Smile Network International founder Kim Valentini gave a moving keynote speech about empowerment Friday to TeamWomenMN during which she talked about crippling depression brought on by the breakup of her union with attorney David Valentini, the father of their two children, and alluded to shocking elements of the relationship's demise.
I didn't know the story until Monday, when I went to Hennepin County Family Court to check on whether divorce papers had been filed.
There was no divorce. According to Hennepin County documents, filed under her maiden name, Kim Rakos, the power couple, fixtures at charity events, were never married. Even though they flew the late Rev. Paul Youngdahl, of Mount Olivet Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, to Italy to officiate a ceremony before family members and friends July 1, 1999. Before this elaborate ceremony, Rakos' lawsuit claims she thought they had a common law marriage, so she was surprised when Valentini asked her to get married in 1998. "Unlike Rakos, Valentini as a lawyer, knew that Minnesota does not recognize common law marriages," states the lawsuit.
"We had a service in Italy," Valentini told me Monday. "We had to file something here to make it legal in the United States; we never did that. That being said, I thought our estate was settled a long time ago, two years ago. Trust me, this hit me out of left field. We split everything equally. It's not a divorce because we're not technically married but I mean, I treat my wife as my equal."
Yes, David and Kim still refer to each other as if they were married.
The lawsuit Rakos filed against Valentini in February contains a host of allegations, some of which are unseemly. She alleges that he forged her name on checks addressed to her and deposited them in his law firm's account.
"C.J., that never happened once," Valentini said of the allegation that resulted in his firm, Valentini Law, also being a named defendant.
Another allegation of financial impropriety in the lawsuit states: "Valentini would identify an investment and solicit funds from Rakos under the auspices of equal contribution between Rakos and Valentini. Often these investments would be made only in the name of Valentini, and Rakos would continue to be unable to obtain any information without Valentini's cooperation. Rakos was never provided with a ledger or any other account of the parties' investments, but rather relied upon Valentini's representation to her and to their accountant regarding the status of their investment portfolio."