An early success for the studio, which grossed $91 million globally against a tiny production budget of just $7 million.

By traditional Hollywood metrics, their ROI on these specific intellectual properties is incredibly high, proving that their model of targeting highly engaged, substantive, or book-community audiences is incredibly lucrative.

2. The Core Financial Model

Wayfarer's economic model relies heavily on keeping production overhead lean while securing options on valuable IP (like Colleen Hoover's novels) relatively cheaply before they explode into mainstream cinematic properties.

Because they co-finance and partner with major studios (like Sony) for distribution, they mitigate the immense financial risk of global marketing and theatrical rollouts. This allows them to reap high-percentage backend rewards when a film hits, without absorbing the catastrophic downside if a film bombs. Furthermore, Sarowitz's personal wealth provides the studio with a robust capital cushion that independent studios typically lack, protecting them from cash-flow crunches between projects.

⬇️ Relevant Content:

🗣️🎙️Little Girl Attorney + Notactuallygolden - Interview with Kevin Fritz Offers Rare Behind-the-Scenes Insight Into the Lively-Baldoni Litigation

👋 Opening the Conversation & Humanizing Lawyers (0:00–2:40)

• Kevin Fritz joins NAG and LGA for a long-form discussion following the end of most of the litigation.
• Although all three speakers are lawyers, none are giving legal advice.
• Kevin introduces himself outside of law as a husband and father who spends his free time attending his children’s sports games and school activities.
• Kevin reveals he is originally from Long Island
• LGA asks how Kevin first discovered their online commentary.
• Kevin explains that while researching public reaction to the case, he began using Reddit and social media links, which eventually led him to content creators' content.
• He says their legal analysis was accurate “90 to 95%” of the time and helpful because they approached the case objectively.

📱 Social Media, PR & Learning a New Industry (2:40–6:30)

• Kevin explains that before the case he was largely unfamiliar with TikTok and modern social-media ecosystems.
• He says the case forced him to understand how online narratives and publicity campaigns shape public perception.
• Kevin reflects on how disappointing it was to realize many mainstream headlines did not accurately reflect what was happening in court.
• NAG and LGA discuss how their own coverage began because media headlines often conflicted with the actual filings.
• Kevin confirms that even when Wayfarer’s side won motions, mainstream coverage frequently spun the results as neutral or victories for Blake Lively.
• He says social media audiences often understood the legal realities better than traditional media narratives.

⚖️ Managing a Massive Multi-Firm Litigation Team (6:30–12:00)

• Kevin explains how the case involved coordination among three firms: his own firm, Liner Freedman, and Shapiro & Bach.
• He praises numerous associates and attorneys who worked behind the scenes gathering evidence, handling discovery, organizing exhibits, and researching motions.
• Kevin specifically highlights the enormous workload involved in reviewing electronic discovery.
• He credits associates at his firm for working at extremely high levels despite being junior attorneys.
• Kevin consistently gave credit to associates rather than taking all recognition himself.
• Kevin admits the case consumed enormous amounts of time and required redistribution of many of his other cases.

🏛️ Why the Case Was Litigated in SDNY (12:00–15:10)

• Kevin discusses the importance of the Southern District of New York and its reputation for handling extremely high-profile federal matters.
• He says SDNY judges expect fast-paced litigation and strict adherence to deadlines.
• Kevin reveals that when he first received the case over Christmas break, he actually had to Google both Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni because he was unfamiliar with them.
• He says he quickly realized how large the fanbases and public interest surrounding both celebrities were.

📰 Frustration With Media Narratives & Public Perception (15:10–20:20)

• Kevin explains how frustrating it was to see accurate legal victories portrayed negatively in mainstream articles.
• He says Wayfarer eventually stopped worrying about the headlines because people following the actual filings understood what was happening.
• NAG asks about tensions between Bryan Freedman and opposing counsel Michael Gottlieb.
• Kevin says he never understood the criticism directed at Bryan Freedman because both sides were speaking publicly about the case.
• He calls it hypocritical to criticize Freedman for public advocacy while Blake Lively’s side simultaneously worked with PR professionals and the press.
• Kevin reflects that in earlier legal culture, lawyers who lost cases often handled it with more grace and professionalism.

🧠 Litigation Strategy & Why They Avoided Early Motions to Dismiss (20:20–26:20)

• Kevin discusses the strategic choice not to file early motions to dismiss.
• He explains that filing too early can reveal your strongest legal theories and give plaintiffs opportunities to amend pleadings.
• Instead, Wayfarer prioritized developing a complete factual record and pursuing resolution on the merits.
• NAG and LGA note that this strategy signaled the defense wanted evidence to come out publicly.
• Kevin confirms that it was intentional and aligned with the clients’ goals.
• He says Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Melissa Nathan, Jennifer Abel, and Steve Sarowitz were determined to clear their names publicly, even if it meant going to trial.

🧾 Writing Style, Court Filings & Becoming a Fan Favorite (26:20–35:30)

• NAG asks Kevin about the writing style that made many viewers admire his filings.
• Kevin credits his federal clerkship experience and says his philosophy is to make it easy for judges to rule in your favor.
• He explains he prefers concise, accessible writing over overly long briefs.
• Kevin says he tries to strike a balance between forceful advocacy and professionalism.
• He admits that once he realized the public was reading his filings closely, he felt extra pressure to avoid mistakes.
• Kevin reveals that he occasionally considered ideas raised by NAG and LGA in their online discussions.

🔥 Discovery Battles, “Beyond the Pale” Requests & Keeping the High Road (35:30–44:10)

• LGA asks whether the defense was ever tempted to respond aggressively to inflammatory filings.
• Kevin says the clients specifically instructed the legal team to always take the high road.
• He admits there were moments where lawyers initially drafted emotional responses before senior attorneys helped calm things down.
• Kevin repeatedly describes some discovery demands and litigation tactics as “beyond the pale.”
• He says the team intentionally focused on appearing rational, measured, and evidence-driven rather than reactive.

📂 The Vanzan Subpoena Controversy (44:10–52:30)

• Kevin gives one of the strongest condemnations of the Vanzan subpoena process seen publicly from the wayfarer side.
• He says he had never seen anyone create a John Doe complaint solely to issue targeted subpoenas the way it allegedly happened here.
• Kevin calls it “a fabrication” and “an abuse of the New York State legal system.”
• He expresses confusion over why Jonesworks complied with the subpoena without notifying Jennifer Abel or the opposing side.
• Kevin says the wayfarer initially learned about the subpoena through online investigators and content creators.
• He suggests the plaintiffs may never have expected the litigation to get close enough to trial for the subpoena tactics to face scrutiny.

🧩 Why wayfarer Refused to Fold (52:30–56:20)

• Kevin says he believes Blake Lively’s side underestimated the perseverance and determination of Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Melissa Nathan, Jennifer Abel, and Steve Sarowitz.
• According to Kevin, the clients were willing to go to trial and accept any verdict if it meant publicly telling their side of the story.
• He says the eventual settlement gave them essentially the best result they realistically could have hoped for at trial.

📉 Damages, Experts & Weaknesses in the Plaintiff’s Case (56:20–1:03:10)

• Kevin discusses the damages claims and says the evidence undermined the causation theories advanced by Blake Lively’s side.
• He explains that much of the damages analysis relied on limited timeframes and speculative assumptions.
• NAG and LGA ask about the social media experts retained in the case.
• Kevin says the defense intentionally chose experts with real-world platform experience rather than purely academic credentials.
• He notes that many of the expert issues would likely have been extremely confusing for a jury.

🎬 The “Remarkable” PGA Letter & Hollywood Discovery (1:03:10–1:07:30)

• Kevin describes the PGA letter as “a remarkable document.”
• He says it directly demonstrated Blake Lively exercising extensive control and influence over the production.
• He expresses surprise at the extent to which internal studio communications appeared to undermine the plaintiff’s public allegations.
• NAG compares reading Sony’s internal communications to watching behind-the-scenes episodes of a Hollywood satire.

🧍 Blake Lively’s Deposition & Trial Preparation (1:07:30–1:10:50)

• Kevin describes Blake Lively’s deposition as professional and calm despite all the public buildup surrounding it.
• He says the process itself was surprisingly ordinary once everyone got into the room.
• He confirms the deposition lasted essentially a full day.
• Kevin also explains there were no secret “bombshell” exhibits being saved for trial because federal discovery rules require disclosure of virtually everything.

💡 Final Reflections on Litigation & Public Lawsuits (1:10:50–End)

• Kevin says the biggest lesson from the case is that public litigation is often not the best way to resolve disputes.
• He believes there were many alternative approaches that could have resolved the conflict without years of litigation and public exposure.
• Kevin confirms the Jonesworks litigation still remains active.